Friday brought new twists in President Trump’s intensifying battle with major legal firms.
Trump has targeted several firms with executive orders that rescind their security clearances and banish them from the use of government facilities. If such orders stand, they would call the survival of the firms into question, since they would create enormous logistical problems for any client that had a case involving the government.
Opposition to Trump’s actions is driven by the idea that he is seeking to intimidate the legal world by creating massive disincentives for representing his opponents or challenging his actions. His critics say this is part of a broader effort to clamp down on dissent.
Supporters back Trump’s claim that he was the victim of malicious investigations and prosecutions, and that he is now striking back. Trump himself claims he is opposed to “weaponization” of the justice system.
On Friday, one firm preemptively settled with Trump. Another two announced they would fight his orders.
Here are the latest takeaways as the battle continues to build.
Trump crows as Skadden bends
“This was essentially a settlement.”
That was Trump’s verdict on the decision by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom to, in essence, bend the knee rather than risk an executive order being issued against it.
Skadden Arps, as it is more commonly known, has agreed to do $100 million worth of pro bono work on causes and issues that Trump supports during his administration “and beyond.” The president said such work might include representing “members of the military, law enforcement and on and on.”
Skadden Arps has also agreed to review its hiring practices – a concession to Trump’s fervent opposition to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices, which he appears to consider tantamount to reverse racism.
The firm’s executive partner, Jeremy London, called the deal the “best path to protect our clients, our people and our Firm,” in a statement to employees that was obtained by the Associated Press.
Skadden Arps is the second major firm, after Paul, Weiss, to come to a compromise with Trump.
The latter’s decision drew strong criticism. George Conway, the conservative lawyer and prominent Trump critic, called it “the most disgraceful action by a major law firm in my lifetime.”
Skadden Arps may draw some similar fire, though it is possible the condemnation will be more muted given the precedent set by Paul, Weiss.
Two firms take the fight to Trump
Skadden Arps offered its concessions before any Trump executive order was issued against it.
But two firms that are already in the crosshairs have opted to fight instead.
Jenner & Block and WilmerHale are suing the administration, seeking to get Trump’s orders overturned.
WilmerHale was once the work home of Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who investigated Trump over allegations of collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. Mueller reportedly left the firm several years ago.
One of Jenner & Block’s main sins, in Trump’s eyes, is having employed attorney Andrew Weissman, who worked on the team headed by Mueller. Weissman has not worked at the firm since 2021, though he has become a prominent figure in the media and often offers vigorous criticism of the president.
In its legal filing, Jenner & Block condemned Trump’s March 25 order against it as “an unconstitutional abuse of power against lawyers, their clients, and the legal system.”
The suit also charged that the order “is intended to coerce law firms and lawyers into renouncing the Administration’s critics and ceasing certain representations adverse to the government.”
The two firms that have chosen to fight Trump could take some heart from an interim success enjoyed by Perkins Coie, the first firm to challenge a Trump executive order of this type.
The judge in the Perkins Coie case halted key parts of the order while the underlying arguments play out. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell suggested the order was likely unconstitutional.
Later on Friday, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block won their own temporary restraining orders too.
Of course, there is now a clear schism among the major firms
Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale are fighting. Paul, Weiss and Skadden Arps have agreed to a truce.
Threats to firms have big implications
Even those firms that have adopted a more defiant posture have made no bones about the degree to which their existence could be challenged by the existence of the orders.
Jenner & Block wrote in its filing, “every day the Order remains in effect, it causes Jenner escalating and irreparable harm to its reputation and finances.”
When Perkins Coie filed suit, it acknowledged that it had “lost significant revenue due to the loss of clients who terminated their engagements in the few days since the Order was issued.”
It also noted “Perkins Coie will continue to lose existing and prospective clients if the Order is allowed to stand, and the losses would be such as to jeopardize the firm’s long-term health.”
Those statements point to what the firms say is a real danger that Trump could put them out of business.
That stark reality is also a major reason why some of the firms chose to try to placate the president.
Critics fear broader threats to free speech
Trump campaigned in part as a champion of free speech, seizing on complaints from conservatives that they were being unfairly censored on campuses, on social media and by government.
But now the roles have reversed.
Liberal critics, in particular, look at the legal battle as part of a broader war. They cite Trump’s threats to withdraw funding from some universities, his firing of inspectors general from government agencies and his attempt to deport green-card holders and other non-citizens for hazily defined “pro-Hamas” stances as an all-fronts effort to chill dissent.
That’s why the legal fight matters to many people who don’t normally lose too much sleep over the travails of huge and lucrative law firms.
The price to settle with Trump is going up
Critics of the original decision by Paul, Weiss to come to an agreement with Trump warned that doing so would only embolden the president to target more firms and make even more stringent demands.
Their view appears to have been validated so far.
Paul, Weiss agreed to do $40 million work of pro bono work for causes that the administration supports.
The price tag for Skadden Arps came in two and a half times higher.
