It has been two months since Donald Trump began targeting law firms with illegal and unconstitutional executive orders. My former law firm, Perkins Coie, was the first to be targeted on March 6. Six days later, a federal court in Washington, D.C. blocked that executive order from taking effect.
Undeterred, on March 14, Trump issued a nearly identical executive order against the New York legal powerhouse Paul Weiss — a firm with a long history of supporting pro-democracy and anti-Trump causes. But instead of fighting, Paul Weiss capitulated, agreeing to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services to causes favored by Trump and his allies.
In the weeks that followed, Big Law faced a reckoning. Several new firms were named in similar executive orders. WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey chose to fight in court — and they prevailed.
But many others that had not even been named in an order — Skadden Arps, Willkie Farr, Milbank, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Allen & Overy Shearman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft — followed Paul Weiss’s lead, effectively becoming Trump’s collaborators.
These firms justified their decisions with a consistent rationale: Yes, they could have fought and won, but clients would have left because they did not want lawyers viewed as unwelcome by the Trump administration. The pro bono commitments they made to Trump, they argued, would soon be forgotten and were a small fraction of their overall budget for pro bono work.
In simpler terms, making a deal with Trump might be distasteful, but it was profitable. Legacy media largely bought into this narrative, casting figures like Paul Weiss’s managing partner as the victim of a Hobson’s choice — sacrificing principles to protect the firm’s business.
But this narrative is already showing signs of strain. Here are five reasons why the law firm deals may ultimately damage their businesses…
.png?upscale=true&height=50&upscale=true&name=Bluesky_Logo-grey%20(2).png){kind=logo}
