There's Only One Real Way to Reverse Big Law's Capitulation to Trump
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump began issuing a series of executive orders targeting law firms, penalizing firms that employ—or previously employed—attorneys who have challenged him in court. The orders are plainly retaliatory and amount to state-imposed punishment for speech on matters of public concern—violating the First Amendment's protections for free speech and free association. And they're having their intended effect: People and businesses with possible legal claims against the administration are increasingly unable to find representation, as are pro bono clients the president disfavors. Although several firms have resisted the orders and multiple lawsuits are ongoing, other firms continue to concede.
A new approach is needed. We are both former attorneys of the law firm Skadden, Arps. One of us recently resigned her position specifically over Skadden's capitulation to a threatened executive order; the other of us is now a law professor. Our recent experiences show that law students and junior lawyers have the power to counteract and end the crisis—but only if they act collectively.
One might expect the most powerful law firms in the world to be both well-equipped and deeply motivated to resist such attacks on their independence. And indeed, some firms have mounted legal challenges, prevailing at the initial stages. But others, including Paul, Weiss; Skadden; and Kirkland & Ellis have quickly acquiesced, cutting widely reported-on 'settlements' with the administration—not necessarily because the law required it, but because resistance apparently seemed too costly.
Commentators across the political spectrum have criticized the deal-cutters, some calling them 'cowards' or 'craven.' Former federal appellate judge J. Michael Luttig, a noted conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, lambasted Paul, Weiss for choosing to 'cower before the powerful and sell out its firm and the nation's legal profession to the President.'
Such critiques on principle are well-intentioned, and possibly justified. But if firms see their primary duty as serving their clients and preserving their business—rather than safeguarding legal institutions and constitutional norms—shaming won't ultimately change behavior. Thus far, it seems that most firms take the former view. Moral appeals, without more, therefore won't change their incentives. What we're witnessing is a textbook coordination failure—a form of what political economists call a prisoner's dilemma. Firms that push back against the administration risk losing clients, lawyers, and revenue to those that don't. As Paul, Weiss chair Brad Karp put it, the executive order represented 'an unprecedented threat' that 'could have destroyed [the] firm' had it refused to comply. At first blush, it's difficult to see how the administration's unlawful threats could cripple a firm with $7.5 million in profit per equity partner. But in light of reports that peer firms Kirkland & Ellis and Sullivan & Cromwell promptly began pursuing Paul, Weiss' clients and rainmaker partners, its concerns may seem more understandable.
The threat of an executive order is powerful—but it works only because firms act alone and even in conflict. A failure of collective action makes things worse for everyone. Consider that weeks after trying to poach Paul, Weiss clients, Kirkland & Ellis in turn found itself in the president's crosshairs. If no firm had conceded, and all had refused to poach Paul, Weiss' departing lawyers or clients under these conditions, much of the harm might have been avoided. Firms choosing to fight the administration have quickly secured court orders halting enforcement of their executive orders; Paul, Weiss could have done the same. But by defecting individually, Paul, Weiss and others showed the administration that its tactics were working and that more bullying would be fruitful, painting a bigger target on other firms, and soon producing further demands on the settling firms themselves.. And it ensured a collective outcome that's leaving nearly all worse off than if all had acted together.
There are possible solutions, but they require not just rhetoric, but changing the material consequences of capitulation through collective action. One option would be for firms to legally commit—via binding contract or pledge, with heavy penalties for defection—to resist the executive orders together, to challenge them in court collectively (as with a recent amicus brief joined by 500 firms), and to decline to accept other firms' departing clients. Such a pact would blunt the effectiveness of coercive pressure by depriving the administration of any leverage over individual firms. But that kind of coordination carries potential legal risks, including antitrust concerns, and it could falter if even a few firms decline to participate.
The more promising strategy may lie with the next generation of lawyers. Law students and junior attorneys can exert real pressure by refusing to work for firms that give in—declining interviews, turning down offers, and encouraging law-school career offices to do the same. Such a move would not be unprecedented; in the 1990s, the Judge Advocate General Corps' prohibition on openly gay service members led many law schools to formally ban it from campus recruiting. Indeed, law students at Georgetown, Columbia, and elsewhere have already mobilized in recent weeks to refuse contact with certain capitulating firms.
To be sure, such choices carry some short-term costs, and it may seem unfair to ask people just starting their careers to bear this burden. Indeed, in a just world, the most powerful actors would bear the most responsibility for setting things right. Yet throughout history, young people have often been the first—and the most willing—to risk their own privileged status in the name of principle. And importantly, none of the actions above require anyone to quit a current job; they simply require top law students to leave certain firms off of their interview 'dance card,' opting for the many comparable firms that haven't capitulated. And there are even ways that students not interested in big law firms can take action.
If enough do so, these small, individual decisions can be collectively game-changing. Indeed, we're already seeing many top applicants deliberately prioritizing firms that have stood up to the president over those that have submitted, and additional resignations by existing associates. As these trends grow and firms incur reputational and recruitment losses, the resulting drop-off in top new legal talent and prestige may push firms to reevaluate the long-term costs of short-term concessions. Yet, ironically, the boycott would serve, not harm, firms' long-term interests. In fact, if conscientious junior lawyers successfully help nudge the legal profession toward collective resistance—instead of fragmented retreat—we all benefit: the firms themselves, clients who need representation, and a constitutional system that depends on an independent bar.
Some have argued that firms that would so quickly shrink from the profession's core principles are less likely to provide environments conducive to the honorable and ethical practice of law. Perhaps so. Regardless, the measures above can be taken even by those who disagree—who view the firms largely as victims caught in a difficult position. By threatening their independence and viability, it is the president who has unjustly put his thumb on the scale. Junior members of the profession are surely justified in rebalancing it on behalf of the rule of law.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Issues Horrifying Threat to Parade Protesters
President Trump declared that anyone who protests his military/birthday parade—even peacefully—will be met with 'very heavy force.' 'We're celebrating big on Saturday … if there's any protest that wants to come out they will be met with very big force. And by the way, for those people who wanna protest, they're gonna be met with very big force,' Trump said, repeating himself. 'And I haven't even heard about a protest, but, you know, these are people that hate our country. But they will be met with very heavy force.' This is the president saying that he will crush anyone who dares to use their First Amendment right to speak out against a lavish display of power—6,700 soldiers, 50 in-air helicopters, 34 horses, and 28 massive 70-ton M1 Abrams battle tanks—that will cost more than $45 million in taxpayer dollars. His threats of 'very heavy force' are entirely credible, given his gleeful deployment of thousands of National Guardsmen and Marines (who were without rules of engagement at the time) into Los Angeles without the consent of the city's mayor, Karen Bass, or the state's governor, Gavin Newsom, after protesters interfered with ICE roundups. As far as protests go, there are at least 1,500 massive 'No Kings Day' actions planned for the afternoon of Trump's parade, June 14, in Washington, D.C. and across the country. There are signs that the president's bombastic response in Los Angeles is causing the number of those who intend to attend a protest on Saturday to increase. 'This country doesn't belong to a king—and we're not letting him throw himself a parade funded by tens of millions of our taxpayer dollars while stealing from us and stripping away our rights, our freedoms, and the programs our families rely on,' said Indivisible, the organization organizing the actions. 'On June 14th, we're coming together to send one clear message: No Thrones. No Crowns. No Kings.' Trump is itching to brutalize dissenters, and his history suggests that he is more than willing to send orders to do so, especially in the nation's capital. Saturday has the potential to be disastrous.

Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Protests over immigration raids pop up across the US with more planned
The Trump administration said it would continue its program of raids and deportations despite the protests. 'ICE will continue to enforce the law,' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted Tuesday on social media. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up A look at some protests across the country: Advertisement Austin Four Austin police officers were injured and authorities used chemical irritants to disperse a crowd of several hundred demonstrators Monday night that moved between the state Capitol and a federal building that houses an ICE office. State officials had closed the Capitol to the public an hour early in anticipation of the protest. Austin police used pepper spray balls and state police used tear gas when demonstrators began trying to deface the federal building with spray paint. The demonstrators then started throwing rocks, bottles and other objects at a police barricade, Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis said. Three officers were injured by 'very large' rocks and another was injured while making an arrest, she said. Advertisement Austin police arrested eight people, and state police arrested five more. Davis said her department is prepared for Saturday's planned protest downtown. 'We support peaceful protest,' Davis said. 'When that protest turns violent, when it turns to throwing rocks and bottles ... that will not be tolerated. Arrests will be made.' Protesters marched in opposition of federal deportation operations in San Francisco, on Monday. The protest comes in the wake of National Guard personnel arriving in Los Angeles following President Trump's order. LOREN ELLIOTT/NYT Dallas A protest that drew hundreds to a rally on a city bridge lasted for several hours Monday night before Dallas police declared it an 'unlawful assembly' and warned people to leave or face possible arrest. Dallas police initially posted on social media that officers would not interfere with a 'lawful and peaceful assembly of individuals or groups expressing their First Amendment rights.' But officers later moved in and media reported seeing some in the crowd throw objects as officers used pepper spray and smoke to clear the area. At least one person was arrested. 'Peaceful protesting is legal,' Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, posted on X. 'But once you cross the line, you will be arrested.' San Francisco About 200 protesters gathered outside the San Francisco Immigration Court on Tuesday after activists said several arrests were made there. That gathering came after protests on Sunday and Monday swelled to several thousand demonstrators and saw more than 150 arrests with outbreaks of violence that included vandalized buildings, and damaged cars, police vehicles and buses. Police said two officers suffered non-life threatening injuries. Most of the arrests were Sunday night. Protesters faced off with officers with Federal Protective Service outside a blocked exit at the Immigration Court on Tuesday, in Seattle. Martha Bellisle/Associated Press 'Individuals are always free to exercise their First Amendment rights in San Francisco, but violence, especially against SFPD officers, will never be tolerated,' San Francisco police posted on social media. Advertisement Police described Monday's march as 'overwhelmingly peaceful,' but said 'two small groups broke off and committed vandalism and other criminal acts.' Several people were detained or arrested, police said. Seattle About 50 people gathered outside the immigration court in downtown Seattle on Tuesday, chanting with drums and holding up signs that said, 'Free Them All; Abolish ICE' and 'No to Deportations.' The protest was initially peaceful but protesters began putting scooters in front of building entryways before police arrived. Mathieu Chabaud, with Students for a Democratic Society at the University of Washington, said they were there in solidarity with the Los Angeles protesters, 'and to show that we're opposed to ICE in our community.' Legal advocates who normally attend the immigration court hearings as observers and to provide support to immigrants were not allowed inside the building. Security guards also turned away the media. The hearings are normally open to the public. Hundreds of protesters gathered in Lower Manhattan early Tuesday evening for a demonstration against Trump's immigration crackdown, continuing several days of protests that began more than 2,400 miles away in Los Angeles. VICTOR J. BLUE/NYT New York City A mass of people rallied in lower Manhattan on Tuesday evening to protest deportations and federal immigration policy. Demonstrators gathered outside two federal buildings that house immigration courts and began marching amid a heavy police presence. Some protesters held signs reading 'ICE out of New York' and others chanted, 'Why are you in riot gear? I don't see no riot here.' New York City police said multiple people were taken into custody. There were no immediate charges. Chicago In Chicago, a small crowd gathered Tuesday outside immigration court in downtown and called for an end to Trump administration immigration sweeps and military presence in California. Demonstrators against President Trump's immigration crackdown clashed with police in downtown Chicago on Tuesday. JAMIE KELTER DAVIS/NYT 'With the militarization of Los Angeles it's time to get out and let Trump know this is unacceptable,' said retiree Gary Snyderman. 'All of this is so unconstitutional.' Advertisement The group then marched through downtown streets drumming and chanting, 'No more deportations!' The demonstration had grown to at least a thousand protesters by late Tuesday, remaining relatively peaceful with limited engagement between the group and police officers. Santa Ana In Santa Ana near Los Angeles, armored vehicles blocked the road Tuesday morning leading into the Civic Center, where federal immigration officers and numerous city and county agencies have their offices. Workers swept up plastic bottles and broken glass from Monday's protests. Tiny shards of red, black and purple glass littered the pavement. Nearby buildings and the sidewalk were tagged with profane graffiti slogans against ICE and had Trump's name crossed out. A worker rolled paint over graffiti on a wall to block it out. National Guard officers wearing fatigues and carrying rifles prevented people from entering the area unless they worked there. While a small group kept up their demonstration Tuesday, several counter-protesters showed up. One man wore a red T-shirt and Make America Great Again cap as he exchanged words with the crowd opposing the raids. People join members of Mass. 50501 and several local Service Employees International Union (SEIU) chapters in protesting the ICE raids in Los Angeles and the continued detention of David Huerta, on Monday. Brett Phelps for The Boston Globe) Boston Hundreds of people Protesters held signs reading 'Massachusetts stands with our neighbors in Los Angeles' and 'Protect our immigrant neighbors,' and shouted, 'Come for one, come for all' and 'Free David, free them all.' Huerta, president of Service Employees International Union California, was released from federal custody later Monday on $50,000 bond. 'An immigrant doesn't stand between an American worker and a good job, a billionaire does,' said Chrissy Lynch, President of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. Advertisement Washington, D.C. Several unions gathered Monday in Washington to protest the raids and rally for Huerta's release, and marched past the Department of Justice building. Among the demonstrators was U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington state. 'Enough of these mass ICE raids that are sweeping up innocent people,' Jayapal said. 'As we see people exercising the constitutional rights to peacefully use their voices to speak out against this injustice, they are being met with tear gas and rubber bullets.' People protest against recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests in the Columbia Heights neighborhood in D.C., on Tuesday. ERIC LEE/NYT Associated Press writers Martha Bellisle in Seattle, Sophia Tareen in Chicago, Leah Willingham in Boston, Michael Hill in New York and Amy Taxin in Santa Ana, California, contributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal crackdown on protests raises 1st Amendment concerns
It's been a chaotic few days in Los Angeles amid immigration raids, protests against those raids and violence that stemmed from the throngs who took to the streets of downtown Los Angeles. It's prompted the deployment of military personnel to augment law enforcement in L.A., something Gov. Gavin Newsom and other local leaders say is an unconstitutional use of power by federal officials. But the use of the military isn't the only alleged violation of the Constitution to emerge from this crackdown. Free-speech advocates have noted that some actions by law enforcement aren't targeting those suspected of being in the country illegally. Instead, they're taking aim at those who stand with immigrants and against federal law enforcement, which they characterize as violations of the First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful protest. Perhaps the most prominent example over the weekend was the arrest of David Huerta, president of the California branch of the Service Employees International Union, who faces a felony charge of conspiracy to impede an officer after a protest on Friday. But the alleged infringement upon First Amendment rights in Southern California dates back farther than just this weekend. In a report about Stephen Miller, a top White House advisor, pressuring federal law enforcement to deport more people, the Wall Street Journal listed a May 1 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid on a home in Irvine as an example of established rules and best practices being thrown out. That day, ICE was looking for Michael Chang, who'd allegedly put up fliers identifying ICE officers in the area. Even though Chang had moved to New York the month before, his parents' Turtle Rock home was raided while they slept by ICE agents who arrived in 'a phalanx of military vehicles.' Federal officials say Chang's fliers were an act of 'doxxing,' or publicizing personal information often with malicious intent. A Department of Homeland Security official responded to KTLA's request for an interview with an agency representative with the following statement: 'Homeland Security Investigations & U.S. Secret Service served a criminal search warrant in an upscale Irvine neighborhood, targeting the suspect they believe was responsible for posting fliers w/ the names, photos, phone numbers, & locations of ICE agents in Southern California in February.' However, Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said identifying law enforcement officers is not a crime unless there's a call for violence or harm. 'In this case, from what we know about what was on the flier, there was nothing that amounted to a threat,' Terr told KTLA. 'There's no evidence of a threat or intent to harm anybody, just the dissemination of information coupled with political criticism.' In the weeks since that Irvine raid, federal officials have kept mum, even as FIRE requested more detailed information, Terr said. U.S. Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine) released a statement last month saying his office also sought more information, but if they received any updates, they haven't been disclosed. Min's office did not return a request for more information prior to publication. Further complicating the issue, President Donald Trump and his so-called 'border czar' Tom Homan have threatened political opponents and protesters with criminal prosecution, which they say could be necessary to protect the safety of officers. But it's not just officers' safety that seems to be Trump's concern. He's said that anyone who protests the military parade on Saturday — which is also Trump's birthday — will be met with 'very heavy force.' 'If there's any protester that wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' Trump said, as reported by NBC News. 'I haven't even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.' Terr said that notion doesn't align with the Bill of Rights. 'That's concerning because people who are peacefully protesting shouldn't be met with any level of government force … It's very important for the government and for law enforcement to understand what the First Amendment does and doesn't protect and to let that guide their actions.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.