Latest news with #LawFirmOrders
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Business
- Boston Globe
Big law firms withdraw from challenging Trump
But Winston declined to represent the FBI agents, three people with knowledge of the matter said. It was one of several cases Winston turned down in quick succession, they added, that would have pitted the firm against an openly retributive president. Advertisement Some of the country's largest law firms have declined to represent clients challenging the Trump administration, more than a dozen attorneys and nonprofit leaders told ProPublica, while others have sought to avoid any clients that Trump might perceive as his enemies. That includes both clients willing to pay the firms' steep rates, and those who receive free representation. Big Law firms are also refusing to take on legal work involving environmental protections, LGBTQ+ rights and police accountability or to represent elected Democrats and federal workers purged in Trump's war on the 'deep state.' Advocacy groups say this is beginning to hamper their efforts to challenge the Trump administration. Advertisement Their fears intensified after Trump signed a battery of executive orders aimed at punishing top firms over old associations with his adversaries. But as the Winston episode shows, Big Law began to back away from some clients almost the minute he returned to power. The country's top firms remain deeply wary, even though the president has lost all four initial court challenges to those executive orders. 'The President's Policy is working as designed,' said a lawsuit the American Bar Association filed against the administration in June. 'Even as federal judges have ruled over and over that the Law Firm Orders are plainly unconstitutional, law firms that once proudly contributed thousands of hours of pro bono work to a host of causes — including causes championed by the ABA — have withdrawn from such work because it is disfavored by the Administration.' The bar association itself has struggled to find representation, Advertisement The ABA and Susman Godfrey, which is representing the association in its lawsuit against the administration, declined to comment. Winston, Sidley and the White House did not respond to questions sent in writing. Trump's grievances with Big Law stem partly from its role in blocking his first-term agenda. In his executive order targeting Jenner & Block, a firm with close ties to the Democratic Party that fought Trump on transgender rights and immigration, he assailed the firm for allegedly 'abus[ing] its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice.' Another firm, WilmerHale, was where former Special Counsel Robert Mueller worked before and after leading the Russian interference investigation. The executive orders barred attorneys working for the firms from entering federal buildings where they represent clients, terminated the firms' government contracts, revoked partners' security clearances and required government contractors to disclose if they work with the targeted firms. Perkins Coie, one of Trump's first targets, began to lose business 'within hours,' 'I just think that the law firms have to behave themselves,' Trump said at a press conference in late March. Nine corporate law firms behaved themselves in the form of reaching public settlements with Trump. The deals require them to provide $940 million in total of pro bono support for Trump-approved causes. There has been no public indication of the White House calling on them to perform specific work, and Trump has not released any new executive orders against firms since April. Yet organizations that challenge the government are still feeling the chill. Advertisement 'There's been a real, noticeable shift,' said Lauren Bonds, the executive director of the National Police Accountability Project, a national nonprofit that brings lawsuits over alleged police abuse and was a frequent pro bono client of Big Law. In November, as soon as Trump won reelection, a top firm that was helping NPAP develop a lawsuit against a city's police force abruptly stopped attending all planning calls, Bonds said. Later, the firm became one of the nine that struck a deal with Trump, after which the firm half-heartedly told Bonds, she said, that it would reconsider the case in the future. Bonds declined to identify the firm. Activist nonprofits have long relied on free representation because they typically lack the resources to mount major lawsuits on their own. Civil rights cases in particular are complex undertakings usually lasting years. Many call for hundreds of hours spent deposing witnesses and performing research, as well as upfront costs of tens of thousands of dollars. Big Law, with its deep ranks of attorneys and paying clients to subsidize their volunteer work, is in a unique position to help. In exchange, the work burnishes the firm's reputation and serves as a draw for idealistic young associates. 'I know that [cases] have been shot down that in Trump Administration 1, firms would crawl over each other to get our name at the top of the case so that we could get the New York Times headline,' said a Big Law partner whose firm has not been one of Trump's targets. 'That's the environment. What's become radioactive has grown from a very small number of things to anything this administration and Trump might notice and get angry about.' Advertisement Jill Collen Jefferson, the president and founder of Julian, a small nonprofit that investigates civil rights violations, has felt the chill too. Three years ago, Julian partnered with the elite law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, the country's No. 1 corporate firm most years by per-partner revenue, to bring lawsuits against the town of Lexington, Mississippi, and its police force for racial discrimination. 'It wasn't hard at all to get help,' she recalled. George Floyd's death had raised public support for police accountability, and the details Since January, when Trump began Jefferson now doubts Julian's ability to bring a police abuse lawsuit it had planned to file before the statute of limitations expires this month. Advertisement 'It's been a nightmare,' she said. 'People don't want to stand up, and because of that, people are suffering.' NPAP ultimately joined forces with another civil rights organization to salvage the case after its co-counsel disappeared from planning calls last November. But the suit will be 'less robust' without the firepower of a major law firm, Bonds said. And NPAP's capacity to file future suits is in question. Civil rights attorneys in NPAP's network have developed novel legal theories for challenging arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement under state constitutions, but they lack enough outside partnerships. 'There are cases that aren't being brought at a time when civil rights abuses are maybe at the highest they've been in modern times,' Bonds said. Big Law was often in the vanguard of fighting Trump's first administration. After he signed the 2017 travel ban affecting several predominantly Muslim countries, partners from Now, Davis Polk is among the many firms that are avoiding pro bono immigration cases, Winston & Strawn's annual pro bono reports show how its focus — or at least, its language — has changed. The firm's 2023 Eisen and Zaid, the lawyers representing the FBI agents, themselves became the target of Zaid sued to restore his security clearance in May, in a case that is ongoing. His lawyer, Abbe Lowell, is a high-profile defense attorney who left Winston this spring in order to form his own firm. Lowell said his goal is to represent those 'unlawfully and inappropriately targeted.' New York Attorney General Letitia James, who won a fraud judgment against Trump and is now a target of his DOJ, was one of his first clients. 'The Administration's attempt at retribution against Mark for doing his job — representing whistleblowers without regard to politics — is as illegal as its similar efforts against law firms that have been enjoined in every case,' Lowell wrote in an email to ProPublica. Good-government groups and small and mid-sized law firms have stepped into the breach, helping to file hundreds of lawsuits against the Trump administration. And the four firms that sued Trump over his executive orders are devoting thousands of pro bono hours to others challenging the administration. Perkins Coie, for example, has replaced Kirkland as Lambda Legal's partner in challenging Trump's transgender military ban. But until they build up the capacity to fully replace Big Law, Bonds said, some of the administration's legally dubious actions will go unchallenged. 'There's a financial resources piece that we're really missing when we can't engage a firm,' Bonds said. 'Even if there's a big case and we feel really confident about it, we'll just have to pass on it.'
The Hill
16-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
ABA sues Trump over series of orders targeting law firms
The American Bar Association (ABA) has filed a lawsuit challenging the administration's crackdown on the legal profession, casting President Trump's various executive orders as a 'Law Firm Intimidation Policy.' The First Amendment suit, nearly 100 pages long, argues that Trump's targeting of firms has creating a chilling effect among all firms, regardless of whether they've signed deals with the administration. 'The result of the Law Firm Intimidation Policy has been a pervasive fear within the legal community and the justice system at large. Many attorneys are no longer willing to take on representations that would require suing the federal government because doing so poses a serious risk of becoming the next target of the administration's devastating sanctions,' ABA wrote in a press release announcing the suit. 'This blizzard-like chill on the profession has continued even after firms challenging their own executive orders have won repeated court victories. Those victories only protect those firms. The ABA has filed this action to protect all its members.' Since taking office, Trump signed multiple firm-specific executive orders that scrapped security clearances for lawyers of some firms, and barred their attorneys from entering federal buildings – something numerous firms said would be crippling to their business. He also signed another order pledging sanctions for firms that bring 'vexatious' litigation – a pathway to go after nonprofits as well as larger law firms that provide pro bono legal services in causes that may run afoul of the Trump administration, such as those challenging his immigration policies. Firms that have challenged their targeting under Trump have been on a winning streak in court. But another nine have signed deals with Trump, collectively agreeing to do nearly $1 billion in pro bono work for causes championed by the president. The ABA suit described Trump's policies as 'working as designed.' It said it is limiting pro bono work, including by firms that signed deals with Trump and now do not want to run afoul of the White House. 'Even as federal judges have ruled over and over that the Law Firm Orders are plainly unconstitutional, law firms that once proudly contributed thousands of hours of pro bono work to a host of causes—including causes championed by the ABA—have withdrawn from such work because it is disfavored by the Administration, particularly work that would require law firms to litigate against the federal government,' the ABA wrote in the suit. The suit, filed in D.C., ends with a request to lift all suspensions of security clearances or taking any disciplinary action against ABA members based on their client representation. It frames Trump's orders as an effort to insulate the White House from scrutiny. 'Without skilled lawyers to bring and argue cases—and to do so by advancing the interests of their clients without fear of reprisal from the government—the judiciary cannot function as a meaningful check on executive overreach,' the ABA writes in the suit. The suit also criticizes the unwritten nature of the agreements, saying they had the effect of 'dragooning' firms into Trump's service and 'coerce' them into abandoning their own causes, 'such as immigration cases or diversity initiatives.' It also points to comments from Trump saying law firms will need to 'behave themselves.' 'These firms all agreed to represent clients in pro bono cases approved by the Administration, and to jettison hiring practices disdained by the President. These 'settlements' are apparently not in writing or enforceable by the law firms, so the President can change his mind at any time and impose an executive order if the firms stray too far from the President's wishes—thus maintaining the coercive effect of the Policy even against 'settling' law firms,' the suit states. The White House called the suit frivolous and said they expect to prevail in court. 'The American Bar Association's lawsuit is clearly frivolous. The President has always had discretion over which contracts the government enters into and who receives security clearances. His exercise of these core executive functions cannot be dictated by the ABA, a private organization, or the courts. The Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue,' White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement. The suit is sure to ratchet up tensions between the ABA and the Trump administration. The Justice Department announced last month it would cut the ABA's access to judicial nominees, accusing the association of bias in its review process. The group fought back, calling such claims unfounded, noting that Trump's nominees don't fare any worse than those of other administrations, and questioning why the Trump team wouldn't want to thoroughly vet those up for lifetime appointments to the bench.
