Blog

By way of executive orders, President Donald Trump has accused several of American’s largest and most prestigious law firms of substantial misconduct and is punishing them. The firms are left with a Sophie’s choice: either capitulate and strike a deal or risk losing their clients. It’s self-preservation versus standing up to an unprecedented threat to our legal system.

These firms represent some of the largest companies in America that do significant business with the federal government. Trump’s orders have barred these firms from entering federal buildings and suspended their security clearances. The orders also preclude the firms’ clients, should they continue to retain these firms, from doing business with the federal government.

So far, nine firms have yielded and struck deals with Trump, and four are fighting back by filing suit.

What’s the misconduct? Trump accuses Paul Weiss of engaging in “harmful activity,” Perkins Coie of “dangerous and dishonest activity,” and Susman Godfrey of working to “degrade the quality of American elections.”

What did the law firms Trump is targeting do?

A partner in Paul Weiss brought suit against the individuals who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Perkins Coie represented the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation case against Fox Corp.

To be barred from representing clients whose fees keep your firm solvent is frightening. Brad Karp, managing partner of Paul Weiss, said the executive orders presented “an existential crisis … [that] could easily have destroyed our firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people and our clients.” Paul Weiss capitulated. Even more frightening is that Trump, in his zeal for retribution, unilaterally decided that these firms acted unlawfully and unilaterally issued punishment.

But it’s not Trump’s job to police law firms.As pled in the legal action filed by Perkins Coie, the Constitution doesn’t give him this authority, and First and Fifth Amendments do not permit what he is doing.

If it were the mob, we’d call it a shakedown.

What is a law firm to do in the face of a squeeze?

On one hand, it’s easy to appreciate the box these firms are in.

Are law firms entitled to do what’s best for their lawyers? Of course. Do lawyers have an ethical obligation to do what’s best for their clients, including striking deals that allow them to continue representing their clients? Yes. Isn’t our legal system based on the concept that lawyers may represent whoever they want and advocate any cause they choose, no matter how unpopular, without fear of being persecuted? Again, yes.

But challenging Trump’s executive orders in court takes time and effort, is a major distraction and entails risk, which leads to the tough question: are lawyers obligated to defend the legal system, even if doing so is costly and puts themselves and their clients at risk?

Nine firms have said no, and four have said yes.

More than money is at stake for America’s law firms

As Susman Godfrey stated in its legal filing, if these “executive orders are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they seek to retaliate against a different set of perceived foes. What for two centuries has been beyond the pale will become the new normal. Put simply, this could be any of us.”

The nine firms that settled have the wherewithal to fight — gross revenues of between $7.2 billion and $551 million. As part of the deals they cut, five firms promised to provide a total of $600 million in pro bono services favored by Trump.

Are there other costs in opting for self-preservation? A compromise in independence and reputation? Being subjected to additional control down the road?

Bill Henderson, a law professor at Indiana University, put it his way: “We do take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. … And you know what the problem is? It’s costly. And we’re not used to paying a price for our freedom. And we’re not used to paying the price for constitutional democracy.”

[This post was published on May 6, 2025, in the online version of The Columbus Dispatch on May 6, 2025.]

________________________________________

Jack D’Aurora writes for Considerthisbyjd.com

_________________________________________________