Written By: Hailey Cornish
The Executive Orders
In an unprecedented clash between executive power and the legal profession several Executive Orders were issued by President Trump citing concerns about the conduct of prominent “Big Law” firms, and the risks the Administration believes they pose to national interests. The Orders were issued in response to the actions of firms that the President stated threaten public safety, national security, limit constitutional freedoms, and degrade the quality of our elections. The Executive Orders called attention to the hiring practices of each firm that President Trump believes to be racially discriminatory which his Administration seeks to end under diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.
Executive Order 14230 was issued to address the Administration’s concerns over Perkins Coie LLP. President Trump cited to the firm’s representation of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Presidential Election and their work with other political donors to overturn necessary election laws.
Executive Order 14237 took aim against Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP because of a pro bono suit the firm initiated against individuals involved in events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. President Trump stated the firm hired attorney Mark Pomerantz to manufacture a suit against President Trump himself.
Executive Order 14246 was directed to Jenner & Block LLP and addressed the firm’s representation of partisan interests. The Order specifically referred to the firm’s work related to immigration policy and the work of attorney Andrew Weissmann who participated in an investigation against President Trump.
Executive Order 14250 was issued to address the perceived threats of the firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP for its engagement in representation related to immigration and election policies. The firm was criticized by President Trump for hiring Robert Mueller after he investigated the President which the Order described as the weaponization of the justice system.
Under these Orders President Trump calls for the review and termination of attorney security clearances, government contracts, and to restrict firm personnel from entering federal government facilities. The perceived attack against the legal industry has sparked a debate with professionals deciding how to respond, resist or surrender?
Industry Response
Perkins Coie LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Wilmer Hale separately filed lawsuits challenging the Executive Orders as violating their constitutional rights and freedoms. The firms argue that the Orders undermine the right of clients to counsel of their choice and will have broad implications on the legal profession. They argue that the Orders were issued in retaliation for their representation of clients disliked by the Trump Administration. They sought relief in temporary restraining orders claiming imminent and irreparable harm would be caused by the Orders. The firms have had early successes in court, federal judges in separate rulings issued temporary restraining orders which prevent the Administration from enforcing portions of the executive orders against these firms.
Paul Weiss chose not to litigate but instead was able to have Executive Order 14237 lifted by agreeing to provide $40 million in pro bono services working on causes supported by President Trump and his Administration. Other prominent firms—Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; and Milbank LLP—have preemptively entered into agreements to deliver substantial pro bono services in support of Administration-backed causes in an effort to avoid being the targets of these Executive Orders. These developments come amid increased scrutiny from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission into alleged discriminatory practices at major firms, prompting concern across the legal industry. While these decisions may serve the firms’ and their clients’ best interests, critics warn that such concessions may embolden the Administration to continue leveraging Executive Orders as a means of coercing legal compliance through political and economic pressure.
On April 2, 2025, an amicus brief signed by 363 law professors from across the country was submitted in support of Perkins Coie LLP, stating it was submitted “to emphasize the threat that the President’s Executive Order presents to the independence and integrity of the legal profession.” The argument is that the Order is part of a retaliatory attack against the firm for representing causes President Trump disagrees with and violates various constitutional protections. The brief argues that this perceived threat and coercion not only violates constitutional freedoms but undermines the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law. The brief states that the broader implication of the Order is a judicial system that is vulnerable to executive intimidation and will affect lawyers who may represent politically unpopular clients. The brief urges the court to block enforcement of the Order.
Conclusion
Law firms are now confronted with a stark choice: challenge the Executive Orders through litigation or enter into agreements with the Trump Administration to provide pro bono legal services aligned with its political agenda. Each carries significant risks. Firms that pursue legal action may suffer reputational damage, loss of clients, and financial loss during protracted litigation. Conversely, firms that have opted to enter agreements with the Administration have faced employee dissatisfaction, criticism from legal professionals, and public backlash, despite acting to shield their clients and operations from government retaliation. As the Administration continues its efforts to reshape the legal landscape to conform with national interests, firms must strategically assess how best to safeguard their legal and ethical obligations while navigating an increasingly politicized environment.
Sources:
Benjamin Weiser, What to Know About Paul Weiss, the Law Firm Bowing to Trump’s Demands, N.Y. Times (Mar. 21, 2025) https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/nyregion/what-is-paul-weiss.html.
Brief for Richard L. Abel et al. as Amici Curair supporting Plaintiff, Perkins Coie LLP, No. 1:25-cv-00716-BAH (Apr. 2, 2025).
Exec. Order No. 14230, 90 Fed. Reg. 11781 (Mar. 6, 2025).
Exec Order No. 14237, 90 Fed. Reg. 13039 (Mar. 14, 2025).
Exec. Order No. 14246, 90 Fed. Reg. 13997 (Mar. 25, 2025).
Exec. Order No. 14250, 90 Fed. Reg. 14549 (Mar. 27, 2025).
Justin Henry, Kirkland Talks Deal With Trump White House, Looks to Avoid Order, Bloomberg (Apr. 4, 2025, 8:40PM) https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglawnews/bloomberg-law-news/BNA%2000000195fe0ade03a3d5ff7fedce0000?bna_news_filter=bloomberg-law-news.
Kyle Cheney and Daniel Barnes, Two more law firms targeted by Trump sue to block punishing executive orders, Politico (Mar. 28, 2025, 9:11AM) https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/28/jenner-block-eo-lawsuit-trump-00256160.
Lauren Berg, Ali Sullivan and Alison Knezevich, Judges Block Trump’s Jenner & Block WilmerHale Orders, Law360 (Mar. 28, 2025, 10:46AM) https://www.law360.com/legalindustry/articles/2317186/judges-block-trump-s-jenner-block-wilmerhale-orders.
Nate Raymond, Mike Scarcella, and Andrew Goudsward, Judges block Trump orders targeting two law firms as Skadden cuts deal, Reuters (Mar. 28, 2025, 9:24PM) https://www.reuters.com/legal/jenner-block-sues-us-government-following-trump-executive-order-2025-03-28/.