The Trump Administration’s First 100 Days:
Trying to Cripple the Left: The president and his allies in Congress are targeting the financial, digital and legal machinery that powers the Democratic Party and much of the progressive political world.
F.T.C. Purge: President Trump fired the two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission, a rejection of the corporate regulator’s traditional independence that may clear the way for the administration’s agenda. Here’s what’s at stake.
Kennedy Center: A recording of Trump’s private remarks at a Kennedy Center board meeting shows that he mused about bestowing honors on dead celebrities and people from outside the arts.
Courts Dig for Truth: The litigation unleashed by Trump’s second term, combined with the president’s distortions and lies, is testing the judicial system’s practice of deferring to the executive branch’s determinations about what is true.
Bridging a Republican Divide: Vice President JD Vance made an explicit attempt to bridge warring factions within the Republican Party, arguing that the “tensions” between the populist and tech wings of the conservative movement could be overcome.
Education Department: The department was ordered by a federal judge to restore some federal grants that were terminated as part of the Trump administration’s purge of diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Transgender Troops: A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from banning transgender people from serving in the military.
Trump’s Revenge on Law Firms Seen as Undermining Justice System
The president’s use of government power to punish firms is seen by some legal experts as undercutting a basic tenet: the right to a strong legal defense.
President Trump’s retribution against law firms has shaken offices across Washington and beyond. Credit: Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times
by Michael S. Schmidt
March 12, 2025
New York Times
President Trump’s retribution campaign against law firms, legal experts and analysts say, is undermining a central tenet of the American legal system — the right to a lawyer to argue vigorously on one’s behalf.
With the stroke of a pen last week, Mr. Trump sought to cripple Perkins Coie, a firm that worked with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, by stripping its lawyers of security clearances needed to represent some clients and limiting the firm’s access to government buildings and officials.
That action came after he revoked security clearances held by any lawyers at the firm Covington & Burling who were helping provide legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump’s actions, and open threats of more to come, have shaken law firms across Washington and beyond, leaving them looking at their client lists and wondering whether their representation could put them in the president’s cross hairs and endanger their business. Perkins Coie has acknowledged that in just the few days since Mr. Trump signed the executive order it “has already lost significant revenue” because of clients who have severed their relationship with the firm.
“This is certainly the biggest affront to the legal profession in my lifetime,” said Samuel W. Buell, who is a longtime professor of law at Duke University and a former federal prosecutor.
A federal judge on Wednesday sided with Perkins Coie in an initial courtroom skirmish with the White House, temporarily barring a major portion of Mr. Trump’s executive order against the firm from taking effect.
“I am sure that many in the profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through,” said Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington. She added, “It sends little chills down my spine” to hear arguments that a president can punish individuals and companies like this.
Her reaction mirrored those of other legal experts who said the issues at stake go far beyond whether or not Mr. Trump will make life difficult for elite law firms and well-paid lawyers.
The experts say Mr. Trump’s actions could create a trickle-down effect in which those who find themselves under scrutiny from Mr. Trump and his administration struggle to find lawyers who are willing to defend them in the face of the vast powers of the federal government. Those facing scrutiny could be forced to turn to less skilled lawyers or firms that enjoy access or good ties to the White House, the experts say.
“If you’re a political enemy, you really need the best representation when the government comes after you for who you are,” said Daniel C. Richman, a professor of law at Columbia University and former federal prosecutor. “Chilling the lawyers who represent those people hurts the rule of law because when the government can’t be legally opposed, the law provides no protections to anyone and you start to live in an autocracy.”
Mr. Trump’s attack on Big Law comes as his administration has also gone after law schools, the American Bar Association and even lawyers inside the government itself who might question or hinder his agenda.
Mr. Trump sought to cripple Perkins Coie, a firm that worked with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Credit: Alex Kent/Getty Images
Last week, the top federal prosecutor in Washington threatened to stop hiring graduates from Georgetown Law School if its dean, William Treanor, failed to abolish the school’s diversity programs. Mr. Treanor all but dared the prosecutor, Ed Martin, to make good on his threats, saying that the First Amendment would forbid them.
Mr. Trump has often relied on pliant lawyers to do his bidding, and last month he fired the three top lawyers in the armed forces who are supposed to advise military leaders on the legality of various policies and operations. The lawyers, known as judge advocates general, were fired without reference to their professional performance, raising concerns that the administration wanted replacements who would be more amenable to Mr. Trump’s orders.
One of the first big tests of this new era arose late last week, setting off maneuvering that shows how big firms in Washington are rushing to adapt to the new challenges they face, according to interviews with people involved in or briefed on those discussions.
In his executive order targeting Perkins Coie, Mr. Trump was going after a firm that represented Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and repeatedly won election law cases in 2020 against Mr. Trump’s campaign. Mr. Trump singled out Perkins Coie’s involvement in a dossier complied during the 2016 campaign by a former British spy about Mr. Trump’s potential ties to Russia.
Amid concerns in the legal community about a chilling effect, few, if any, major firms issued statements condemning Mr. Trump’s action. And amid that silence there was a question about whether any firm would take the even bigger step of agreeing to represent Perkins Coie in its effort to challenge Mr. Trump’s executive order in court.
Perkins Coie reached out to Derek L. Shaffer, a lawyer at the firm Quinn Emanuel. Mr. Shaffer had a long history of bringing civil actions against federal and state governments, and had argued before the Supreme Court three times. Perkins Coie wanted to see if he could take on the firm as a client and quickly go to court to file a suit against the Trump administration to stop the executive order.
Convincing Mr. Shaffer to take the case would come with a major potential bonus: close links to Mr. Trump and his allies.
Lawyers at Quinn Emanuel represent Elon Musk and provide ethics advice to the Trump Organization. The firm has also represented Mayor Eric Adams of New York as the Trump Justice Department has moved swiftly to drop corruption charges against Mr. Adams, a Democrat.
But Perkins Coie was rebuffed. Quinn Emanuel decided against taking the case. Its top leaders concluded that this was not an issue they wanted to jump into at this stage as they continue to build themselves into a power center in Mr. Trump’s Washington.
Other major law firms expressed concerns that if they represented Perkins Coie, they, too, could face Mr. Trump’s ire. Leaders of top firms asked: How would their own clients react if Mr. Trump cut off their access to the government?
In response, the elite Washington firm Williams and Connolly decided it would take on Perkins Coie as a client.
It’s unclear why Williams and Connolly was willing to take a risk that other firms were not. But lawyers at Williams and Connolly have long taken pride in their role as an adversary and check against the government, including by highlighting the firm’s role in protecting high-profile defendants against prosecutorial misconduct. The firm was founded by the well-known defense lawyer Edward Bennett Williams, who built his career on vigorously representing an array of clients before the government, including those out of political favor.
On Tuesday, Williams and Connolly, on behalf of Perkins Coie, filed suit against the Trump administration in Washington. That suit led to Judge Howell’s ruling on Wednesday imposing a temporary restraining order to block for now the section of Mr. Trump’s executive order that essentially barred Perkins Coie from dealing with federal officials and prevented it from entering government buildings. She said the executive order was most likely unconstitutional.
Other law firms have been discussing whether to file a joint amicus brief on behalf of Perkins Coie. While some major firms have signaled they are willing to sign onto it, others have said they are reluctant. On Wednesday, 21 state attorneys general filed their own amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie.
Covington & Burling, which had the security clearance stripped from a lawyer at the firm who was assisting Mr. Smith, has taken a different approach from that of Perkins Coie.
Covington has declined to fight Mr. Trump in court. Instead, the firm, concerned about a perception among its clients that it was falling out of favor with Mr. Trump, has begun discussions with other prominent law firms with fewer ties to Mr. Trump’s perceived enemies about becoming the face of some of their most important cases before the Justice Department.
But beyond what Mr. Trump has done to law firms, the political appointees he has placed at departments, agencies and commissions are taking on the legal profession in other ways.
One of Mr. Trump’s political appointees has ordered government officials under him to not renew their memberships to the American Bar Association, hold a position with the association or attend its events.
Mr. Trump said that he would strip security clearances from any lawyers at the firm Covington & Burling who were helping provide legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against him. Credit: Doug Mills/The New York Times
At the Justice Department, the attorney general has sent a letter to the American Bar Association questioning its diversity practices.
And last week, at an annual conference on white-collar crime for the association, a slew of top officials from the Justice Department — who regularly attend the event — canceled at the last minute. That meant that a conference designed to bring together the industry about an important topic was devoid of senior department officials in charge of enforcing the law.
Abbie VanSickle and Alan Feuer contributed reporting.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Michael S. Schmidt is an investigative reporter for The Times covering Washington. His work focuses on tracking and explaining high-profile federal investigations.
More about Michael S. Schmidt
A version of this article appears in print on March 14, 2025, Section A, Page 22 of the New York edition with the headline: Out for Revenge, Trump Chills Law Firms and the People They Defend. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper
See more on: U.S. Politics, Donald Trump, Hillary Rodham Clinton
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/24/trump-judges-impeachment-law-doge
Donald Trump
‘The authoritarian playbook’: Trump targets judges, lawyers … and law itself
Attacks on key US institutions seek to stifle dissent, exact revenge and subordinate them to the president, experts say
Never miss global breaking news. Download our free app to keep up with key stories in real time.
Peter Stone
Mon 24 Mar 2025 07.00 EDT
As Donald Trump aggressively seeks revenge against multiple foes in the US, he’s waging a vendetta using executive orders and social media against judges, law firms, prosecutors, the press and other vital American institutions to stifle dissent and exact retribution.
Legal scholars say the president’s menacing attacks, some of which Trump’s biggest campaign backer, the billionaire Elon Musk, has echoed, are aimed at silencing critics of his radical agenda and undercut the rule of law in authoritarian ways that expand his own powers.
“Trump’s moves are from the authoritarian playbook,” said the Harvard law school lecturer and retired Massachusetts judge Nancy Gertner. “You need to delegitimize institutions that could be critics. Trump is seeking to use the power of the presidency to delegitimize institutions including universities, law firms, judges and others. It’s the opposite of American democracy.”
In a stunning move on Tuesday, Trump railed that a top Washington DC judge ought to be impeached for ruling to halt the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelans allegedly including gang members, sparking the chief justice of the supreme court, John Roberts, hours later to issue a strong statement against calls to impeach judges for their rulings.
Trump could reshape judiciary with 300 judge appointments, analysis shows
Read more
Legal scholars sharply criticize other attacks by Trump and the Maga world on judges who have issued rulings against executive orders or Musk’s “department of government efficiency” (Doge), with the goal of weakening the judicial branch to boost Trump’s powers.
Fears about Trump’s war on his critics rose this month as the president issued executive orders penalizing three big law firms including Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie. Critics say Trump’s sanctions against the firms were sparked by their clients, respectively ex-special counsel Jack Smith, who brought charges against Trump for trying to subvert his 2020 election loss, and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, which hired the firm that helped pay for a dossier alleging collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign.
Those executive orders, which included barring some firms from entering federal buildings, interacting with agencies and taking away security clearances from some lawyers, were widely seen as punitive measures to hurt them financially.
District Judge Beryl Howell on 12 March blocked the Trump administration from enforcing key parts of its order against Perkins Coie, which she stated “runs head-on into the wall of first amendment protections”.
The third law firm Trump targeted with an executive order was Paul Weiss Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, whose former partner Mark Pomerantz later tried to build a criminal case against Trump when he worked at the Manhattan district attorney’s office. But Trump’s executive order was reversed on 19 March after the firm agreed to provide $40m in pro bono services to support administration priorities.
Legal scholars have also denounced justice department firings or demotions of some two dozen lawyers who worked on cases against Trump allies convicted for attacking the Capitol on 6 January 2021 in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election victory.
In a stark show of vindictiveness and historical revisionism about his role inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol and baseless claims that his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden was rigged, Trump addressed a justice department gathering on 14 March and proclaimed he intended to end the “weaponization” of the law against him.
In an angry and rambling talk, Trump singled out among others Jack Smith, to whom Covington provided pro bono help, and the former Perkins lawyer Marc Elias, a key figure in fighting Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was fraudulent.
Trump blasted them and others who had investigated him as “bad people, really bad people … They tried to turn America into a corrupt communist and third-world country, but in the end, the thugs failed and the truth won.”
The sheer vindictiveness … has disrupted lives, inflicted costs and even raised security concerns
Daniel Richman
Shortly after Trump spoke, the Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who taught constitutional law for two decades, gave a sharp rebuttal at a rally outside the justice department. “No other president in American history has stood in the Department of Justice to proclaim an agenda of criminal prosecution and retaliation against his political foes,” Raskin said.
Legal experts say Trump’s attacks on lawyers and judges are dangerous.
“The sheer vindictiveness with which Trump and his allies have targeted lawyers – both in government service and in private practice – and judges has disrupted lives, inflicted costs and even raised security concerns,” said Daniel Richman, a Columbia law professor and former federal prosecutor.
“I’m sure some are intimidated, and that certainly seems the intent. Others will cozy up to him. But the more this occurs – and I don’t imagine it will stop – the more it will look like Trump’s problem is less with those who practice law and more with law itself. Even allies who cheer his tactics may soon wonder how they would fare in a lawless world.”
Other legal scholars express grave concerns with Trump’s widening attacks on law firms, judges and other institutions that have criticized his policies and power grabs.
Trump at his hush-money trial with his lawyers Todd Blanche, left, and Emil Bove, right. Blanche is now deputy attorney general and Bove is principal associate deputy attorney general. Photograph: Michael M Santiago/AP
“Trump’s sanctions against Covington and Perkins serve two purposes. In the immediate term, he gets revenge against two firms that have offended him,” said NYU law professor Stephen Gillers.
Gillers stressed that these orders also “warn other law firms that they face the same punishment if they cross Trump by representing plaintiffs challenging his executive orders. In fact, the executive orders should be called by their rightful name: vendettas.”
Gillers added that the “only remaining institutional threat to Trump’s quest for total power is the judiciary … Lawyers are the gatekeepers for access to judicial power. We see a double-barreled strategy: attack the judges who criticize or rule against Trump as a warning to other judges, and attack law firms as a warning to other law firms that might take Trump to court.”
The surge in Trump administration attacks on judges has been fueled by multiple court rulings that have delayed or scuttled Trump’s executive orders and Musk’s Doge operation to shrink the federal government with scant regard for congressional and judicial powers.
For instance, Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, last week wrote on X: “Under the precedents now being established by radical rogue judges, a district court in Hawaii could enjoin troop movements in Iraq. Judges have no authority to administer the executive branch. Or to nullify the results of a national election.”
Judges who have ruled against Trump have witnessed an uptick in threats. A bomb threat was even made in March against a sister of the conservative supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett after she joined three liberal justices and Chief Justice Roberts in a ruling that went against Trump.
Trump’s rightwing allies in Congress have jumped into the legal fray with calls to impeach certain judges who have ruled against the administration and some of Doge’s radical cost-cutting moves.
After the New York district judge Paul Engelmayer blocked Doge on 8 February from gaining access to millions of sensitive and personal treasury records, Musk baselessly accused him of being a “corrupt judge protecting corruption” on X, the social media site he owns where he has about 200 million followers.
“He needs to be impeached NOW!” Musk said on 9 February.
With Musk nearby in the Oval Office last month, Trump echoed these attacks by the world’s richest man, who donated close to $300m to his campaign:
“It seems hard to believe that a judge could say, ‘We don’t want you to do that,’ so maybe we have to look at the judges because I think that’s a very serious violation,” Trump said.
When you flood the zone with scores of executive orders … no one should be surprised that they’re not withstanding judicial scrutiny
John Jones
To bolster those charges, Derrick Van Orden, a Wisconsin Republican congressman, filed an impeachment resolution against the judge, whose ruling came after more than a dozen Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit arguing Doge could not legally access treasury records with personal details of millions of Americans.
Former federal judges and scholars say that Trump and Musk have pushed the legal envelope in ways that are unprecedented in the US.
“When you flood the zone with scores of executive orders, many of which were clearly based on questionable legal grounds, no one should be surprised that they’re not withstanding judicial scrutiny,” said John Jones, an ex-federal judge who is now president of Dickinson College.
“An additional problem the administration has is that it’s losing credibility with the courts by continually making disingenuous arguments in support of these orders.”
Other critics voice similar concerns.
“Trump’s actions aimed at the role of lawyers and the courts appear to be part of a battle to reduce the judicial branch to being subordinate to the president,” said Larry Noble, a former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission who now teaches law at American University. “If Trump is able to punish lawyers who oppose him and ignore the courts, he will be only steps away from becoming the king he seems to want to be.”
On another front where Trump is eager to snuff out criticism and dissent, the president escalated his attacks on the media in his recent justice department speech by asserting without evidence that some major reporting outlets are “illegal” and “corrupt”.
“These networks and these newspapers are really no different than a highly paid political operative,” Trump said, lashing out at CNN and MSNBC as corrupt.
Trump added in conspiratorial fashion: “It has to stop, it has to be illegal, it’s influencing judges and it’s really changing law, and it just cannot be legal.”
Trump’s widening attacks on the press, the courts, law firms and other American institutions damage the rule of law in Raskin’s eyes.
“Trump is attacking any source of potential institutional opposition,” Raskin said. “Anyone who offers any kind of resistance is a target of Trump’s. We’re seeing an explosion of Trump’s incorrigible lawlessness.”
Explore more on these topics:
Donald Trump
US justice system
Law (US)
US politics
Trump administration
news
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/19/nx-s1-5323890/experts-say-trumps-targeting-of-law-firms-is-unprecedented
Law
Experts say Trump's targeting of law firms is unprecedented
Heard on All Things Considered
by Ryan Lucas
March 19, 2025
NPR
4-Minute Listen
Transcript
President Trump has signed three orders punishing law firms that have represented people or causes unpopular with the president.
MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
President Trump talked repeatedly on the campaign trail about seeking vengeance against his political enemies. Since his return to office, he has followed through on that threat. That includes punishing law firms that have represented people or causes unpopular with the president. NPR justice correspondent Ryan Lucas reports.
RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: In recent weeks, President Trump has used the power of the presidency to take aim at three prominent big law firms. First, Trump took executive action to suspend security clearances for certain attorneys at the firm of Covington & Burling. Days later, he took a much bigger swing at another firm, Perkins Coie, suspending all security clearances held by its employees, prohibiting government contractors from retaining the firm and barring its attorneys access to government officials and buildings. A few days later, he followed up with yet another executive order, this time against the New York-based law firm of Paul Weiss.
TIMOTHY ZICK: I'm not familiar with anything like this coming out of any White House historically.
LUCAS: Timothy Zick is a professor at William & Mary Law School.
ZICK: This is an effort to target and retaliate against law firms that were doing lawful work, advocacy on behalf of their clients.
LUCAS: The reason for Trump's animus differs with each firm. Covington & Burling attorneys represent former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, who led the federal investigations of Trump. Perkins Coie represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, and former attorneys there had a hand in the creation of the infamous Trump-Russia dossier. And with the third law firm, Paul Weiss, one of its former attorneys had worked cases against Trump. Speaking with Fox News earlier this month, the president suggested there would be more to come.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have a lot of law firms that we're going to be going after because they were very dishonest people. They were very, very dishonest. I could go point after point after point.
LUCAS: Presidents generally have broad authority on national security matters and in granting and revoking security clearances. But two of the law firm orders also implicate free speech, due process and choice of counsel. Whatever Trump's stated reason may be in each instance, University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein says the president's goal in going after law firms appears clear.
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN: I think if you look at the purpose of the executive orders, it's to intimidate professionals, to intimidate the legal profession from engaging in professional activities that go against Donald Trump and the current administration.
LUCAS: Finkelstein says targeting law firms is part and parcel of a broader assault on the legal community, including the courts. Some federal judges who have ruled against the Trump administration have faced online threats and calls for impeachment. On Tuesday, Trump himself lashed out on social media at a judge handling an immigration-related case and said, in all caps, the judge should be impeached. Again, Finkelstein.
FINKELSTEIN: Now they're going after the lawyers and saying, you know, you should be intimidated from even bringing suits that oppose the government in the first place. It's a clear shot across the bow with regard to any law firms that represent clients who want to challenge government action.
LUCAS: In the case of Perkins Coie, the firm is pushing back. It filed a lawsuit last week challenging the president's order. A day later, a federal judge agreed to temporarily block enforcement of the order, saying it likely violates the First, Fifth and Sixth amendments. Despite that ruling, Trump followed up just days later with his new executive order targeting a third big law firm. One of the main questions now is what, if anything, will the legal community do to defend what experts say are bedrock principles of the American legal system? Zick says it's important that law firms present a united front.
ZICK: There should be significant pushback against this sort of executive action because, you know, your firm could be next. Or individual lawyers could be subjected to this sort of targeting and retaliation.
LUCAS: Two sources tell NPR there's an effort underway among top lawyers at several big law firms to file a brief in the Perkins case supporting the firm and defending the rule of law. But some law firms are hesitant to sign on, worried about potentially being Trump's next target.
Ryan Lucas, NPR News, Washington.
Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-us-lawyers-decry-trump-orders-their-law-firms-stay-silent-2025-03-18/
Trump's attacks on law firms alarm lawyers but most firms stay silent
by Mike Scarcella, David Thomas and Sara Merken
March 18, 2025
Updated 6 days ago
U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 7, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
March 17 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's targeting of major law firms over their diversity policies and political clients has earned condemnation from law professors, bar associations and a federal judge - but not, so far, from other law firms.
Instead, the public reaction from large corporate firms has come mainly from a few of their lawyers, via LinkedIn posts and an online effort involving junior lawyers at Skadden and other firms to encourage a larger institutional response.
Partners at top firms who have denounced Trump's actions on social media have stressed that they are not speaking for their employers. A partner at Polsinelli, who criticized Trump's orders targeting other law firms on LinkedIn, deleted a post accusing the government of "trying to destroy the rule of law and instill fear" after she was contacted by Reuters on Monday.
Reuters contacted 30 of the largest U.S. firms, including some representing clients suing the Trump administration over other matters, for their response to recent government actions against law firms. All either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment.
An early sign emerged on Tuesday that Munger Tolles & Olson may be organizing other law firms to file a friend-of-the-court brief challenging an executive order Trump issued against Perkins Coie. A legal executive at GE Healthcare, Mara Senn, said in a LinkedIn post that the firm would be submitting the brief next month and encouraged others to sign on.
Senn, GE Healthcare and lawyers at Munger did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
No major law firm that was not directly targeted by Trump has spoken publicly against the president's actions other than Williams & Connolly, which is representing Perkins Coie in its lawsuit challenging the White House executive order.
Trump issued his latest law firm executive order on Friday against Paul Weiss, a litigation and dealmaking powerhouse whose 1,000-plus lawyers advise some of the country's largest financial and technology companies.
On Monday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent letters to 20 large firms demanding extensive details about their lawyers' demographics in a broad crackdown on legal industry diversity efforts.
The Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie orders suspended their lawyers' security clearances and restricted their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work. Trump also last month suspended security clearances of two lawyers at Covington & Burling, in each case citing the firms' past work for his political or legal opponents.
MARSHALING SUPPORT
Twenty U.S. states and the District of Columbia filed a court brief backing Perkins Coie last week, calling Trump's executive order "menacing" and a threat to the practice of law across the country. The American Bar Association and other professional groups have also issued statements backing the targeted firms.
Organized efforts to mount a joint response by large law firms have yet to yield concrete results, however.
As of Tuesday afternoon, an open letter urging major firms "to defend their colleagues and the legal profession" from Trump's actions had 444 signatories who identified themselves as associates at dozens of firms. The letter did not name the lawyers, only their firms.
Associates at three of the firms told Reuters they were looking for more ways to support those targeted by Trump, such as advocating for their firms to sign onto a legal brief backing Perkins Coie's lawsuit.
"It can't stop with saying, largely anonymously, someone should really do something about this," said Rachel Cohen, a banking associate at Skadden who was an early organizer of the letter.
Cohen said she was speaking only for herself. A spokesperson for Skadden did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The bar has been caught off guard by how quickly Trump has moved "to dismantle the rule of law and American-style checks and balances in this country," said Daniel McCuaig, an antitrust litigator at plaintiffs law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.
McCuaig, speaking on his own behalf, said lawyers especially "need to start raising their voices now to turn this tide."
McCuaig's firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
AVOIDING RISK
Legal experts said concerns about the reaction of their corporate clients and potential retribution from the administration are helping to mute law firms' response to the president's actions so far.
"Most lawyers are risk averse. They are not naturally brave," said Leslie Levin, a legal ethics scholar at the University of Connecticut School of Law. "You need to be brave to speak out under the present circumstances."
Perkins Coie's lawsuit said at least seven of its clients, including a major government contractor, have already withdrawn legal work because of Trump's executive order or were considering doing so, costing the firm "significant revenue."
A federal judge last week granted Perkins Coie's request to temporarily block parts of the order against it, saying the legal industry was "watching in horror" at what the law firm was experiencing.
Reporting by David Thomas in Chicago, Mike Scarcella in Washington and Sara Merken in New York; Editing by David Bario and Richard Chang
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
David Thomas reports on the business of law, including law firm strategy, hiring, mergers and litigation. He is based out of Chicago. He can be reached at d.thomas@thomsonreuters.com and on Twitter @DaveThomas5150.
Sara Merken reports on the business of law, including legal innovation and law firms in New York and nationally.
