Executive Power and Retaliation: How a Second Trump Term is Harming The Legal Profession
- WULR Team
- Mar 11
- 5 min read
How has President Trump influenced the legal profession and what are the future implications?
Published March 11th, 2026
Written by Andrew Staff
Can one man bend the legal system to his will? Countless individuals have asked this question before Donald Trump took office in January, however, few foresaw how pervasive the administration’s punitive measures would be on legal entities and individual attorneys. On March sixth, 2025, “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP” was enacted. The order explicitly targeted firms that supported actions in opposition to the ideology of the administration. One law firm, Perkins Coie, was accused of manufacturing a fraudulent “dossier” to aid Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency in addition to discriminating against employees based on their race. Perkins Coie was not the only subject of these recriminations for alleged election theft, discriminatory hiring practices and pro bono work, according to The Hill. In response, firms have taken two routes: capitulation or opposition. Both paths will result in vastly disparate ramifications for the future of the most prominent legal institutions in the world.
Many firms signed agreements that gave the government control over their operations and services. On April 11th, four preeminent firms, Latham & Watkins, Kirkland & Ellis, A&O Shearman and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, promised $500 million in free legal services that would be used for “fighting antisemitism, helping Gold Star families, assisting law enforcement and ‘ensuring fairness in our justice system,” as reported by the New York Times. Gaining pro bono work was the biggest priority in deal making from the administration. In a White House press conference, Karoline Leavitt stated that “Big Law continues to bend the knee to President Trump because they know they were wrong, and he looks forward to putting their pro bono legal concessions toward implementing his America First agenda,” according to The New York Times. Eight months since the announcement of the initial pro bono deals, a total of nine firms have pledged $940 million in free legal services as stated by The American Lawyer.
The deals not only solicited the services of the firms but also changed their internal operations. On March 17, The Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Andrea Lucas, issued letters to several firms inquiring about their hiring practices based on concerns about violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “Employment programs, policies, and practices may entail unlawful disparate treatment in terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, or unlawful limiting, segregating, and classifying,” wrote Lucas. On April 11th, the same day free pro bono work was pledged, the EEOC announced that Latham & Watkins, Kirkland & Ellis, A&O Shearman and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett agreed to cease policies or practices previously “framed as a diversity or DEI program.”
A number of firms took the path of opposition to the government’s requests. Hundreds of firms and attorneys signed a public statement to the attorney general requesting she oppose the orders and “ensure that the Department of Justice uses its full power to protect the legal profession and equal justice under law for all people.” Other firms went beyond symbolic statements and brought concrete action to the courts. Perkins Coie was the first to sue the administration by claiming the orders violated their First Amendment rights. District court judge Beryl Howell struck down the order, citing Trump’s own statements that referenced the intended deal-making as unconstitutional and an “unprecedented attack” on foundational legal principles. The Perkins Coie decision opened the gate for several other firms to take on the administration, and, to date, all have won in court.
These unprecedented attacks on the rule of law carry implications that continue to shape a changing industry. Attorneys have resigned in protest from both public and private legal entities and millions of dollars have been lost from alarmed clients of the firms that capitulated. The Department of Justice has seen the most drastic changes over the last year. NPR reports over 70% of the DOJ’s civil rights attorneys, totalling nearly 250 individuals, resigned from the department after Trump’s inauguration, and nearly one-third of all senior partners from the Justice Department have left the department. Many of these resignations were in relation to the orders attacking firms. A former lawyer from the civil rights division, Dena Robinson, when talking about the work done on the Perkins Coie case, stated, “our job wasn’t to engage in fact-finding investigations–our job was to find the facts that would fit the narrative that the administration already had. That is not how the division worked.”
The private sector has seen similar changes. Joseph Baio, a former partner of 47 years at Willkie Farr, resigned in April to “join the fight against governmental tyranny, unconstitutional decrees and social injustice, particularly at this critical time.” Reuters reported that Willkie Farr came to an agreement with Trump in April that will provide $100 million in free legal service while ceasing diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. Baio is the most senior partner at any private firm to resign over the deals, but he is certainly not the only one. Three months later, Reuters reported that seven more partners joined Baio and left the firm over its deal with Trump. Outside of Willkie, nearly ten lawyers have resigned from six of the nine firms that cut deals with the President, according to the American Bar Association.
Millions of dollars in business have been lost from firms that agreed to deal with the President. Many companies moved their cases from firms who capitulated to those who opposed the executive orders. Microsoft, Morgan Stanley and Oracle are some of the most notable clients who joined the shift, says the New York Times and the Economic Times. An employee from Citadel, Brooke Cucinella, stated the company prefers lawyers who don’t back down from a fight. To date, 11 companies have changed law firms to those who fought back against the orders.
Never before has an executive shaped the cases, clients and attorneys of the world's largest firms solely out of fear of retribution. The ramifications of such actions have never been seen before in the United States, and they concern many legal scholars. One such concern is pro bono work, a facet of law that is uniquely powerful in the United States. Every year, millions of hours are devoted by firms to aid marginalized individuals or causes. Scott Cummings, a law professor at UCLA, argues the new executive orders have a sinister impact on how the most helpless in our society are advocated for, because “these proposals turn the meaning of pro bono on its head by mobilizing free lawyers on behalf of government officials accused of engaging in abuse, rather than vulnerable members of the community who suffer at the government’s hand.” The use of pro bono by the Trump administration induces increased conflicts of interest. Even if attorneys had the extra capacity to continue taking on previous clients, they would find it difficult to do so.
John Locke once said, "wherever the law ends, tyranny begins.” This maxim is more important than ever. Trump’s new executive orders unearth the very roots of legal norms that serve to check the power of executives like Trump. As the Washington Post accounts, attacks on legal institutions like these are unprecedented in the United States but can be seen in Russia, Turkey and Hungary and are used “with the effect of hollowing out a pillar of justice systems to expand their power without violating existing laws.” This usage of executive orders limits lawyers' capacity to serve our justice system as it was intended: to shield those most unprotected. Opposition is erased when the courts are used as a tool of power by the government rather than a safeguard by the people. It is clear that the legal system will strike down such unconstitutional orders, such as the Perkins Coie decision, if law firms have the courage to stand up for their clients and coworkers. Perkins Coie and other recalcitrant firms’ actions should serve as a catalyst for the defense of the most foundational American legal principles.
