Starting in March 2025, the White House has been issuing executive orders to several major law firms (Big Law), including Jenner & Block, Paul Weiss, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey.
These orders restrict attorneys’ access to government buildings, threaten to cancel government contracts, and require federal contractors to disclose any business dealings with them.
The firms have been targeted due to their diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) policies, which Trump labels as “unlawful discrimination,” as well as their connections to his political opponents. For example, Trump has criticised WilmerHale, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block for their associations with individuals linked to Robert Mueller, who led an investigation into allegations of Russian interference in Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Similarly, Perkins Coie was condemned for connections to his opponent, Hillary Clinton, during the same election.
Trump didn’t stop there. On March 17, Andrea Lucas, the Trump-appointed acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), sent letters to 20 major law firms, alleging that their hiring practices and DEI policies may violate discrimination laws.
These actions have drawn significant criticism as being unconstitutional and undemocratic, with considerable potential impacts on the law firms involved. Jenner & Block, for instance, has reported that 40% of its revenue over the past five years has come from clients affiliated with the government. Moreover, the notion that law firms might refrain from undertaking certain pro bono work for clients deemed unfavorable by the government is particularly concerning.
Challenging the executive orders
Some of the law firms threatened with executive orders have decided to fight back. Jenner & Block filed a lawsuit against Trump’s administration and was awarded a temporary restraining order by the district court on the same day, meaning most of the executive order is not currently being enforced. WilmerHale and Perkins Coie have taken similar actions and were also granted temporary restraining orders, with federal judges finding that the executive orders likely violate the Constitution.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataFurthermore, on May 2, US District Judge Beryl Howell permanently blocked Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie, stating that it violated the US Constitution. In her ruling, she said that the executive order sends a “clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.” Trump retaliated on his social media platform, Truth Social, where he incorrectly claimed to be suing Perkins Coie, and accused Howell of suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” labeling her an “unmitigated train wreck.”
It has thus been possible for firms to resist Trump and not acquiesce to his demands. However, not all of the targeted law firms have chosen this path.
Appeasing Trump
Paul Weiss offered $40m of pro bono work supporting Trump administration initiatives, in return for Trump rescinding the executive order. Since then, eight other law firms have followed suit, with Trump amassing pledges of free legal services amounting to nearly $1bn.
These major law firms include Kirkland & Ellis, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and A&O Shearman (Allen & Overy). Trump stated that these firms have also agreed to refrain from “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences,” and to commit to “Merit-Based Hiring.” However, specific details of the agreements remain undisclosed.
It appears that Trump has succeeded in intimidating these firms into concessions. In an email to his employees, Paul Weiss’s chair, Brad Karp, suggested that the firm risked bankruptcy if he did not provide pro bono legal services to causes supported by Trump. Nonetheless, this strategy might not pay off in the long term.
Now the backlash
The law firms pledging pro bono services have sparked outrage, including from their own employees. For example, more than 500 associates and staff from A&O have signed a letter urging the firm’s leadership not to enter into an agreement with the President.
While part of the rationale for signing such an agreement appears to be financial, it could backfire. The New York Times reported that Microsoft had stopped using Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett to advise on its takeover of Activision Blizzard and has since turned to Jenner & Block, which is challenging a Trump executive order.
Although the reasons behind this decision are unknown, it suggests that clients are willing to support firms being challenged by Trump.
Furthermore, the Financial Times reported that senior executives at two investment firms indicated that they would prefer to avoid working with law firms that had entered into an agreement with Trump. One corporate general counsel told the FT that her company is considering ending relationships with such firms, stating, “I’m not sure how you can give the [settling] firms business when we don’t know what they agreed to.”
The implications of conceding to Trump extend beyond the potential loss of clients. Democratic lawmakers, led by Dave Min and April McClain Delaney, have sent letters to the nine law firms warning them that their agreements with Trump might in fact be illegal, potentially involving racketeering, bribery, extortion, and defrauding the public.
In these letters, the lawmakers express sympathy for the firms, stating that the Administration is “using coercive and illegal measures to target certain law firms.” Nonetheless, they assert that the agreements “raise significant ethical concerns” and urge the firms to reconsider their deals with Trump.
The broader implications for Big Law
Big Law’s reaction to Trump’s attacks has alarmed many. If law firms become hesitant to challenge the administration, they may also shy away from representing clients who are marginalised by the current government.
Trump could also escalate his demands, requesting increasing amounts of pro bono time for causes he supports.
Judge Beryl Howell, who ruled on the Perkins Coie case, noted that these arrangements “appear only to forestall, rather than eliminate, the threat of being targeted.”
On the other hand, Trump stands to gain from Big Law’s capitulation. In an interview with TIME magazine, the President summarised the situation: “I’ve gotta be doing something right, because I’ve had a lot of law firms give me a lot of money.”
