\n<\/p>\n
When I was<\/span> writing \u201cThe Moral Compass of the American Lawyer\u201d\u00a0a quarter century ago, I was concerned about the power and arrogance of lawyers, their focus on the bottom line, and their willingness to lie or at least mislead. After teaching legal ethics for over 20 years, I knew then that many lawyers \u2014 perhaps most \u2014 were not to be trusted beyond abiding by the clear \u201cblack letter\u201d rules of the legal system.<\/p>\n But nothing back then prepared me for the Donald Trump-led attack on the rule of law that\u2019s taken place at warp speed since he began his second term.<\/p>\n Today, with Trump launching a barrage of almost daily attacks on law firms <\/a>and the courts, the issue is no longer about the moral compass of individual lawyers but whether the American system of law itself will retain its moral compass. When the dust settles, many of the legal system\u2019s rules may be mere memories \u2014 thanks in part to powerful people who failed to stand up when it mattered.<\/p>\n The two most important principles protecting our democracy are freedom of speech and the rule of law. There are as many definitions of the rule of law as there are commentators. I\u2019ll go with this one: Our laws, as determined by our legislatures and executives and interpreted by our courts, are sacrosanct. In other words, according to the old aphorism, \u201cNo one is above the law.\u201d Not even a king, a principle dating from Magna Carta in 1215.<\/p>\n Our democracy is in the midst of an existential crisis. The question facing us today is whether the American rule of law, and our democratic form of government, will survive Trump 2.0. If the rule of law falls \u2014 if Trump and his minions are above the law \u2014 then freedom of speech<\/a> is also in danger, with few left to protect it.<\/p>\n Trump set on his course of revenge and retribution against lawyers and law firms on the day he was inaugurated. His memo on ending the \u201cweaponization of the federal government<\/a>\u201d claimed that the Biden administration \u201cengage[d] in a systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents\u201d that was \u201coriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives.\u201d Two weeks later, new Attorney General Pam Bondi created a \u201cweaponization working group<\/a>\u201d focused on \u201crestoring the credibility and integrity of the Department of Justice,\u201d and\u00a0singled out special prosecutor Jack Smith<\/a> and New York prosecutors Alvin Bragg and Letitia James for \u201cthe pursuit of improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions,\u201d specifically around the events of January 6, 2021.<\/p>\n Then Trump\u2019s campaign to bring Big Law to heel began. In rapid succession, Trump filed five executive orders, each attacking a large national law firm for acting in ways he didn\u2019t like: representing Smith pro bono, representing Hillary Clinton, having a law partner who investigated or prosecuted him. His order regarding the New York-based law firm Paul Weiss shows just how personalized \u2014 and narcissistic \u2014 his attacks could be: The firm hired \u201cunethical attorney Mark Pomerantz,\u201d whose offense was joining the Manhattan District Attorney\u2019s Office \u201csolely to manufacture a prosecution against me.\u201d That order also warned that \u201cnearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm\u201d engaged in behavior Trump claimed is wrong.<\/p>\n These orders ended the firms\u2019 security clearances, access to federal buildings, and government contracts, and most of them said the government would end the firms\u2019 clients\u2019 government contracts as well.<\/p>\n Trump also directed the attorney general and the Department of Homeland Security to act against all law firms engaged in his version of \u201cunethical misconduct,\u201d conduct that \u201cmust be efficiently and effectively held accountable.\u201d His examples of unethical behavior were representing Clinton and litigating \u201cbaseless partisan attacks\u201d against the government.<\/p>\n And on March 17, Andrea Lucas, the acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, sent demands to 20 separate \u201cBig Law\u201d firms expressing her concern that each firm\u2019s \u201c\u2018diversity, equity, and inclusion\u2019 or other employment programs, policies, and practices may entail unlawful disparate treatment.\u201d She insisted that each firm provide her with extensive reports about their own diversity requirements and their clients\u2019 diversity requirements. This demand would force law firms to violate their oath to protect client confidentiality, a fundamental cornerstone of ethical lawyering. As an attorney, Lucas surely should know better.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Until the past six weeks, Big Law firms \u2014 among\u00a0the richest and most powerful institutions in the country \u2014 considered themselves invulnerable. \u00a0<\/p>\n Those firms that comprise Big Law \u2014 firms with from 500 to several thousand lawyers that earn several million dollars in yearly profit per partner \u2014 control much of both American legal affairs and American business. Almost without exception, they represent and negotiate deals between Fortune 500 companies<\/a>, engage in close associations with government entities, lobby governments on behalf of their clients, and often have partners who<\/a> move in<\/a> and out<\/a> of government service. Lloyd Cutler, for example, was a founding partner of WilmerHale<\/a>, still known more formally as Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr. Though a Democrat who served as chief White House counsel to two presidents, he also worked for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. His inside-the-Beltway access was extraordinary. Access is the name of their game \u2014 and the exact place Trump is attacking.<\/p>\n Almost every Big Law firm spends a lot of time defending big corporate clients in lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals \u2014 cases about employment conditions, unfair business practices, consumer issues, and much more. Consumer attorneys consider them to be bullies who push around those who don\u2019t have their deep-pocket resources. Many see Big Law firms as profit-centered businesses first and client-centered lawyers a distant second. These firms are who President Jimmy Carter was talking about when he said<\/a>, \u201cNinety percent of the lawyers serve 10 percent of the people; we are overlawyered and underrepresented.\u201d<\/p>\n Many mega-firms have deep connections to the government, most do work on government contracts, and all have clients who work on government contracts. By directly attacking their and their clients\u2019 ability to perform government work, Trump is turning their previous strength into a liability, driving a stake into the heart of their profit centers. And even if a law firm fights back, the damage to its client base and reputation for invincibility has been shaken.<\/p>\n The response to Trump\u2019s aggression has been mixed. Three firms \u2014 Seattle\u2019s Perkins Coie, D.C.\u2019s WilmerHale, and Chicago\u2019s Jenner & Block \u2014 sued the federal government and got temporary restraining orders that prevent \u2014 assuming they\u2019re enforceable \u2014 the federal government from executing Trump\u2019s demands. The work product produced in support of those TROs is extraordinary. Paul Clement\u2019s brief on behalf of WilmerHale, filed within a day of Trump\u2019s order, runs to 57 pages, with 15 counts alleging violations of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. And Jenner even created a special \u201cJennerFirm\u201d page<\/a> to market its refusal to be intimidated: \u201cJenner stands firm because our clients deserve fearless advocates.\u201d<\/p>\n But Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Willkie Farr, and Milbank \u2014 four New York-based firms with average yearly profits of between $3.9 and $6.8 million per partner \u2014 knuckled under his demands, the latter three doing so before a formal order was needed.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s \u201cchaos theory\u201d of action \u2014 creating enough noise that it will serve his ends \u2014 is clearly intimidating Big Law. Tellingly, an organized effort to attract law firms to sign on to an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie produced\u00a0only eight signatories among the country\u2019s 100\u00a0largest law firms, none among the top 20. This does not augur well for how these firms will respond to Trump\u2019s future bullying. Paul Weiss chair Brad Karp issued a statement defending his firm\u2019s conduct, claiming that if the firm stood up to Trump it would not have survived <\/a>its potential loss of clients and loss of revenue. But at a reported $6 million-plus profit per partner, one would think Paul Weiss could easily survive this challenge. Karp also claimed that rival firms were already circling like vultures ready to jump on clients who were thinking about leaving \u2014 hardly an endorsement of the behavior of fellow Big Law firms.<\/p>\n The stakes couldn\u2019t be higher. At the same time Trump has sought and partly succeeded in bringing Big Law to heel, government lawyers, whose jobs are more directly to uphold the rule of law, have repeatedly come under attack.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered Danielle Sassoon, the chief U.S. attorney in Manhattan, to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams \u201cwithout prejudice.\u201d His reasons were political \u2014 to gain Adams\u2019s support for Trump\u2019s immigration policies, then hold a re-indictment over his head to ensure compliance \u2014 and did not relate to the strength of the case. Sassoon, a conservative appointed by Trump, refused the order and resigned<\/a>.<\/p>\n On March 29, the Los Angeles Times reported<\/a> that Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam Schleifer was fired in a brief email sent from the White House \u201con behalf of President Donald J. Trump.\u201d Schleifer thought at first the email was a hoax. His sin? A former Democratic congressional candidate, he was working on a white-collar fraud case against a Trump supporter whose lawyers were actively lobbying for dismissal. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later said that the White House had participated in decisions to fire \u201cmore than 50 prosecutors\u201d in recent weeks.<\/p>\n Then, on April 5, the New York Times reported<\/a> that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump\u2019s former criminal defense lawyer, had placed Deputy U.S. Attorney Erez Reuveni on administrative leave. The day before, Reuveni, who had just been promoted to acting deputy director of the Justice Department\u2019s immigration litigation division, had conceded in federal court that the government had no grounds for deporting a Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Abrego Garcia was sent to the notoriously dangerous prison in El Salvador housing other deported persons.<\/p>\n Still, the gravest threat to American rule of law is playing out before our eyes: The Trump administration seems determined to ignore the courts.<\/p>\n Judges have issued many orders restraining the Trump administration\u2019s conduct since he retook office in January, but almost none of those orders has been adhered to. The orders of Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the federal district court in D.C., are a prime example of how the Trump White House is acting.<\/p>\n Boasberg issued a restraining order on March 15 that said that the government did not have the authority to remove planeloads of purported Venezuelan citizens and detain them in that same prison in El Salvador without due process. He ordered planes carrying those Venezuelans to return to the United States.<\/p>\n The Trump administration simply refused to comply, reaching its own self-serving conclusion that Boasberg \u201chad no lawful basis\u201d for his order, effectively deciding the law itself. Trump then went on the offensive, calling<\/a> Boasberg a \u201cRadical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator,\u201d and calling for his impeachment.<\/p>\n While courts have always been the ultimate \u201cdecider,\u201d they have no enforcement mechanism\u00a0\u2014 no marshals or police force with the power to require compliance.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Boasberg has since been assigned the Signal chat<\/a> case, in which a consumer watchdog is asking him to order that the government preserve all text messages in the Signal chat that disclosed confidential information about an American attack on Houthis in Yemen<\/a>. It\u2019s not clear yet whether the government will ignore his orders in that case as well.<\/p>\n Trump has already said that he \u201cdoes not violate any Law\u201d if he acts to save the country, and Vice President JD Vance has said that courts \u201caren\u2019t allowed\u201d to control him. If true, or if Trump can get away with it, this will completely void the rule of law.\u00a0<\/p>\n We all learned in grade school about the American system of \u201cchecks and balances.\u201d While courts have always been the ultimate \u201cdecider,\u201d they have no enforcement mechanism\u00a0\u2014 no marshals or police force with the power to require compliance.<\/p>\n <\/p>\nThe Attacks<\/h2>\n
Expect a Reckoning<\/h2>\n
\n