Trump’s Icy Law Firm Crackdown

Ben Thomson, Lawfuel contributing editor

Any law firm representing someone Donald Trump doesn’t like might cost your firm its government contracts in the US, after the administration launched a ferocious, two-pronged assault on major law firms through executive orders that should make every attorney pay attention – regardless of political affiliation.

First came Covington & Burling, which committed the apparent sin of representing Jack Smith.

Then Perkins Coie got hit for its past work with Hillary Clinton. They are taking the Administratioin to Court using DC litigation powerhouse Williams & Connolly.

Both orders suspend security clearances and mandate reviews of government contracts with these firms, with the Perkins order going further by directing agencies to “take appropriate steps to terminate” existing contracts.

As Columbia Law professor Daniel Richman (pictured) notes, these are “extraordinary moves” designed to “chill law firms in their choice of clients.”

Bruce MacEwen of Adam Smith, Esq. puts it more bluntly – firms that represent politically controversial figures now do so “at their peril.”

The financial implications aren’t theoretical. Government contract loss creates immediate revenue hits, and the stigma attached to being named in an executive order will likely drive away other clients unwilling to be associated with firms on the administration’s bad side.

By targeting firms that represent political opponents, the Trump orders may create a chilling effect, discouraging Big Law firms from taking on clients who could be perceived as controversial or politically sensitive.

This could lead to a more cautious approach in client selection, potentially limiting the representation of high-profile or politically charged cases.

The risks of representing some clients may well outweight the benefits.

“Blacklisted” law firms could face serious economic repercussions, including lost revenue and clients. The resulting financial pressure might influence firms to avoid clients that could lead to government backlash, affecting their bottom line and long-term viability

The ABA’s response was appropriately forceful: “Clients have the right to have access to their lawyer without interference by the government. Lawyers must be free to represent clients and perform their ethical duty without fear of retribution.”

Michigan law professor Barbara McQuade points out the likely illegality of these actions, noting First Amendment concerns and the practical effect of denying Smith “the right to counsel of his choice.”

Not everyone is backing down. Williams & Connolly stepped up to represent Perkins Coie in its lawsuit against the government, calling the executive order “unlawful” and a violation of “core constitutional protections.”

The White House responded by dismissing Perkins as “a billion-dollar law firm… suing to retain its access to government perks and handouts.”

If all this that wasn’t enough, the administration also directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate “racial discrimination” at “large law firms” – specifically targeting diversity initiatives.

The message is unmistakable: representation has consequences, and the federal government is now willing to use its considerable power to punish firms that represent the “wrong” clients.

Whether you’re a Trump supporter or critic, the precedent being set should concern every attorney who values independence and the right to representation.

Read More –