Genuine question and something I've been thinking about in light of the creepy karp stuff.
It seems to me that PW's capitulation, in some respects, was more justified than its peers as it reached its agreement as a result of its business actually being jeopardized by an EO. Meanwhile, K&E, Latham, Wilkie, S&C, Milbank, Skadden, Simpson, A&O, Millbank, etc. etc. "donated" more to the Trump admin than PW and did so voluntarily (absent an EO) but recieve a fraction of the bad press / reputational hit.
I guess PW set a precedent by reaching the first agreement, but I seriously doubt any other firm with a big corporate practice would've actually fought it (i.e., while I laud them fighting, Perkins, Wilmer, and Sussman aren't exactly corporate powerhouses and their risk calculus was materially different than the big firms...).
Am I missing something? Is there an objective reason why PW is the worst, is it just by virtue of them being the "first" that they get the flack?