Major Law Firms Are Struggling To Respond To Trump's Attacks

Lawyers at some of the nation’s largest law firms are afraid of President Donald Trump. Not just afraid of what his policies might mean for their clients, but now for their own livelihoods, as his attacks on individual firms have left a shocked industry struggling to respond.

When Trump first took office in 2017, attorneys at Big Law firms lent thousands of pro-bono hours to legal efforts to stymie the administration’s most controversial policies, including the travel ban that restricted entry to the U.S. from certain Muslim-majority countries.

After his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, Trump became even more anathema to major firms; several of his criminal defense lawyers had to leave their firms in order to take him on as a client.

Now, as he returns triumphant from the political wilderness, Trump finds a Washington legal community facing a dilemma — keep their heads down and avoid cases that may pit them against the administration, or continue representing clients that might anger a president increasingly willing to use his power to seek vengeance.

“Back then nobody believed that there would be retaliation against the institution or them personally for taking these actions,” said a former partner at a major firm granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Nobody was thinking, I’ve got to worry whether it could really hurt my law firm if I took this on. And that’s the huge change we’re in now.”

POLITICO talked to more than five lawyers for this story and most were granted anonymity in order to speak candidly without fear of Trump’s retribution. Much of the trepidation inside big firms comes from Trump’s new strategy of signing executive orders seemingly aimed at destroying firms in retaliation for perceived wrongs dating back a decade.

On Friday, Trump signed an order sanctioning the firm Paul Weiss for the work of their former employee Mark Pomerantz, who later investigated Trump’s finances and payments to porn star Stormy Daniels for the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. Pomerantz resigned from the DA’s office in 2022 before Trump was indicted. The order cuts the firm off from government contracts and even restricts their lawyers from entering certain government buildings.

And earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order sanctioning Perkins Coie, punishing the firm for earlier work on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s grudge against Perkins dates back to the 2016 presidential campaign when now-former Perkins Coie lawyers working for Clinton’s campaign hired Fusion GPS, resulting in the infamous Steele dossier that alleged collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia. While the executive order ostensibly targets the firm for national security reasons and racially discriminatory hiring practices, the entire first paragraph is dedicated to Clinton, the dossier and MAGA bogeyman George Soros.

“We have a lot of law firms that we’re going to be going after because they were very dishonest people,” Trump said in a Fox News interview after signing the Perkins order. “They were very, very dishonest. I could go point after point after point, and it was so bad for our country.”

A February order stripped security clearance from an employee at Covington & Burling who provided legal services to former special counsel Jack Smith, who criminally prosecuted Trump for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and refusal to return classified materials stored at Mar-a-Lago. (Those cases have been dropped.) And on Monday, the acting chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent letters to 20 major firms, suggesting their diversity and inclusion practices may violate civil rights laws and requesting extensive data on their use of race and sex in hiring. Trump has vowed to eliminate the use of DEI practices and previously directed the Justice Department to identify potential targets for civil and criminal investigation.

“Law firms in America shouldn’t be fearful of President Trump, they should be fearful of the lawfare being perpetuated by federal judges hellbent on upending the Executive Branch,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields said in a statement. “Our justice system and Constitution are under attack and lawyers across the nation should unite behind President Trump in defense of Law and Order.”

Perkins, Paul Weiss, and other firms named in this piece did not respond to requests for comment.

Leaders at major firms have so far not made formal statements on these attacks. Discussions between firms on issuing a joint statement criticizing the orders have been ongoing but many firms are loath to speak out first, according to three people.

“Firms are afraid that if you’re out there and perceived as being anti-administration, that could hurt your firm,” a senior lawyer at a large firm said. “The administration is viewed as very punitive and retributive.”

“They’re just scared of retribution,” a senior lawyer at another firm said. “There’s a lot of fear in Big Law right now.”

The administration hasn’t provided any visibility into which additional firms they might target, and going after entire firms for the actions of one or two former partners certainly makes it harder for firm leaders to determine what actions could land them on the blacklist. But perhaps that’s the point.

“If you want to put a head on a spike in the city square in order to deter people from crossing the ruler, it really doesn’t matter if the person’s head is of someone innocent or guilty,” the former major firm partner said.

Frustrated by the lack of outcry from leadership, associates at dozens of major firms have begun circulating an open letter criticizing the administration for attempting to “bully corporate law firms out of engaging in any representation that challenges the administration’s aims” and calling on their employers to do the same. More than 300 associates have anonymously signed the letter since it went live about a week ago.

Rachel Cohen, an associate at Skadden Arps who helped organize the letter and spoke to POLITICO in her personal capacity, said she wants to see a “critical mass” of large firms in the country put out a statement expressing their commitment to continuing to represent “all sides of the coin” even when one side is opposed to the interests of the administration.

“It is imperative for rule of law in this country that lawyers not be associated with the interests that they represent or not have those imputed to them,” she said. “Because if we don’t have that and we have a vindictive government at the federal level targeting attorneys for providing representation, then we don’t have checks and balances. We don’t have the judiciary or the court system in the way that it’s intended to function.”

Big Law has not been completely absent in fighting Trump since January. Several firms are involved in ongoing litigation against the administration representing a variety of clients. WilmerHale represents a group of fired inspectors general challenging their removal; Hogan Lovells and Jenner & Block are seeking to block executive orders restricting federal funds from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care; Arnold & Porter is working with civil rights groups to challenge potential restrictions on birthright citizenship. But whether there will be a chilling effect as a result of the Perkins and Paul Weiss orders remains to be seen.

Other firms are willing to work with the president directly. New York firm Sullivan and Cromwell accepted Trump as a client earlier this year and will manage the appeal of his criminal hush money conviction after several members of Trump’s defense team found new employment within his administration.

There’s also the acknowledgement in some corners of the legal community that what’s bad for Perkins, Covington or Paul Weiss might be good for their competitors. An exodus of clients from firms in the administration’s crosshairs means more business up for grabs, especially if you’re a firm who can advertise closer ties to the White House, one lawyer said.

And the business of law is, at the end of the day, a business. Firm leaders have a fiduciary duty to their employees and no one wants to be the one holding the reins when a firm goes under.

Cohen, the Skadden associate who helped organize the open letter, disputes that premise.

“What’s crucial for everyone in this industry to remember is that silence is not going to protect you,” she said. “And it is a much, much better business decision if the industry as a whole rejects this type of targeting than it is to be silent and hope that the president doesn’t pull your name out of the hat next.”

Daniel Lippman contributed reporting.