Justice Department demands records and depositions from firms that settled and those that fought Trump executive orders, reviving questions over executive power, privilege and law firm independence
The U.S. Justice Department has subpoenaed 14 major law firms as part of its response to an ABA lawsuit challenging Trump‑era executive orders and alleged intimidation of the legal profession.
The subpoenas seek detailed records and depositions from firms that were targeted by those orders or struck deals with the White House to avoid them.
According to reporting and copies of subpoenas filed in court, DOJ wants communications relating to the executive orders and any agreements reached with the administration, as well as exchanges with longtime Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn since the start of Trump’s second term.
Requests reportedly reach back over multiple years and include communications with the ABA itself about the dispute.
Firms in the Firing Line
Media reports indicate the subpoenas reach across Big Law, including firms that cut controversial deals with Trump to avoid his directives and firms that fought the orders in court. Names reported include Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and other Am Law 100 firms, with DOJ seeking to depose leaders rather than only document custodians.
Coverage also highlights firms such as Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey as among those that challenged the orders and are now being asked for their communications and internal deliberations.
For both the “deal‑makers” and the “fighters,” the subpoenas reopen questions about whether there was ever a safe path through Trump’s law‑firm campaign.
DOJ’s theory versus ABA’s Claim
The ABA’s lawsuit alleges the Trump administration adopted an unlawful policy of punishing or pressuring firms over their clients, their diversity and DEI programs and their perceived ties to Trump’s political and legal adversaries.
It says firms faced threats to federal work, security clearances and access to federal buildings if they did not bend to executive demands.
DOJ, in turn, frames the subpoenas as a discovery response because the ABA wants communications involving Epshteyn and Trump advisers, the department argues that the association should obtain much of that material from its member firms instead of from the Executive Office of the President.
A DOJ spokesperson has said that compelling firms to produce documents and testify helps protect the privacy of Trump’s legal advice while still giving the ABA a path to the evidence it seeks.
The Reputation Risk Issue
For the firms, the subpoenas triggersome potentially explosive issues around attorney‑client privilege, work‑product protection and potential waiver if sensitive material is produced. According to Bloomberg News, Senior leaders are being asked to speak under oath about how they evaluated Trump’s demands, what they promised the government and why they settled or litigated, raising concerns about reputational damage with clients and recruits.
Reports suggest firms are weighing moves to narrow the subpoenas, assert privilege, or seek to quash or modify parts of DOJ’s demands, while still navigating the optics of appearing either too compliant or too defiant.
The Justice Department has also argued that some ABA counsel, including lawyers at Susman Godfrey, could become fact witnesses because of their own communications and may face disqualification, underscoring how the discovery fight is reshaping the litigation itself.
Why this matters for LawFuel readers
The current claims goes to the heart of executive power over the legal profession and whether governments can pressure firms because of who they represent and how they manage diversity and DEI.
It raises practical questions for law‑firm leaders and GC teams about how much protection privilege offers when negotiations with government are politically charged, and whether controversial settlements can later become the subject of compelled testimony.
For legal marketers and law‑firm management, the subpoenas highlight the long tail of crisis decisions. Deals struck to “get out of Trump’s crosshairs” are now front‑page news again, with partners and clients watching closely.
Coming at a time firms rely on technology and AI tools for discovery, risk analysis and communications management, this fight is also a live case study in how legal tech is deployed when the client is, effectively, the firm itself.
