The leaders of the Big Law firms that have struck deals with U.S. President Donald Trump believe they have found safe harbor from the punishments the President is meting out to law firms that have represented his perceived enemies, promoted diversity, and have done legal work pro bono for people who cannot afford legal representation or lack access to the justice system. By bending to the wishes of the White House, these firms are convinced they have done well—for their clients and their firms.
And maybe they have – for now.
But what do their actions say about the future of Big Law?
The veneer they have presented, that “everyone is on board,” is beginning to crack. Associates are calling out firms for capitulating, and a few have quit their high-paying jobs. Some associates are refusing to recruit for their firms, while law school student groups are refusing to attend recruiting events held by these firms and urging others to do the same.
One law student in Canada who had planned to work for a U.S. firm in New York “tore up” his job offer and has chosen to work at a leading Canadian law firm in Toronto instead. A group of U.S. law students is distributing a detailed spreadsheet, regularly updated, that categorizes law firms based on how they have responded to Trump administration attacks on DEI, pro bono work, and executive orders.
These associates and law students are also finding support. More than 500 law firms, including a dozen Am Law 200 firms and at least eight of the top 100 U.S. firms as ranked by revenue, signed an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie, which was also hit with an executive order but is fighting it in court. (Trump has also targeted Jenner & Block, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, and Covington & Burling, citing the clients and matters the firms have been involved in) The amicus brief says executive orders imposing punitive sanctions on leading law firms “pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself.”
Freshfields, which has made an aggressive and successful push into the U.S. market, also signed on to the amicus brief. It is also the only non-U.S. headquartered firm to have been targeted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is investigating at least 20 law firms for their diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
The students and associates are also hearing their outrage echoed in another Perkins Coie amicus brief signed by nearly 350 former federal and state judges who wrote that Trump’s executive order, “undermines the rule of law” by threatening the independence of lawyers and litigants to petition courts to redress their grievances.”
And more than 360 law professors at universities across the country, including professors who teach at elite law schools at Columbia, Cornell, Stanford, Yale, NYU, Harvard and the University of Michigan, also filed an amicus brief, writing that if the executive order stands, “it will be open season on lawyers who have dared to take on clients or causes the President or other officials don’t like.” The professors also stressed that the impact would reverberate throughout the industry. “Going forward,” they wrote, “a lawyer or law firm that is asked to represent a client on a matter that is likely to trigger the President’s ire will have to weigh whether they are willing to be placed on the President’s target list—and lose the business such a placement entails.”
Many young lawyers believe this is what firms that struck deals with Trump are already doing.
Maybe this collective action won’t be enough to make a difference. After all, students in the U.S. graduate from law school with six-figure debt, and a high-paying job in Big Law enables them to repay their hefty loans within a few years. In the U.K., where most large firms cover the cost of their future trainees’ law school education, young lawyers may hesitate to bite the hand that feeds them.
But there is momentum. And for law firms, that should matter. Here's why...
