In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has exercised his executive authority to target some of the nation’s most prestigious law firms, accusing them of undermining the legal system. The accusations are broad in scope, including the use of legal tactics to advance partisan politics, attacking political adversaries, and alleging that many of these “Big Law” firms engage in “unlawful discrimination” based on DEI hiring practices.
In the presidential memorandum “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court,” the president ordered U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate every legal case that has come against the federal government in the last eight years.
“Lawyers and law firms play a vital role in ensuring that we live up to that standard as a Nation. Law firms should not favor any political party when it comes to choosing their clients. Firms also should not make decisions on whom to hire based on a person’s political affiliation. To do otherwise is to deny some Americans an equal opportunity for our services while favoring others,” Trump posted on social media. “Lawyers abandon the profession’s highest ideals when they engage in partisan decision-making, and betray the ethical obligation to represent those who are unpopular or disfavored in a particular environment.”
Given Trump’s familiarity with legal battles, many are questioning whether the president’s actions are being done to better serve the interests of the American people or are simply retaliation against law firms that have taken him to court.
How are law firms responding?
So far, two law firms have taken different actions since being targeted by Trump.
After being accused in a presidential order of unethical behavior, explicitly mentioning the firm’s hiring of attorney Mark Pomerantz, who worked with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office in bringing criminal charges against Trump, global firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, ended up settling a deal with the White House. According to The Wall Street Journal, in 2023, Pomerantz believed Trump was guilty of serious crimes but ultimately resigned from the position “after what he viewed was a rushed and inattentive examination of the case by the current district attorney, Alvin Bragg.”
The firm’s chairman, Brad Karp, met with Trump and a few of the president’s closest advisers and, per an executive order, agreed to give $40 million worth of free legal work to administration causes, including fairness in the legal system, combating anti-semitism and aiding U.S. veterans.
In response, more than 140 former Paul, Weiss attorneys signed a letter expressing their shame in the firm for what they described as a “craven surrender” to Trump.
“We expected the firm to be a leader in standing up for the legal profession, the adversary system, and the right to counsel. Instead of a ringing defense of the values of democracy, we witnessed a craven surrender to, and thus complicity in, what is perhaps the gravest threat to the independence of the legal profession since at least the days of Sen. Joseph McCarthy,” the letter said.
However, in an email to staff and lawyers last weekend, Karp said the deal with Trump was the best scenario given the pressure of losing clients over a strained relationship with the federal government, per Reuters.
“The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm,” Karp’s letter said “The Administration is not dictating what matters we take on, approving our matters, or anything like that,” he said. “But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration.”
Legal action is exactly what litigation powerhouse Perkins Coie took to combat Trump’s executive order against the firm.
Accused of damaging the U.S. legal system by undermining election laws and voter laws and working with Democratic figures such as Hillary Clinton and George Soros to do so, Perkins Coie filed a complaint in court accusing Trump’s order of being a bullying tactic.
“Perkins Coie’s ability to represent the interests of its clients — and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all — are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied,” the filing said. “The firm is committed to a resolute defense of the rule of law, without regard to party or ideology, and therefore brings this lawsuit to declare the Order unlawful and to enjoin its implementation.”
U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell sided with the firm and blocked any penalties, including losing access to government buildings and security clearances and ending all of the firm’s existing contracts with government clients, made in the executive order.
Utah attorney Greg Skordas said the executive orders “present a Hobsen’s choice for the law firms.”
“Either lose thousands of dollars in fees and lost revenue fighting an illegal order or settle for an exorbitant amount to keep your doors open and the firm running,” he said. “It’s lose-lose for any law firm and Trump knows that. He also knows that these executive orders may eventually have the desired effect of causing any law firm to think long and hard about taking on litigation against him.”
Skordas added that its “made it so that certain governmental agencies can’t or won’t engage with them, costing them tens of thousands of dollars in lost revenue. Although these executive orders are likely to eventually be set aside by a court, that process can take months or longer to resolve and will be very costly. In the meantime, law firms that are the subject of these executive orders are hemorrhaging clients and of course, income.”
Another firm is targeted
The latest law firm to become involved in the White House’s retribution battle is Jenner & Block, an international law firm headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. The executive order accused the firm of misusing its pro bono work for a political agenda that favors left-leaning policies, describing it as “partisan lawfare” — similar to the accusations made against other firms that Trump has targeted.
What made this order unique from the others was its target on attorney Andrew Weissmann, who served under former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s alleged ties to Russia during the 2016 presidential election. The order said, “The numerous reports of Weissmann’s dishonesty, including pursuit of nonexistent crimes, bribery to foreign nationals, and overt demand that the Federal Government pursue a political agenda against me, is a concerning indictment of Jenner’s values and priorities.”
Though Trump was never charged due to lack of sufficient evidence, Weissmann has said previously that he would have “subpoenaed Trump and definitively stated that the former president obstructed justice,” per The Wall Street Journal.
During the executive order’s signing on Tuesday, Trump called Weissman a “bad guy” after receiving clarification that Weissmann’s involvement with the firm is one of the many reasons the executive order was warranted.
Though it is uncertain how the law firm will respond, a spokesperson for Jenner & Block said, “We have been named in an Executive Order similar to one which has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal court. We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients’ interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies,” per The Wall Street Journal.