Yves here. It\u2019s delicious that major white shoe law firms are experiencing tangible bad outcomes for capitulating to Trump demands, such as doing pro bono work for pet conservative causes (and not any left wing ones), like defending cops and dropping DEI initiatives, such as the exodus of key partners and top associates and even firings by big name clients. It will be harder to fulfill those pro bono commitments at a smaller staff and revenue level. As this post documents, that\u2019s not a full list of the blowback.<\/p>\n
By Steven J. Harper, an attorney, adjunct professor at Northwestern University Law School, and author of several books, including Crossing Hoffa \u2014 A Teamster\u2019s Story and The Lawyer Bubble \u2014 A Profession in Crisis. He has been a regular columnist for Moyers on Democracy, Dan Rather\u2019s News and Guts, and The American Lawyer. Follow him at https:\/\/thelawyerbubble.com. Originally published at Common Dreams<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The president\u2019s bullying was always about intimidation and deterrence. Here\u2019s the sound it makes when not one, but many, other shoes begin to drop.<\/em><\/p>\n The Big Law firms that capitulated to President Donald Trump\u2019s unconstitutional demands thought they were buying peace with his administration, preserving their client relationships, and protecting their bottom lines.<\/p>\n Recent developments illustrate the growing magnitude of their mistake.<\/p>\n Fighters Are Winning<\/strong><\/p>\n On May 2, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell became the first court to issue a final ruling<\/a> that Trump\u2019s executive orders targeting Big Law firms violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In a 102-page opinion, the court shredded Trump\u2019s edict with a straightforward analysis that other courts are likely to follow:<\/p>\n \u201cIn a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase \u2018Let\u2019s kill all <\/em>the lawyers,\u2019 [Trump\u2019s Executive Order] takes the approach of \u201cLet\u2019s kill the lawyers I don\u2019t like<\/em>,\u201d sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.<\/p>\n \u201cUsing the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution,\u2026. Simply put, government officials \u2018cannot . . . use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.\u2019<\/p>\n \u201cThat, however, is exactly what is happening here.\u201d<\/p>\n For those keeping score, Trump\u2019s Justice Department has now lost every courtroom fight on the subject. Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey obtained immediate temporary relief from his executive orders, as did Perkins Coie, which has now won a permanent injunction from Judge Howell.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, how are the firms that caved to Trump doing?<\/p>\n The Other Shoe Drops: #1<\/strong><\/p>\n After providing Trump with a war chest totaling almost $1 billion in free legal services, the settling firms are now learning how he plans to use it. Previously, Trump had mused about using Big Law attorneys on coal leasing and tariff deals<\/a>, but on April 28 things got real.<\/p>\n Trump issued an executive order<\/a> titled, \u201cSTRENGTHENING AND UNLEASHING AMERICA\u2019S LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PURSUE CRIMINALS AND PROTECT INNOCENT CITIZENS.\u201d<\/p>\n The order emphasized the need to \u201cprotect and defend law enforcement officers wrongly accused and abused by State or local officials.\u201d It directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to provide the legal resources necessary to defend those officers, including \u201cprivate-sector pro bono assistance.\u201d <\/em>[emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n Stated simply, police officers accused of brutality and other misconduct will get Big Law attorneys to defend them \u2013 free of charge.<\/em><\/p>\n Meanwhile, traditional pro bono <\/em>causes, including defending immigrants\u2019 rights, are suffering<\/a> from the deterrent effect of Trump\u2019s attack. Fearing his wrath, they are declining work that challenges his policies.<\/p>\n Settling firms were already getting blowback<\/a> from their partners<\/a> and associates<\/a> as many have left<\/a> their firms. Trump\u2019s newly-added page to their pro bono <\/em>catalog won\u2019t help recruiting or retention. And as with all things Trump, there\u2019s no limiting principle. Appeasement never produces finality.<\/p>\n The Other Shoe Drops: #2<\/strong><\/p>\n The firms\u2019 stated reason for capitulating to Trump was concern that clients would leave any firm that was not in Trump\u2019s good graces. That premise is not aging well either.<\/p>\n On April 11, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett agreed<\/a> to provide $125 million in pro bono <\/em>work \u201cand other free legal services\u201d to Trump-designated causes.<\/p>\n On April 22, the firm informed<\/a> the Delaware Chancery Court that it would no longer be representing Microsoft in a case related to its 2023 acquisition of Activision. The same day, Jenner & Block replaced Simpson Thacher as Microsoft\u2019s counsel.<\/p>\n Losing a client to another firm is not uncommon, and none of the players has commented on Microsoft\u2019s switch. But capitulation to Trump has not been a panacea for preserving client relationships. A firm that challenges an unconstitutional order threatening its existence is a firm that many clients want<\/a> fighting for them.<\/p>\n The Other Shoe Drops: #3<\/strong><\/p>\n On April 24, 16 House members sent letters to nine firms<\/a> that settled with Trump. Asking<\/a> about their motivations and urging them to disavow the deals, lawmakers suggested that the agreements may violate federal and state criminal and civil laws while creating \u201cpotentially irresolvable violations of applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.\u201d Previously, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin<\/a> (D-Md.) sent requests for information from several firms and White House counsel on<\/a> April 6 and April 18<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Other Show Drops: #4<\/strong><\/p>\n Firms assumed that capitulation would occupy a single news cycle and then disappear. But their public relations nightmares aren\u2019t going away. Apart from the widespread and ongoing condemnation of the legal community, the story continues to have legs as a fateful moment for the rule of law in the United States.<\/p>\n The May 4 edition of CBS\u2019s 60 Minutes<\/em> ran a damning segment<\/a> on Big Law firms that settled with Trump. None was willing to appear and defend itself or its deal. The legal term for such continuing cowardice is res ipsa loquitur <\/em>\u2013 the thing speaks for itself. In this case, the firms didn\u2019t speak at all.<\/p>\n On May 9, an article<\/a> that later appeared in the New York Times <\/em>Sunday print edition ran with this headline and subhead:<\/p>\n Can Elite Lawyers Be Persuaded to \u2018Wake Up and Stand Up\u2019? <\/strong><\/em> Some of the settling firms, including Kirkland & Ellis<\/a> and at least one other, have an escape hatch: Their \u201chandshake deals\u201d with Trump are not in writing<\/a>. They can do what Trump does when he no longer likes his own prior agreement: Walk away.<\/p>\n In fact, even firms with a written agreement can walk away too. Whatever their form, the deals are probably not<\/a>enforceable. But that was never Trump\u2019s main objective. It was always about intimidation and deterrence. When firms bent the knee to him, he won and scored an invaluable public relations victory.<\/p>\n And his accompanying billion-dollar windfall didn\u2019t hurt.<\/p>\n
When the law firm Paul Weiss cut a deal with the Trump administration, a new kind of activist emerged.<\/p>\n
![\"Print](\"https:\/\/cdn.printfriendly.com\/buttons\/print-button-gray.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n