One year ago, Donald Trump targeted law firms through an unprecedented executive order. From the moment he was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2025, the legal community was on edge. It had already seen business leaders used as props and legacy media outlets bend the knee. There were rumors that law firms could be next.

On March 6, the first shoe dropped.

Trump issued an executive order targeting my former firm. As I read the order, it was immediately clear that his continued animus toward me had led him to target the firm. He cited its work for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, where I had served as general counsel. He criticized the firm’s relationship with George Soros and its history of voting rights litigation — all work I led while a partner at Perkins Coie.

The fact that I had left in 2021 to start my own law firm did not matter. In Trump’s eyes, Perkins Coie was still guilty and was going to pay.

The executive order stripped the firm’s lawyers of security clearances, limited their ability to meet with federal agencies, and even purported to bar them from accessing federal buildings. Most importantly, it leveraged government contracts — both with the firm and its clients — to inflict economic harm aimed at crippling the firm’s ability to survive.

It was immediately clear that targeting Perkins Coie was only the beginning. While it was the first firm to be targeted, it would not be the last.

It was also clear that what Trump was doing was blatantly unconstitutional. I doubted any DOJ lawyer would defend it. I was certain no court would uphold the sanctions.

Trump was trying to strong-arm the legal profession, and law firms needed to band together to fight back against these mob-like tactics. Instead, we witnessed shameful capitulation — and ultimately active collaboration — by some of the largest, most profitable, and most prestigious law firms in the country.

I immediately began hearing stories of firms refusing to stand up for Perkins Coie. I even heard suggestions that some large firms were using the situation as an excuse to target competitors’ clients.

Then the unimaginable happened. One of the other targeted firms — Paul Weiss — cut a deal with Trump. In exchange for lifting the sanctions on the New York-based firm, Paul Weiss agreed, among other things, to provide $40 million in free legal services to Trump-friendly causes.

In rapid succession, eight other law firms cut deals with Trump — even though none of them had been targeted by an executive order. While Paul Weiss demonstrated cowardly capitulation, these other firms proactively collaborated with Trump in undermining the rule of law and the legal profession.

Collectively, these firms sold out the rule of law, their professional reputations, and their clients to curry favor with Trump. In addition, they agreed to provide more than $1 billion in free legal services to Trump’s preferred causes.

In the weeks and months that followed, Trump continued to attack lawyers and law firms. I was the subject of personal attacks from the president during a speech he delivered at the Department of Justice. He also issued a presidential memorandum criticizing my firm.

Among large law firms, only four chose to fight back by suing the Trump administration. As expected, they quickly won injunctions blocking the executive orders. But when the DOJ made clear it would appeal, a quiet chill settled over the legal profession.

I came to appreciate how deep the problem ran on May 4, 2025, when “60 Minutes” aired a segment on Trump’s attacks on the legal profession. Scott Pelley opened the segment by stating: “Many firms and attorneys have been targeted, among them Marc Elias, a longtime opponent of Trump who is the only lawyer the president has named who was willing to appear on ‘60 Minutes.’”

I wish I could say that more lawyers and law firms have found the courage to speak out since then. They have not.

Then, yesterday — almost one year to the day from when this began — we received good news. The Department of Justice abandoned its defense of Trump’s executive orders targeting the four firms that had stood and fought.

This isn’t just a win for those firms. It is further proof that those who fight back against Donald Trump usually prevail, while those who capitulate often find themselves disgraced.

As pleased as I am with the outcome of these cases, this is not a story with a happy ending.

The capitulation of Big Law has done enormous damage to our democracy. Firms that were never targeted have stopped representing pro bono clients in voting rights and civil rights cases. Leaders in the profession are rarely willing to speak out. As everyday Americans challenge the illegality of Trump’s actions in the streets of our cities, large law firms remain notably absent.

No one who has paid attention over the past year will ever view the role of lawyers the same way again. Long after Trump leaves office, when we are cleaning up the rubble he leaves behind, the damage to the legal profession will endure.

That is why it is so important not only to remember those who stood and fought, but also those who cowered and gave in. For confidence to be restored, the leaders of the firms that made deals with Trump must be treated as pariahs in the legal world — just as the Ellisons will be in media and Sam Altman will be in tech. When the dust settles, we must be clear about who stood up for our democracy and who was willing to let it fall for personal gain.

I have been fighting — and winning — against Donald Trump for a long time. Yesterday, I was proud to see a hard-earned victory. But today, and in the days ahead, we must rebuild trust in the rule of law and our legal system — not only by celebrating those who did the right thing, but also by ensuring we never forget those who betrayed our cause.

Read more premium content >>>