This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the Trump administration's campaign against Big Law. It examines the specific actions taken, the apparent motivations and objectives behind them...
...the historical context, the significant legal and ethical dimensions raised, the responses from the law firms, and the consequences for the firms, their employees, and the legal system itself.
Executive Power vs. The Independent Bar: An Analysis of the Trump Administration's Campaign Against Big Law
by Gemini Advanced, Deep Research with 2.5 Pro. Warning, LLMs may hallucinate!
I. Executive Summary
This report analyzes the unprecedented campaign initiated by the second Trump administration, starting in early 2025, against prominent U.S. law firms ("Big Law"). Utilizing executive orders, federal contract leverage, security clearance suspensions, EEOC investigations into Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, and public threats, the administration targeted firms associated with political opponents, investigations into the President, or legal challenges to its policies. Key targeted firms included Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, Covington & Burling, and Susman Godfrey, among others.
The administration's motivations appeared primarily retaliatory, aimed at punishing perceived adversaries and intimidating the broader legal profession to deter representation of clients opposing its agenda. Objectives also included redirecting substantial pro bono resources towards administration-favored causes (nearly $1 billion secured through settlements), dismantling DEI initiatives within firms, and demonstrating executive power by extracting concessions from elite institutions.
These actions provoked significant legal challenges and widespread condemnation, raising grave constitutional concerns regarding the First Amendment (retaliation against protected speech, petition, association), Sixth Amendment (right to counsel), and Fifth Amendment (due process), as well as threatening the separation of powers by undermining the independence of the bar. Ethical concerns centered on the potential for bribery or extortion in the settlement deals, conflicts of interest created by coerced pro bono, and the erosion of the rule of law.
The response from Big Law was fractured. Several firms (Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey) successfully sued the administration, obtaining court orders blocking key sanctions based on likely constitutional violations. However, a larger group of firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and others, negotiated settlements. These deals typically involved massive pro bono commitments ($40 million to $125 million per firm), agreements to limit or review DEI practices, and affirmations of political neutrality, in exchange for avoiding or rescinding punitive executive actions. Firms cited existential business threats, particularly the risk of losing government contractor clients, as justification for settling. Critics decried these deals as capitulation that undermined professional values and set a dangerous precedent.
The consequences included immediate internal dissent and resignations at settling firms, potential long-term reputational damage, and ongoing ethical and legal risks associated with the coerced agreements. Resisting firms faced litigation costs but bolstered their standing as defenders of principle. Employees experienced ethical dilemmas and career uncertainty. The conflict exposed deep divisions within the legal profession and created a potential chilling effect on legal representation for those challenging the government. Firms that settled may face future scrutiny, particularly under a different political administration.
The analysis concludes that the administration's actions posed a fundamental threat to the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law. While settlement offered short-term relief from immediate threats, the strategy of legal resistance, grounded in constitutional principles and ideally supported by professional solidarity, appears to be the most prudent course for preserving the integrity and long-term viability of law firms facing such pressures. Vigilance, ethical clarity, and collective action are crucial for the legal profession to withstand future attempts to weaponize government power against the independent bar.
II. Introduction
Beginning in early 2025, the second administration of President Donald Trump initiated a series of unprecedented actions targeting several prominent U.S. law firms, collectively often referred to as "Big Law".1 This period marked a significant escalation in tensions between the executive branch and segments of the legal profession. The conflict transcends typical political disputes, representing a fundamental challenge to the established independence of the legal profession, the constitutional right to counsel, and the broader principles underpinning the rule of law in the United States.2 The administration explicitly framed its actions as necessary to hold certain firms "accountable" for activities deemed detrimental to its interests or national security.7
This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the Trump administration's campaign against Big Law. It examines the specific actions taken, the apparent motivations and objectives behind them, the relevant historical context, the significant legal and ethical dimensions raised, the varied responses from the targeted law firms—ranging from vigorous legal challenges to negotiated settlements—and the subsequent consequences for the firms, their employees, and the legal system itself. The analysis draws upon publicly available information, including news reports, official statements, legal filings, and expert commentary, to offer a detailed perspective on these events.
The significance of this conflict cannot be overstated. The administration's actions have raised serious concerns about a potential chilling effect on the willingness of lawyers and law firms to represent clients whose interests diverge from, or are directly opposed to, those of the executive branch.8 Furthermore, these events risk eroding democratic norms by appearing to weaponize government power against perceived political adversaries, potentially undermining public trust in both the legal profession and governmental institutions.2 The long-term implications for the structure and independence of the legal industry, and its ability to function as a check on government power, remain a critical area of concern.2 This report aims to illuminate the complexities of this situation and its potential ramifications.
III. The Administration's Campaign Against Big Law
A. Catalog of Actions: Tactics and Targets
The administration's campaign against major law firms deployed a range of tactics, moving beyond mere rhetoric to utilize the formal powers of the executive branch. Central to this effort was the issuance of executive orders (EOs) and presidential memoranda specifically targeting individual firms, beginning in February 2025.1 The initial wave of firms subjected to these directives included Covington & Burling (targeted via memorandum on February 25), Perkins Coie (EO issued March 6), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (Paul Weiss) (EO issued March 14), Jenner & Block (EO issued March 25), Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (WilmerHale) (EO issued March 27), and Susman Godfrey (EO issued in early April).1
These executive actions consistently imposed a suite of severe sanctions designed to cripple the firms' operations and relationships.1 Key punitive measures included:
The immediate suspension of any active security clearances held by individuals employed by the targeted firms, pending reviews often lacking clear procedural guidelines.1
Denial of access to all federal government buildings, including courthouses, for employees of the targeted firms.1
Directives compelling federal agencies to review and terminate existing government contracts held by the targeted firms.1
A requirement that all federal government contractors disclose any business relationships with the targeted firms, carrying an implicit threat that continuing such relationships could jeopardize the contractors' own federal business.3
Prohibitions preventing federal employees from engaging professionally with employees of the targeted firms.3
A ban on hiring employees from the targeted firms into any position within the federal government.1
Beyond the direct sanctions via EOs, the administration utilized the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to exert pressure. The EEOC initiated investigations into the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) hiring and employment practices of approximately 20 major law firms, demanding extensive information about applicants and internal policies.1 Notably, these EEOC investigations were later withdrawn for several firms as a component of settlement agreements reached with the administration.16
This administrative pressure was amplified by public rhetoric from President Trump and his allies. Firms were publicly branded as "dishonest," "dangerous," or accused of "weaponizing" the justice system.1 President Trump stated that law firms needed to "behave themselves" 1, while prominent ally Steve Bannon explicitly threatened targeted firms, stating, "what we are trying to do is put you out of business and bankrupt you".31 Further underscoring this intent, a March 22, 2025, memorandum directed the Attorney General to prioritize seeking sanctions against lawyers and firms engaging in litigation deemed "frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious" against the administration.7
The administration's actions also singled out specific individual lawyers whose work or associations were deemed offensive. Names like Marc Elias, Peter Koski, Mark Pomerantz, James Quarles, Jack Smith, Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller, Aaron Zebley, and Mark Zaid appeared in EOs or related statements, often serving as the stated justification for targeting the firms with which they were, or had been, affiliated.1
The coordinated use of multiple levers of executive power—EOs imposing direct sanctions, EEOC investigations into internal practices, contract terminations, access restrictions, and public threats—indicates a deliberate and systematic campaign designed to exert maximum pressure on the targeted firms and, by extension, the broader legal profession.6 The pattern of targeting was not random; it consistently correlated with firms or lawyers perceived by the administration as adversaries or obstacles.
Furthermore, the administration frequently justified its actions against entire law firms based on the conduct or affiliations of specific individuals, including former partners who had left the firms years prior.6 Linking the institution to the perceived transgressions of individuals, such as Robert Mueller's past association with WilmerHale or Andrew Weissmann's with Jenner & Block, served as a pretext for imposing broad, firm-wide sanctions.1 This tactic effectively punished firms by association, aiming to generate internal pressure and deter firms from associating with anyone considered an enemy of the administration.
B. Unpacking Motivations and Objectives
The administration's multifaceted campaign against Big Law appears driven by a confluence of motivations, primarily centered on retribution, intimidation, and the assertion of executive control over perceived institutional adversaries.
The most prominent driver was retaliation. The EOs and accompanying statements explicitly cited firms' past actions as justification for the punitive measures. This included representation of political opponents like Hillary Clinton (Perkins Coie) 4, association with individuals who led investigations into President Trump, such as Special Counsels Robert Mueller (WilmerHale) and Jack Smith (Covington & Burling), or prosecutors like Andrew Weissmann (Jenner & Block) 1, involvement in legal challenges to administration policies concerning election laws or immigration 3, and pursuing litigation against administration allies, exemplified by Susman Godfrey's representation of Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News.16 Federal judges reviewing the EOs explicitly noted this retaliatory motive 6, and the administration's own language often confirmed it.7
A closely related objective was intimidation aimed at producing a chilling effect across the entire legal profession.1 By making high-profile examples of powerful firms, the administration sought to deter other lawyers and firms from taking on clients, causes, or cases perceived as adverse to its interests or allies. Evidence of this chilling effect emerged in reports of Biden-era officials and public interest groups struggling to find legal representation for challenges against the administration, as firms grew wary of becoming the next target.1 Some commentators noted that firms might become hesitant to take on any politically salient cases, regardless of merit, due to the risks involved.4
The administration also aimed to control and redirect the substantial pro bono resources commanded by Big Law.2 Many large firms dedicate significant attorney time to pro bono work, often supporting civil liberties organizations, immigrants, or other groups whose activities might run counter to the administration's agenda.2 The settlement agreements explicitly required firms to dedicate vast sums—totaling nearly $1 billion—in pro bono services towards causes championed by the administration, such as supporting veterans, combating antisemitism, ensuring "fairness in the justice system," and potentially aiding industries like coal or advancing specific trade policies.25 President Trump himself referred to these coerced commitments as a potential "legal war chest" 37, transforming pro bono work from a public service obligation into a political tool extracted under duress. This represented a novel tactic, co-opting private resources for political ends and raising significant questions about the integrity and independence of pro bono initiatives. The sheer scale of the commitments ($940M reported 18) and their directed nature underscored the strategic intent behind this maneuver, potentially creating future conflicts for firms obligated to serve administration priorities while also representing clients adverse to them.18
Another clear objective was dismantling or curtailing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives within law firms.1 The administration publicly characterized DEI programs as "unlawful" discrimination based on race and gender 1, and the EEOC probes served as a mechanism to investigate and pressure firms on these grounds.1 Settlement agreements frequently required firms to disavow "illegal" DEI considerations, commit to "merit-based" hiring, or adopt policies of "political neutrality".13 The focus on DEI served multiple purposes: it aligned with the administration's broader ideological stance, provided a seemingly legitimate basis for investigation and leverage, and offered a tangible concession that firms could make in settlements to signal compliance with administration priorities. This attack on DEI, however, risked alienating diverse talent within the firms and undermining years of effort to broaden representation in the legal profession.24
Finally, the campaign against Big Law served to extract concessions and demonstrate executive power.15 By targeting these powerful and prestigious institutions, the administration aimed to force them to "bend the knee" 18, showcasing its ability to compel compliance even from elite segments of society. This was part of a wider effort described as a "retribution campaign by Trump designed to reshape civil society".15 The settlements, regardless of the specific terms or the firms' justifications, served as public demonstrations of the administration's leverage and success in achieving its aims.16 President Trump's remark about receiving substantial financial commitments from firms he acknowledged had done "nothing wrong" starkly highlighted the coercive dynamic at play.13
IV. Historical Parallels and Context
While the scale and methods of the second Trump administration's actions against Big Law appear largely unprecedented, examining historical instances of executive pressure on perceived opponents provides valuable context.
A. Nixon's Enemies List
The most frequently cited historical parallel is the "Enemies List" compiled during the presidency of Richard Nixon.47 Similar to the Trump administration's targeting, Nixon's "Political Enemies Project" aimed to use the machinery of the federal government to punish individuals and groups deemed political adversaries.47 Nixon's list, which grew to include hundreds of names, encompassed politicians, journalists, academics, entertainers, labor leaders, and organizations critical of his administration.47 The explicit goal, as articulated by White House Counsel John Dean, was "to use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies" 48—a sentiment echoed in the motivations behind the Trump EOs. Nixon and his aides primarily sought to weaponize the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to initiate audits and investigations against those on the list.47 The comparison gained traction during the Trump-Big Law conflict, with at least one federal judge explicitly invoking the "Red Scare" and McCarthy era—periods associated with government blacklisting based on political affiliation—when questioning the administration's justification for suspending security clearances en masse.15
However, there are notable differences. While Nixon's efforts reflected a similar impulse towards political retribution, his attempts to systematically weaponize the IRS against the entire list were reportedly hampered by resistance within the agency and were ultimately less effective in directly damaging his targets compared to the Trump administration's approach.47 The Trump administration utilized executive orders and memoranda to impose immediate, concrete sanctions—such as suspending security clearances, terminating contracts, and restricting building access—that directly threatened the business viability of major law firms.3 Furthermore, the Trump administration successfully extracted tangible concessions in the form of massive pro bono commitments and policy changes (regarding DEI) through settlement agreements, a feature largely absent from the Nixon-era enemies project.16
The recurrence of such tactics across different administrations decades apart suggests a persistent temptation for executive power to be deployed against political opponents. Yet, the Trump administration's actions against Big Law arguably represent an escalation, particularly in the directness, scope, and effectiveness of the measures used specifically against the legal profession. While Nixon's targets were diverse, the Trump campaign focused intensely on the legal infrastructure perceived as supporting his adversaries.6 The overt use of EOs to impose potentially ruinous sanctions 3 and the extraction of nearly $1 billion in coerced settlements 28 arguably set a more potent and potentially dangerous precedent for the weaponization of executive authority against the independent bar than the less systematic IRS pressure under Nixon.47
B. Other Precedents
Other historical instances involved pressure on lawyers representing unpopular clients, though typically through different means. Lawyers who represented Guantanamo Bay detainees following the 9/11 attacks faced significant challenges during the George W. Bush administration.4 This pressure included public criticism from government officials questioning their patriotism or values 55, difficulties in accessing clients held in military detention 58, navigating restrictive rules governing communication and representation 54, and even instances where interrogators reportedly impersonated lawyers.54 Some firms faced pressure to drop these representations.4
However, these challenges, while significant, generally did not involve direct executive orders imposing punitive sanctions on entire law firms as institutions based on their representation choices.13 The pressure was often more indirect, involving political condemnation, systemic obstacles within the specific context of Guantanamo detention, or challenges to the lawyers' professional conduct rather than firm-wide economic sanctions mandated by the White House.55
The crucial distinction lies in the mechanism of pressure. While representing controversial clients has historically carried reputational and sometimes professional risks, the Trump administration's actions marked a shift towards the formal, direct use of executive power—through EOs, contract leverage, security clearance suspensions, and EEOC probes—to impose severe financial and operational penalties on law firms themselves. This institutional targeting represents a significant departure from past episodes of pressure, which more often focused on individual lawyers or created systemic hurdles rather than wielding direct executive sanctions against the firms employing them.
V. Legal, Constitutional, and Ethical Fault Lines
The Trump administration's campaign against Big Law triggered profound legal, constitutional, and ethical concerns, challenging foundational principles of the American legal system.
A. Constitutional Infirmities
Multiple constitutional provisions were implicated by the administration's actions, forming the core of the legal challenges brought by resisting firms and the condemnations issued by legal organizations and experts.
First Amendment Violations: The most prominent argument centered on the violation of First Amendment rights. The executive orders were widely seen as unconstitutional retaliation against firms for exercising their rights to freedom of speech (through advocacy), freedom to petition the government (by filing lawsuits on behalf of clients), and freedom of association (by choosing whom to represent and employ).2 The EOs themselves often explicitly cited the firms' past representations (e.g., Perkins Coie/Clinton, WilmerHale/Mueller associates) or litigation activities (e.g., challenging election or immigration laws) as the basis for the sanctions.3 Federal courts granting temporary restraining orders (TROs) against the EOs found that the targeted firms demonstrated a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claims, noting evidence of "retaliatory animus" and concluding that the orders ran "head on into the wall of First Amendment protections".6 Punishing lawyers or firms based on the viewpoint of their clients or the content of their advocacy constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination under established First Amendment jurisprudence.3
Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel: The actions posed a direct threat to the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to counsel. By targeting law firms for representing clients disfavored by the administration, the EOs created a chilling effect that could deter lawyers from taking on cases against the government or representing politically unpopular individuals or causes.1 This undermines the fundamental principle that everyone is entitled to legal representation and that lawyers should not be penalized for fulfilling their professional duty to represent clients zealously.1 If lawyers fear retribution, access to justice for those challenging government actions is severely compromised.4
Fifth Amendment Due Process: Significant due process concerns arose from the manner in which sanctions were imposed.6 The blanket suspension of security clearances for all attorneys at a targeted firm, without individualized assessment, notice, or a meaningful opportunity to contest the decision, appeared to violate basic procedural fairness requirements. Judge Beryl Howell, presiding over the Perkins Coie case, expressed "deep unease" and sharply questioned the Justice Department about the lack of clear procedures for these suspensions.15 Commentators also noted that the EOs, by punishing firms for past actions that were legal when undertaken, resembled constitutionally prohibited bills of attainder (legislative punishments without trial) or ex post facto laws.14
Separation of Powers: The administration's campaign represented an encroachment by the executive branch on the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession.3 An independent bar is essential for the proper functioning of the adversarial legal system and for the courts to serve as an effective check on executive and legislative power. By attempting to intimidate lawyers and dictate which clients or causes are permissible to represent, the executive branch sought to undermine this independence, thereby weakening the judicial branch's ability to adjudicate disputes fairly and hold the government accountable.3
The administration's strategy was concerning precisely because it simultaneously attacked multiple constitutional safeguards. Targeting a firm for its client representations infringed upon First Amendment rights of speech, petition, and association; it chilled the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for potential future clients; and when executed through summary procedures like mass security clearance suspensions, it violated Fifth Amendment due process rights.3 This multi-pronged assault threatened the structural integrity of the legal system and the separation of powers designed to protect it.3
B. Statutory and Ethical Concerns
Beyond the constitutional violations, the administration's actions and the resulting settlements raised serious statutory and ethical questions.
Potential Criminal Violations: Democratic lawmakers formally raised concerns that the settlement agreements between law firms and the Trump administration could potentially violate several federal criminal statutes.12 They questioned whether the firms' offers of substantial pro bono services, made under threat of punitive EOs, could constitute bribery—offering something of value (free legal services) to influence an official act (the rescission or avoidance of an EO). They also raised the possibility of aiding and abetting extortion under the Hobbs Act, given the coercive context ("illegal shakedown" 44) in which the deals were struck. Further concerns included potential violations of federal honest services fraud statutes and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, as well as state-level anti-bribery laws.12 President Trump's own statement acknowledging the firms had likely done nothing wrong yet still provided significant financial commitments added fuel to these concerns.13
Assault on Rule of Law and Independence of the Bar: The entire campaign was widely condemned by legal organizations, including the American Bar Association (ABA), numerous state and local bar associations, law school deans, and civil liberties groups, as a fundamental assault on the rule of law and the independence of the legal profession.1 The core principle at stake was the necessity for lawyers to represent clients zealously and ethically, without fear of government retribution based on the client's identity or cause.1 The administration's actions were seen as an attempt to intimidate lawyers into silence or compliance, thereby undermining a critical pillar of democratic society.24 The subsequent Justice Department memo restricting departmental engagement with the ABA further signaled hostility towards established legal institutions.18
Ethical Dilemmas for Firms and Lawyers: The situation created acute ethical dilemmas for law firms and the lawyers within them.1 Firm leadership had to weigh their fiduciary duties to protect the firm's financial health, clients, and employees against their broader professional obligations to uphold the rule of law and resist unlawful pressure.41 The settlements themselves, born from what lawmakers termed "coercive and illegal measures" 13, presented significant ethical hazards. Agreeing to provide potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono services directed by the very administration that had threatened the firm's existence raised serious questions about compromised independence and potential conflicts of interest.12 If a firm was obligated to provide pro bono services supporting administration initiatives, could it ethically and effectively represent a client challenging those same initiatives? Furthermore, the controversy exposed ethical concerns about professional conduct within the industry itself, particularly regarding allegations that some firms attempted to poach clients and lawyers from targeted rivals perceived as vulnerable.23
ABA Model Rules Implications: While specific disciplinary actions were not reported, the conduct raised questions under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The alleged poaching attempts were cited by lawmakers as potentially violating Rule 8.4(d), which prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.23 More broadly, the pressure exerted by the administration risked compromising lawyers' fundamental duties, such as the duty of candor towards tribunals (Rule 3.3), if lawyers felt compelled to align their arguments or actions with administration preferences rather than the merits of the case and their clients' interests.18
The settlements, therefore, represented more than just business decisions; they carried substantial ethical weight. Negotiated under duress 13, these agreements risked making the settling firms appear complicit in the administration's efforts to undermine the rule of law.12 The potential for conflicts of interest arising from the directed pro bono work 18 and the questions raised about potential violations of anti-bribery and anti-extortion laws 12 created ongoing ethical liabilities for the firms involved.
This intense pressure also exposed and perhaps exacerbated divisions within the legal profession. Despite calls for unity 41, Big Law fractured in its response. Some firms sued vigorously 1, others settled quickly or preemptively 1, many remained silent 1, and some were accused of seeking advantage amidst the turmoil.23 While hundreds of firms signed amicus briefs supporting Perkins Coie, many of the largest and highest-earning firms conspicuously did not.10 This lack of a unified professional front arguably weakened the collective ability to resist the administration's campaign and highlighted a potential tension between individual firm business interests and broader professional solidarity.10
VI. The Fractured Response of Big Law
Faced with unprecedented executive pressure, the targeted law firms adopted divergent strategies, leading to a fragmented response across the industry. Some chose direct confrontation through the courts, while others opted for negotiation and settlement, either after being targeted or preemptively to avoid sanctions.
A. Firms Mounting Legal Challenges
A significant group of targeted firms chose to contest the administration's actions in federal court. Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey all filed lawsuits challenging the legality and constitutionality of the executive orders directed at them.1 Covington & Burling, which faced a narrower memorandum focused primarily on security clearances for specific lawyers assisting Special Counsel Jack Smith, did not initiate litigation.23
The lawsuits filed by the resisting firms consistently argued that the executive orders were unlawful and unconstitutional.2 Their core legal arguments centered on violations of the First Amendment (retaliation for protected speech, petition, and association), the Fifth Amendment (lack of due process), and the Sixth Amendment (infringement on the right to counsel), as well as violations of the separation of powers doctrine. They characterized the EOs as blatant acts of presidential retaliation designed to punish them for representing clients or employing lawyers deemed adversaries by the administration.15
These legal challenges met with notable initial success. Federal district judges in Washington, D.C., granted TROs in the cases brought by Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and later Susman Godfrey, temporarily blocking the enforcement of key provisions of the EOs.6 The blocked provisions typically included the restrictions on access to federal buildings and the directives concerning termination of federal contracts or disclosure requirements for contractors using the firms. In granting these TROs, judges explicitly cited the firms' likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their constitutional claims, often pointing to the apparent "retaliatory animus" motivating the orders and the serious constitutional harms they posed.6 While the TROs provided immediate relief from some of the most damaging sanctions, initial rulings sometimes left the status of the security clearance suspensions less certain, creating ongoing concern for firms and clients requiring cleared counsel.15
B. Firms Striking Deals
In contrast to the firms that pursued litigation, a larger group of prominent law firms chose to negotiate settlements with the Trump administration. This group included firms targeted by EOs as well as firms that acted preemptively, apparently to forestall being targeted.
Paul Weiss was the first firm subjected to an EO (March 14) to publicly announce a settlement. Just six days later, on March 20, President Trump issued a new EO revoking the first one, stating that Paul Weiss had agreed to terms.1 The agreement reportedly included a commitment to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services for administration-supported causes, conduct an audit of its hiring practices, disavow "illegal" DEI policies, and adopt a policy of political neutrality.2
Following the Paul Weiss deal, a cascade of similar agreements emerged, involving firms that had not been subjected to specific EOs but were potentially targets of the ongoing EEOC probes or feared future executive action. These included:
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Skadden): Announced March 28, agreed to $100 million in pro bono for administration-favored causes and review/limit DEI practices.1
Milbank LLP: Agreed to $100 million in pro bono.1
Willkie Farr & Gallagher: Agreed to $100 million in pro bono.1
Kirkland & Ellis: Agreed to $125 million in pro bono and other free legal services; administration agreed to withdraw EEOC probe.12
Latham & Watkins: Agreed to $125 million in pro bono and other free legal services; administration agreed to withdraw EEOC probe.12
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett: Agreed to $125 million in pro bono and other free legal services; administration agreed to withdraw EEOC probe.12
A&O Shearman (Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP): Agreed to $125 million in pro bono and other free legal services; administration agreed to withdraw EEOC probe.12
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft: Agreed to $100 million in pro bono and other free legal services.12
In total, these nine firms committed approximately $940 million in pro bono and other free legal services through these deals.18 The agreements also typically required firms to affirm commitments to merit-based hiring, disavow "illegal" DEI practices, and agree not to deny services based on political viewpoint.16
The following tables summarize the targeted firms and their responses, and provide details on the settlements reached.
Table 1: Targeted Law Firms and Responses
Table 2: Law Firm Settlements with Trump Administration
C. Justifications and Criticisms
The firms that chose to settle offered justifications primarily centered on pragmatic business considerations and fiduciary duties. Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp communicated to his firm that the executive order presented an "existential crisis" that "could easily have destroyed our firm".20 He emphasized the threat to clients holding government contracts and the potential loss of access to government agencies, which could cripple the firm's ability to serve them.46 This fear of losing major clients, particularly government contractors who constituted a significant revenue source for some firms, was a recurring theme.6 Leaders at Kirkland & Ellis and Simpson Thacher similarly framed their decisions as necessary to "protect and support our people and our clients" and "protect the best interests of the firm".28 Some argued it was a "practical decision" made under significant administration leverage 28, or the "best path" available under the circumstances.22 Karp also noted a disappointing lack of support from peer firms and alleged that rivals were actively trying to poach clients and lawyers, exacerbating the firm's vulnerability.41
These justifications, however, were met with swift and harsh criticism from various quarters. The settlements were widely condemned as acts of "capitulation" and "cowardice".2 Critics argued that the settling firms had betrayed core professional values and obligations to uphold the rule of law, prioritizing profit over principle.10 The deals were seen as setting a dangerous precedent, potentially emboldening future administrations to use similar tactics.4 Some commentators described the firms as becoming "complicit" in the administration's agenda and undermining the legal profession's independence.10 Furthermore, given the initial court successes of the resisting firms in obtaining TROs, some argued that settling was strategically unnecessary and that a united front challenging the EOs would have prevailed.61
In contrast, the firms that chose to litigate framed their resistance as a defense of fundamental constitutional principles.2 They asserted their right, and the right of all lawyers, to represent clients without fear of government punishment based on the client's identity or the positions advocated. Their public statements and legal filings emphasized the unconstitutionality of the administration's retaliatory actions and the importance of preserving an independent bar as essential to the American system of justice.15
D. Evaluating the Prudence of Settlement
Assessing whether settling with the administration was a "prudent" course of action requires weighing the immediate business risks against the longer-term legal, ethical, and reputational consequences.
From a purely short-term risk management perspective, the arguments for settlement hold some weight. The executive orders posed tangible and potentially devastating threats to the firms' business operations.6 Losing the ability to represent clients with government contracts, barring lawyers from federal buildings, and suspending security clearances could indeed cripple significant practice areas and lead to client defections.6 Paul Weiss leadership's assessment of an "existential crisis" 46 reflects the perceived severity of this threat. Protracted litigation against the full force of the executive branch carries inherent uncertainty and significant costs, both financial and in terms of management distraction.41 Faced with these pressures, particularly the fear of a "run" of clients similar to a bank run 6, choosing settlement could be viewed as a pragmatic, albeit difficult, decision aimed at ensuring the firm's immediate survival.28
However, strong counterarguments suggest that settling was ultimately imprudent. The legal challenges mounted by resisting firms quickly demonstrated the constitutional weaknesses of the executive orders, with multiple federal judges granting TROs based on likely First Amendment and due process violations.6 This suggests that the legal risks of fighting back may have been overestimated by the settling firms, or at least that strong legal defenses were available.61 More significantly, the act of settling carried immense reputational costs, painting the firms as having succumbed to pressure and potentially compromised their principles.10 This damage could have lasting effects on recruitment, client relationships, and the firms' standing within the legal community.28 The ethical compromises inherent in the deals—particularly the directed pro bono and DEI concessions made under duress—created ongoing liabilities.12 Settling might also have signaled vulnerability, potentially inviting future pressure from the administration.26 Critically, each settlement arguably weakened the collective bargaining power of the profession, making it harder for other firms to resist.61 Fighting the orders, despite the risks, represented an affirmation of core professional duties and the rule of law.2
The decision calculus for each firm likely depended on specific factors, including its particular client mix (especially reliance on government contractors), its financial cushion, its leadership's tolerance for risk and confrontation, and its internal culture.26 Firms with large transactional practices, perhaps more sensitive to market instability and client anxiety, may have felt the pressure to settle more acutely than firms with strong litigation practices accustomed to adversarial conflict.41 Ultimately, the perception of an immediate, potentially fatal threat to the business model appears to have been the decisive factor for the settling firms.28 This short-term survival imperative seemingly overrode considerations of long-term reputational standing or the principled defense of professional independence for those who chose to make deals.
VII. Ramifications and Consequences
The Trump administration's actions and the subsequent divergence in law firm responses have generated significant ramifications, impacting the firms themselves, their employees, and the broader legal and political landscape.
A. Impact on Law Firms
The consequences for law firms varied significantly depending on whether they resisted or settled.
Settling Firms: In the immediate term, these firms avoided the direct imposition or continuation of punitive sanctions outlined in the EOs and resolved related EEOC investigations.16 This may have provided some short-term stability and reassured anxious clients or partners.46 However, this came at the cost of significant internal and external backlash. Firms faced public criticism branding them as having capitulated to pressure 10, and experienced internal dissent, including high-profile resignations.18 They also undertook substantial obligations to fulfill massive pro bono commitments directed towards administration-favored causes, potentially creating logistical challenges and conflicts of interest down the line.12 Long-term consequences could include lasting reputational damage, making it harder to recruit and retain talent, particularly among lawyers and staff prioritizing ethical considerations or DEI commitments.24 These firms may also find themselves vulnerable to future demands from the administration 26 or lose clients who are unwilling to be associated with the settlement or who require counsel willing to take positions adverse to the administration.28
Resisting Firms: These firms incurred the immediate costs and uncertainties associated with litigation against the executive branch.6 They faced potential client anxiety and likely experienced some client attrition due to the threats posed by the EOs, particularly from government contractors wary of jeopardizing their own business.6 However, they also garnered significant support from segments of the legal community, evidenced by amicus brief filings, supportive statements from bar associations and attorneys general, and public commendations.1 In the longer term, these firms may benefit from enhanced reputations as principled defenders of the rule of law and constitutional rights.2 This could potentially attract clients and talent who value such stands.28 However, they remain exposed to risks if the administration maintains its hostility or if their legal challenges ultimately do not succeed in fully invalidating the EOs.
This divergence in strategy and outcome appears to have created a potential long-term bifurcation in the reputations and market positions of major law firms. A distinction may persist between firms perceived as having prioritized business continuity through settlement, potentially at the cost of principle, and those perceived as having upheld principle through resistance, potentially at some business risk.6 This reputational split could influence client selection, lateral hiring, and law school recruitment for years to come, reshaping the competitive landscape of Big Law.
B. The Human Cost: Consequences for Employees
The conflict imposed significant costs on the individuals working within the affected law firms.
Lawyers and staff, particularly at the settling firms, faced difficult ethical dilemmas.1 They had to reconcile their personal and professional ethics with their firms' decisions to capitulate to demands, potentially roll back DEI commitments, and agree to provide pro bono services supporting an administration whose actions many likely opposed. This internal conflict led to resignations, including associates at Skadden and Kirkland & Ellis, and notably, the head of Paul Weiss's pro bono practice, who stepped down shortly after the firm's deal was announced.18
The impact on DEI initiatives was particularly acute.24 Firms that agreed to disavow or audit their DEI programs risked alienating diverse lawyers and staff and undermining years of effort to improve representation within the profession. Associates recruited under the promise of a commitment to diversity expressed feelings of betrayal, with one former Skadden associate describing it as throwing diverse associates "under the bus".24 This could have lasting negative consequences for talent recruitment and retention, particularly among younger generations prioritizing social justice and inclusion.38
Even within firms that resisted, the administration's actions likely created a chilling effect, potentially leading to self-censorship or reluctance among lawyers to take on controversial matters for fear of attracting negative attention.1 Reports surfaced of pressure from colleagues on lawyers handling sensitive cases.4
Furthermore, employees faced direct career impacts. The suspension of security clearances, even if temporary or ultimately overturned, created uncertainty and potential barriers for lawyers working on sensitive matters.15 The EOs explicitly sought to blacklist employees of targeted firms from future federal government employment.1 Individuals remaining at settling firms might also face a degree of reputational taint by association.
Faced with these consequences, employees had limited options. Some chose resignation as a matter of principle.24 Others engaged in internal advocacy, such as the associates who signed open letters urging firm leadership to resist the administration's pressure.24 Many likely sought opportunities at firms whose values and actions more closely aligned with their own, potentially contributing to increased lateral movement.
The internal dissent, resignations, and ethical conflicts demonstrate that the settlements were not merely institutional decisions but had profound personal and professional consequences for the people working within those firms. This internal fracture, particularly around issues of ethical fortitude and commitment to DEI, likely fueled the "talent war" in Big Law, as lawyers reassessed their firms' values in the face of political pressure and potential compromise.23
C. The Political Horizon: Future Consequences
The repercussions of these events are likely to extend into the future, particularly should political power shift.
Firms that struck deals with the Trump administration could face significant scrutiny from a future Democratic administration or Congress.12 Democratic lawmakers already initiated inquiries, sending letters to the settling firms demanding information about the legality and ethics of the agreements and asking them to disavow the deals.12 These inquiries raised the specter of potential civil or criminal liability related to bribery, extortion, or fraud.12 Future investigations could delve deeper into the circumstances surrounding the settlements, potentially leading to attempts to invalidate the agreements or impose other consequences. The specific commitments made, such as large-scale pro bono work directed towards Trump administration priorities or rollbacks of DEI programs, could become particular points of contention.
Settling firms might also experience a loss of political capital with Democrats. Their perceived cooperation with the Trump administration, even under duress, could diminish their access and influence within a Democratic-controlled Washington. This could affect their government relations practices or make it more difficult for lawyers from these firms to transition into government service roles under Democratic leadership.
Perhaps most concerning is the precedent set by these events.4 The successful use of executive power to coerce concessions from private entities like major law firms could normalize such tactics, providing a blueprint for future administrations, regardless of party, to pressure industries or institutions that oppose their agendas. This erosion of norms protecting private entities from direct political retribution could have far-reaching negative consequences for civil society and the balance of power between the government and private actors.
Finally, client perceptions could continue to shift. Clients whose values or business interests align more closely with Democratic priorities might view firms that settled with the Trump administration less favorably, potentially leading to further relationship strains or departures.
In essence, while the settlements resolved an immediate crisis for the firms involved, they simultaneously created a set of potential long-term liabilities. The deals remain a matter of public record, subject to re-evaluation and potential challenge in a different political climate, leaving the settling firms exposed to future legal, political, and reputational risks.12
VIII. Strategic Recommendations for Law Firms Under Threat
The confrontation between the Trump administration and Big Law offers critical lessons for law firms navigating an increasingly polarized political environment where executive power may be wielded against perceived adversaries. Based on the analysis of events and responses, several strategic recommendations emerge for firms seeking to protect their independence and viability when facing similar threats.
Risk Assessment and Preparedness: Firms should proactively assess their vulnerability to political pressure points. This involves analyzing client base concentration (particularly reliance on government contractors or politically sensitive industries), dependence on security clearances for key practice areas, the potential impact of controversial representations, and the visibility of internal policies like DEI programs.26 Based on this assessment, firms must develop robust crisis management and communication plans tailored to politically charged scenarios. These plans should include pre-approved messaging frameworks, designated spokespersons, and protocols for rapid response.38 Leadership should be trained in effective media engagement and stakeholder communication during high-pressure situations.38
Strengthening Ethical Foundations: In times of pressure, a firm's commitment to core principles becomes paramount. Firms should regularly reaffirm their dedication to legal ethics, including the duty of zealous representation for all clients within the bounds of the law, and the importance of the rule of law through internal communications, training, and policies.38 Establishing or strengthening internal governance structures, such as dedicated ethics or risk management committees, can provide a framework for evaluating potentially controversial representations and navigating complex political pressures objectively.38
Client Management and Diversification: Open communication with clients is crucial. Firms should proactively engage with key clients, especially those with government ties or operating in sensitive sectors, to discuss the firm's stance on potential political pressures and outline contingency plans.26 Strategically, firms should pursue diversification across practice areas and client bases to mitigate reliance on any single sector vulnerable to political winds.38 Expanding international reach can also serve as a hedge against domestic political risks.38
Responding to Pressure:
Legal Challenge: The experience of Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey demonstrates the viability of challenging unlawful executive actions in court.15 Firms facing similar pressure should strongly consider litigation, leveraging constitutional arguments (First, Fifth, Sixth Amendments, Separation of Powers) and seeking immediate judicial relief like TROs. The courts proved willing to intervene against likely unconstitutional overreach.6
Collective Action: The lack of a unified response arguably weakened the legal profession's position.10 Firms should actively seek opportunities for industry solidarity. This includes supporting targeted peers through amicus briefs, issuing joint public statements condemning government overreach, and crucially, refusing to exploit the vulnerability of targeted firms by poaching clients or lawyers.10 Recognizing that individual settlements can undermine the collective position is vital.61
Principled Negotiation (Cautionary Approach): While settlement might appear pragmatic to avert immediate disaster 28, the ethical pitfalls and long-term reputational damage associated with deals perceived as capitulation are severe.12 Any negotiation must be approached with extreme caution, firmly resisting any compromise of core ethical principles, professional independence, or client interests. Firms should avoid agreements that legitimize unlawful pressure or coerce contributions to politically motivated causes.
Internal Cohesion and Talent: Maintaining trust and alignment internally is critical during external crises. Leadership must communicate transparently with partners, associates, and staff about the firm's strategy, values, and response to political pressures.38 Addressing employee concerns regarding the firm's ethical stance, DEI commitments, and the implications of political attacks is essential for maintaining morale and retaining talent.24 Firms should actively foster a culture that supports lawyers in undertaking challenging or unpopular representations consistent with their ethical obligations.
The available evidence strongly suggests that a strategy combining robust legal defense, clear articulation of principles, and ideally, collective industry resistance offers the most prudent path for law firms facing unlawful executive pressure. The firms that challenged the EOs secured significant legal victories and avoided the substantial ethical and reputational costs borne by those that settled.6 While carrying risks, a proactive defense grounded in constitutional rights and professional ethics, supported by peers, appears superior for preserving long-term independence, integrity, and public trust.2
IX. Concluding Thoughts
The campaign waged by the second Trump administration against major U.S. law firms represents a deeply troubling chapter in the relationship between executive power and the independent bar. Utilizing a range of administrative tools—from executive orders imposing direct sanctions to EEOC investigations targeting internal policies—the administration sought to punish and intimidate firms perceived as political adversaries.1 The motivations appeared rooted in retribution for past representations and investigations, a desire to control the legal narrative and resources (particularly pro bono), ideological opposition to DEI initiatives, and a broader effort to compel powerful institutions to demonstrate loyalty and subservience.2
This campaign provoked a constitutional and ethical crisis. The administration's actions directly implicated fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, petition, and association, the right to counsel, and due process guarantees.3 They threatened the separation of powers by attempting to undermine the independence of the legal profession, which is crucial for the judiciary's role as a check on executive authority.3 The response from Big Law was fractured: some firms mounted successful, principled legal challenges based on constitutional grounds 15, while a larger number opted for settlements, agreeing to substantial pro bono commitments and policy changes under duress.1 This divergence exposed fault lines within the profession, highlighting tensions between business imperatives and ethical obligations, and raising questions about professional solidarity.1
The consequences have been significant. Settling firms avoided immediate sanctions but faced severe criticism, internal dissent, and potential long-term reputational and legal liabilities.12 Resisting firms incurred litigation costs but upheld constitutional principles and garnered support, potentially enhancing their long-term standing.5 Employees across affected firms faced ethical quandaries, career uncertainty, and saw commitments to diversity potentially undermined.18
The most profound impact lies in the threat to the rule of law itself.1 When the government can successfully punish lawyers and law firms for representing clients it disfavors, the ability of citizens and organizations to challenge government actions is fundamentally weakened. The chilling effect observed—difficulty finding counsel for those opposing the administration 8—demonstrates the real-world damage to the adversarial system that underpins American justice.
This episode underscores the critical need for vigilance, ethical clarity, and courage within the legal profession. Law firms must be prepared to defend not only their clients but also the principles that allow them to function independently. While business pressures are real, succumbing to unlawful coercion ultimately erodes the foundation upon which the profession stands.38 The long-term health of the legal system, and indeed of democratic governance, depends on the willingness of lawyers and firms to uphold their ethical duties and resist attempts to weaponize state power against the independent bar.2 Maintaining independence and public trust, even in the face of significant short-term risks, remains the wisest course for those entrusted with defending the rule of law.
Works cited
Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration - Wikipedia, accessed April 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeting_of_law_firms_and_lawyers_under_the_second_Trump_administration
Law Firm Independence Under Attack With Executive Orders | ACS, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.acslaw.org/inbrief/law-firm-independence-under-attack-with-executive-orders/
Trump's Targeting of Law Firms Is Unconstitutional | Cato at Liberty ..., accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-targeting-law-firms-unconstitutional
Trump's attack on law firms threatens the foundations of our justice system, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.thefire.org/news/trumps-attack-law-firms-threatens-foundations-our-justice-system
Senators Coons, Welch, other lawyers on Judiciary Committee send letter commending law firms that have resisted Trump's unconstitutional executive orders, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-coons-welch-other-lawyers-on-judiciary-committee-send-letter-commending-law-firms-that-have-resisted-trumps-unconstitutional-executive-orders
Trump's crusade against big law firms sparks fears of long-lasting damage - CBS News, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-big-law-firms-retribution/
What to Know About the Law Firms Targeted by Trump - Time, accessed April 24, 2025, https://time.com/7272466/law-firms-trump-wilmerhale-jenner-block-paul-weiss-covington-burling/
Law firms refuse to represent Trump opponents in the wake of his attacks, accessed April 24, 2025, https://electionlawblog.org/?p=149149
RCFP joins ACLU-led briefs challenging Trump executive orders targeting law firms, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.rcfp.org/rcfp-joins-aclu-law-firm-briefs/
Trump v. Big Law Becomes the Legal Industry v. Itself - The NYU Politics Society, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.politicsatnyu.org/zeitgeist/2025/04/trump-v-big-law-becomes-the-legal-industry-v-itself/
Trump's First 100 Days: Creating an Imperial Presidency That Harms Americans, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-first-100-days-creating-an-imperial-presidency-that-harms-americans/
Did 9 firms making deals with Trump violate bribery, anti-fraud laws? Democratic letters seek answers - ABA Journal, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did-9-law-firms-making-deals-with-trump-violate-bribery-anti-fraud-laws-democratic-letters-seek-answers
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Agreement with the Trump Administration - Dave Min, accessed April 24, 2025, https://min.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/min.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/04.24.25-letters-to-law-firms-on-trump-administration-agreements-all.pdf
Trump's Executive Orders Against Law Firms | The First Amendment Encyclopedia, accessed April 24, 2025, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/trumps-executive-orders-against-law-firms/
Two major law firms urge judges to permanently block Trump's ..., accessed April 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-law-firms-perkins-coie-wilmerhale-7dba5f0c38ac547bf3f2bb1f31a2ef38
Trump reaches deals with 5 law firms, allowing them to avoid prospect of punishing executive orders | AP News, accessed April 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-law-firms-executive-order-fe8f38a61cf77c5bb6add1315f5f96f1
Attorney General James Stands with Law Firm Targeted by Trump Administration, accessed April 24, 2025, https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/attorney-general-james-stands-law-firm-targeted-trump-administration
Legal Ethics Roundup: Trump Pro Bono Nears $1B, SCOTUS Takes Atty-Client Comms Case, Lawyer Detained @ DTW, Barrett Recusal Standard, DOJ Bans ABA, Judge's Clerk Boycott OK Per Ethics Rules & More - Above the Law, accessed April 24, 2025, https://abovethelaw.com/2025/04/legal-ethics-roundup-trump-pro-bono-nears-1b-scotus-takes-atty-client-comms-case-lawyer-detained-dtw-barrett-recusal-standard-doj-bans-aba-judges-clerk-boycott-ok-per-ethics-rules-mor/
Law firms fighting Trump to ask judges to permanently block executive orders | PBS News, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/law-firms-fighting-trump-to-ask-judges-to-permanently-block-executive-orders
Major law firm reaches deal with Trump to avoid White House order even as two other firms sue | AP News, accessed April 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-law-firm-mueller-fc64fcda098b52756294c3d6a3b3d998
Two major law firms urge judges to permanently block Trump's executive orders, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/law-firms-fighting-trump-to-ask-judges-to-permanently-block-executive-orders/
Donald Trump Faces New Lawsuits Filed by Two Major Law Firms - Newsweek, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-faces-new-lawsuit-filed-two-major-law-firms-2052166
Recruitment of lawyers from Trump-targeted firms is ethics violation, Democrats' letter says, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/democrats-letter-says-recruitment-of-clients-or-lawyers-from-targeted-law-firms-is-an-ethics-violation
Associates at prominent law firms urge their employers to withstand pressure from Trump, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/associates-at-prominent-law-firms-urge-their-employers-to-withstand-pressure-from-trump
Trump is using his Big Law executive orders to disarm the legal efforts to reign him in, accessed April 24, 2025, https://news.yahoo.com/trump-using-big-law-executive-092201600.html
Five Factors GCs Must Weigh in Firing Trump Big Law Targets - Bloomberg Government, accessed April 24, 2025, https://news.bgov.com/us-law-week/five-factors-gcs-must-weigh-in-firing-trump-big-law-targets
Tracking the Trump Administration's Harmful Executive Actions | Congressman Steve Cohen, accessed April 24, 2025, https://cohen.house.gov/TrumpAdminTracker
Five Major Law Firms Cut $600 Million Deals With Trump (3), accessed April 24, 2025, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/five-major-law-firms-cut-600-million-deals-with-trump-1
Trump Attack on Big Law Moves Beyond Revenge, Latest Deals Show, accessed April 24, 2025, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-attack-on-big-law-moves-beyond-revenge-latest-deals-show-1
Trump's aggressive actions against free speech speak a lot louder than his words defending it - Seattle PI, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/trump-s-aggressive-actions-against-free-speech-20292994.php
Live: Trump v BigLaw - The Lawyer | Legal insight, benchmarking data and jobs, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.thelawyer.com/live-trump-v-biglaw/
Trump's Political Targeting of the Legal Profession Is an Attack on the First Amendment, accessed April 24, 2025, https://americanoversight.org/trumps-political-targeting-of-the-legal-profession-is-an-attack-on-free-speech/
Legal Advocacy Groups Rebuke Trump Memo That Threatens Law Firms and Lawyers, accessed April 24, 2025, https://truthout.org/articles/legal-advocacy-groups-rebuke-trump-memo-that-threatens-law-firms-and-lawyers/
'Pathetic': Elite Law Firm Blasted for Striking Deal With Trump Administration, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/news/skadden-arps-deal-trump
'Chilling and Unprecedented': Trump Memo Threatens Law Firms That Cross His Administration | Common Dreams, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-law-firms-directive
"Not bending the knee": Judge seems sympathetic to law firm Perkins Coie's bid to block Trump executive order - CBS News, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-perkins-coie-criticizes-trump-executive-order/
By openly retaliating against disfavored law firms, Trump attacks free speech and the right to counsel - Reason Magazine, accessed April 24, 2025, https://reason.com/2025/04/23/by-openly-retaliating-against-disfavored-law-firms-trump-attacks-free-speech-and-the-right-to-counsel/
Navigating law firm business strategy amid political pressures - Daily Journal, accessed April 24, 2025, https://dailyjournal.com/articles/384412-navigating-law-firm-business-strategy-amid-political-pressures
A Big Law firm hired a conservative legal superstar to fight back against Trump's executive order in court - Yahoo News, accessed April 24, 2025, https://news.yahoo.com/big-law-firm-hired-conservative-163231627.html
Trump Forcing Law Firms to Give Millions to His Political Organization, accessed April 24, 2025, https://sherman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/trump-forcing-law-firms-give-millions-his-political-organization
We Must Stop Blaming Law Firms Attacked by President Trump | TIME, accessed April 24, 2025, https://time.com/7273100/stop-blaming-law-firms-attacked-by-president-donald-trump/
How law firms are fighting Trump's executive orders - YouTube, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpxYymZZDYo
Attorney explains how his law firm is fighting back at Trump's attacks on lawyers - YouTube, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06U7_QukMag
Trump 'Shakedown' Deals Prompt More Questions for Law Firms (1) - Bloomberg Law, accessed April 24, 2025, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-shakedown-deals-prompt-more-questions-for-big-law-firms
Major international law firm reaches deal with White House, becoming the latest to do so, accessed April 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-law-firms-retribution-emhoff-89db97e7f76dd4cbf74d571a648baedb
Law firm targeted by Trump could have been 'destroyed,' chairman says in explaining deal with Trump | AP News, accessed April 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-law-firm-retribution-2bd698e21528511bfa54506f0483ef5c
What Was Richard Nixon's 'Enemies List'—And Who Was on It? - History.com, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.history.com/articles/richard-nixon-enemies-list-who-was-on-it
Enemies List | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/enemies-list
Master list of Nixon's political opponents - Wikipedia, accessed April 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_list_of_Nixon%27s_political_opponents
Nixon's Enemies List - Wikipedia, accessed April 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_Enemies_List
Watergate's legacy | Richard Nixon, The Washington Post, Political Scandals, & Journalism, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/event/Nixon-resigns-Watergates-legacy
How Nixon's 'enemies list' led to an impeachment effort - Miller Center, accessed April 24, 2025, https://millercenter.org/how-nixons-enemies-list-led-impeachment-effort
Spying on Americans: Infamous 1970s White House Plan for Protest Surveillance Released, accessed April 24, 2025, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/intelligence/2020-06-25/spying-americans-new-release-infamous-huston-plan
Guantanamo Bay attorneys - Wikipedia, accessed April 24, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_attorneys
Presumed Innocent? Representing Guantánamo Detainees - Brookings Institution, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/presumed-innocent-representing-guantanamo-detainees/
Author Limelight – Guantanamo: Lisa Hajjar on the Lawyers Who Fought Against Torture, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.lawdragon.com/news-features/2022-10-28-author-limelight-guantanamo-lisa-hajjar-on-the-lawyers-who-fought-against-torture
Gideon at Guantánamo - The Yale Law Journal, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/1190_tm1ixueo.pdf
Defense Lawyers at Guantánamo - Lund University Publications, accessed April 24, 2025, https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1361723/file/1369931.pdf
Human Rights Workshop: Guantanamo Litigator on Lawyering in a Lawless Space, accessed April 24, 2025, https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/human-rights-workshop-guantanamo-litigator-lawyering-lawless-space-0
Legal Combatant | Columbia Magazine, accessed April 24, 2025, https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/legal-combatant
US Lawyers Coalition Says Elite Firms Have Only One Choice: Capitulate to Trump—Or Fight Back | Common Dreams, accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-law-firms-letter-am-law-20
Trump White-Collar Shift Offers Opening for Defense Attorneys - Bloomberg Law, accessed April 24, 2025, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-white-collar-shift-offers-opening-for-defense-attorneys
Cut a Deal or File a Suit? Every Big Law Response to Trump Scrutiny Is a Blueprint- [The American Lawyer Quotes Gina Rubel], accessed April 24, 2025, https://www.furiarubel.com/news-resources/cut-a-deal-or-file-a-suit-every-big-law-response-to-trump-scrutiny-is-a-blueprint/