What DC lawfirms should be doing instead of capitulating to Trump

Let me first congratulate the 504 law firms that have thrown their support behind Perkins Coie in a friend-of-the-court brief. Perkins Coie was the first firm to receive a vindictive executive order from Trump that jeopardized its ability to represent government contractors and limited its access to federal buildings, all because one of its attorneys had helped investigate Russia’s support for Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The 504 firms rightfully declare that Trump’s attack on law firms poses “a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself.” Their brief goes on to say:

“Unless the judiciary acts decisively now, what was once beyond the pale will in short order become a stark reality. Corporations and individuals alike will risk losing their right to be represented by the law firms of their choice and a profound chill will be cast over the First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress.”

Perkins Coie and two other firms that received almost identical executive orders —WilmerHale and Jenner & Block — are now fighting the executive orders in court (WilmerHale and Jenner & Block also signed the friend-of-the-court brief).

Big firms supporting Perkins Coie include Covington & Burling (28th in The American Lawyer’s rankings of the top revenue-generating firms) and Arnold & Porter (47th).

Frighteningly, though, not a single one of the nation’s top 20 firms by revenue have signed on — including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Gibson Dunn, and Sullivan & Cromwell. Nor did Skadden Arps, which recently struck a deal with Trump to avoid an executive order. Nor did Paul Weiss, which was the target of an executive order before it reached a deal of its own.

Two other firms chose to cave to Trump’s demands even before being hit with an executive order. Last week, the two firms — Willkie Farr and Milbank — cut deals with Trump promising to dedicate $100 million of pro bono work to causes that Trump supports.

The big firms that refused to sign on to the friend-of-the-court brief worry that signing the document will draw Trump’s ire and cost them clients.

It’s a clear choice between courage and greed.

The big firms that did sign the friend-of-the-court brief have enough courage to put their potential profits on the line. They know that failure to stand up to Trump only emboldens him to go after more firms whose partners or attorneys (or former partners or attorneys) have sought to hold him accountable for his various crimes.

The big firms that refused to sign because they’re afraid of angering Trump have let America down. They’ve also violated the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which state that “it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action” and “it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.”

What to do?

1.If I were a law school dean, I’d refuse to allow any of the unprincipled law firms to recruit students on my premises. Why teach students law and ethics only to have them drawn into an unethical law firm?

2. If I were graduating from law school and had an offer from one of these unprincipled law firms that refused to put their name on the friend-of-the-court brief, I’d have second thoughts about joining the firm. Why join an unprincipled law firm?

3. If I were an associate in one of the big firms that wimped out, I’d organize all other associates at that firm and seek a meeting with the partners — at which I’d ask why the partners put profits before principle. Then I’d seriously consider resigning from the firm.

Friends, this is serious. The only way to confront Trump is through unified action — as exemplified by the 504 law firms that have signed on to the friend-of-the-court brief opposing his executive order against law firms that have upset him.

Disunity — as exemplified by the unwillingness of the largest law firms in America to sign on — only feeds Trump’s power-mad bullying.