TO: #LawSky FROM: A C oncerned Citizen DATE: March 22, 2025 RE: Potential RICO Violations Arising from Executive Orders and Memorandum Targeting Paul Weiss INTRODUCTION This memorandum analyzes whether Executive Order 14237 (March 14, 2025) , its subsequent revocation (March 21, 2025) , and the March 21, 2025 memorandum (the “Memo”) constitute predicate acts under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. The analysis focuses on potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (obstruction of justice) and 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (extortion under the Hobbs Act), which may form the basis of a RICO claim This issue is timely and significant given the potential chilling effect on the legal profession and broader implications for the rule of law. The purpose of this memo is to provide a framework for evaluating potential RICO claims and to guide further inve stigation and litigation strategy. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. Executive Order 14237 (March 14, 2025) The order directs federal agencies to: 1. Suspend security clearances for Paul Weiss attorneys and Mark Pomerantz. 2 2. Terminate federal contracts with Paul Weiss or entities doing business with the firm. 3. Restrict access to federal buildings and employment opportunities for Paul Weiss employees. The order cites Paul Weiss’s involvement in pro bono litigation related to the January 6, 2021, events and Pomerantz’s role in a potential prosecution of the issuing administration as justification. It also alleges that Paul Weiss engages in racial discrimination through diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. II. Revocation Order (March 21, 2025) The revocation order rescinds Executive Order 14237 after Paul Weiss agreed to: 1. Adopt a policy of political neutrality in client selection and hiring. 2. Commit to merit - based hiring (abandoning DEI policies). 3. Dedicate $40 million in pro bono services to causes aligned with the administration’s priorities. III. March 21, 2025 Memorandum The Memo directs the Attorney General to: 1. Seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms engaged in “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation” against the federal government. 2. Retroactively review attorney conduct over the past eight years. 3 3. Impose punitive measures , including revocation of security clearances and termination of federal contracts, on attorneys or firms deemed noncompliant. LEGAL ANALYSIS I. Predicate Acts Under RICO RICO requires at least two predicate acts within ten years. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). The orders and Memo plausibly satisfy this requirement through violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and 18 U.S.C. § 1951 A. Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503) To establish obstruction of justice, the following elements must be shown: 1. Corrupt Intent : The actions must demonstrate a “consciousness of wrongdoing.” United States v. Aguilar , 515 U.S. 593, 599 (1995). 2. Nexus to Judicial Proceedings : The obstructive act must relate to an ongoing or foreseeable proceeding. Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 708 (2005) 3. Act of Obstruction : The act must interfere with the administration of justice. See United States v. Brock, 94 F.4th 39, 51 (D.C. Cir. 2024) ( “ The plain, natural, and ordinary meaning of the phrase ‘ administration of justice ’ is the governmental process of investigating, determining, and enforcing the legal rights of persons. ”). 4 Application : • Corrupt Intent : The orders and Memo target Paul Weiss and other attorneys for their involvement in politically sensitive litigation (e.g., January 6 cases, potential prosecution of the administration). This suggests a retaliatory motive rather than a legitimate enforcement action. For example, the Memo’s retroactive review provision and selective focus on cases involving “national security” or “election integrity” indicate a pretextual use of enforcement mechanisms. • Nexus to Judicial Proceedings : By suspending security clearances, terminating contracts, and threatening sanctions, the administration interferes with attorneys’ ability to represent clients in ongoing or foreseeable litigation against the government. For instance, Paul Weiss’s involvement in January 6 - related litigation and other high - profile cases creates a direct nexus to judicial proceedings. • Act of Obstruction : The punitive measures create a chilling effect , deterring attorneys from taking on cases adverse to the administration. This interference with the administration of justice satisfies the act requirement under § 1503. II. Extortion (18 U.S.C. § 1951) The Hobbs Act prohibits obtaining property through actual or threatened force, violence, or fear. Scheidler v. Nat’l Org. for Women , 537 U.S. 393, 404 (2003). Application : • The administration’s use of punitive measures (e.g., contract terminations, security clearance suspensions) to coerce Paul Weiss into changing its policies constitutes extortion. For example, the revocation of Executive Order 14237 only after Paul Weiss agreed to adopt a policy of political neutrality and abandon DEI policies demonstrates that the initial order was a tool of coercion. • The firm’s concessions (e.g., dedicating $40 million in pro bono services to administration - aligned causes) further illustrate that 5 the administration sought to control its operations through economic coercion. III. RICO Enterprise and Pattern of Conduct To establish a RICO violation, the following elements must be shown: 1. Enterprise : The administration, DOJ, DHS, and other federal agencies constitute an “enterprise” under RICO. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) See United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580 – 81 (1981) ( “ On its face, the definition appears to include both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises within its scope; it no more excludes criminal enterprises than it does legitimate ones. ”). 2. Pattern of Racketeering : At least two predicate acts within ten years. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583 ( pattern of racketeering “ is proved by evidence of the requisite number of acts of racketeering committed by the participants in the enterprise. ” ). Application : • Enterprise : The coordination between the White House, DOJ, and other agencies to enforce the orders and Memo demonstrates a racketeering enterprise . For example, the Memo directs the Attorney General to seek sanctions and review attorney conduct, while Executive Order 14237 mandates punitive measures against Paul Weiss. This coordinated effort satisfies RICO’s enterprise requirement. • Pattern of Conduct : The administration’s actions against Paul Weiss, combined with similar measures against other firms (e.g., Perkins Coie, as referenced in Section 4 of Executive Order 14237) and the broader directive in the Memo, establish a continuity of conduct aimed at suppressing legal opposition. This pattern 6 demonstrates both “relatedness” and “continuity” under RICO. H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. , 492 U.S. 229 (1989). IV. Rebuttal to Anticipated Counterarguments 1. Counterargument : “The orders and Memo lawfully enforce ethics rules and national security interests.” a. Rebuttal : The selective application to politically sensitive cases and the retroactive nature of the Memo suggest a pretextual use of enforcement mechanisms to suppress dissent. For example, the focus on January 6 - related litigation and potential prosecutions of the administration indicates a retaliatory motive rather than a legitimate enforcement action. 2. Counterargument 2 : “No specific judicial proceeding is identified.” a. Rebuttal : The orders and Memo broadly target litigation against the government, encompassing ongoing and foreseeable proceedings . For instance, Paul Weiss’s involvement in January 6 - related cases and other high - profile litigation creates a direct nexus to judicial proceedings. 3. Counterargument 3 : “The revocation order negates any harm.” a. Rebuttal : The revocation occurred only after Paul Weiss made concessions, demonstrating that the initial order was a tool of 7 coercion The firm’s policy changes and financial commitments illustrate the coercive nature of the administration’s actions. CONCLUSION The orders and Memo targeting Paul Weiss and other attorneys reveal a systematic effort to obstruct justice and extort concessions from legal adversaries, which may form the basis of a RICO claim. To strengthen the case, additional evidence of similar actions against other firms and /or internal communications demonstrating corrupt intent would be necessary. Respectfully submitted, /s/ A Concerned Citize n Cited Sources: • Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005) • United States v. Aguilar , 515 U.S. 593 (1995) • United States v. Brock, 94 F.4th 39 (D.C. Cir. 2024) • United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) • Scheidler v. Nat’l Org. for Women , 537 U.S. 393 (2003) • H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. , 492 U.S. 229 (1989) • 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (Obstruction of Justice) • 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) • 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (RICO)