Washington — President Trump’s string of executive orders in recent weeks that target major law firms mark the latest front in his effort to settle long-held scores with political opponents. But the broadside has been met with alarm about the damage the punishments could do to the viability of the firms and, crucially, the threat they pose to the rule of law.
The executive orders signed by Mr. Trump have so far targeted four law firms: Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, and Jenner & Block. But the directive targeting Paul Weiss was rescinded after it and Mr. Trump reached an agreement under which the firm agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services for causes that the administration supports, among other assurances.
A fifth firm, Covington & Burling, was the subject of a directive that targeted the security clearance of a lawyer who assisted former special counsel Jack Smith, who oversaw the two prosecutions of Mr. Trump that were dropped, one in July 2024, and the other after he was elected to a second term. And a sixth, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, entered into a preemptive deal with the president to provide more than $100 million in free legal work, along with other commitments. The president announced Tuesday an agreement with Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, where former second gentleman Doug Emhoff is a partner, in which the firm would offer at least $100 million in pro bono services. The firm also represented former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss in their lawsuit against Trump ally Rudy Giuliani.
The executive orders are among the more than 100 that Mr. Trump has issued since returning to the White House for a second term, and they come amid a broader campaign of retribution against his critics that includes revoking security clearances and protective details.
But legal scholars warn that the restrictions aimed at the law firms strike at the rule of law and the nation’s adversarial system of justice.
“These orders do more than just take revenge against particular lawyers who have crossed Donald Trump,” said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “They are meant to send the message that it is dangerous to oppose him in court, that you are apt to suffer not just yourself, but also law firms that you’re associated with will suffer sweeping penalties that can threaten their very ability to go on existing.”
The orders rolled out by Mr. Trump in the past few weeks target the firms for their legal work, as well as the lawyers who were on their payrolls — even if they’re not anymore.
In the case of Perkins Coie, the president’s directive attacks the firm for representing Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign and hiring a research firm that retained former British spy Christopher Steele, who produced the infamous “Steele Dossier.”
For WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, the orders seek to punish the firms because they hired lawyers who worked on the Justice Department’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election during Mr. Trump’s first term. At WilmerHale, that includes Robert Mueller, the former special counsel who led that probe, and two lawyers who worked on his team, Aaron Zebley and James Quarles. Mueller and Quarles no longer work at WilmerHale. At Jenner & Block, the president attacked the firm for employing Andrew Weissmann, who also worked on Mueller’s probe. He left Jenner & Block in 2021.
Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Perkins Coie are also involved in legal challenges to Mr. Trump’s second-term policies, including his effort to withhold federal funds from medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care to young people under the age of 19, his firing of eight inspectors general and directive to prohibit transgender people from serving in the military.
“These firms are at the vanguard of fighting the Trump administration on a whole host of issues,” said David Lat, a lawyer-turned-writer who authors a newsletter on legal affairs. “So, if Donald Trump can force or frighten law firms into not taking cases against his administration, that will allow the administration to become more powerful.”
Lat likened the executive orders to a boxing match where one fighter is trying to chop the arms off of their opponent.
“In America, our legal system rests on the idea that you are entitled to a lawyer, and these executive orders are deterring law firms and lawyers from taking certain cases,” he said. “The other issue is they are a threat to the rule of law, and they are a threat to the adversarial system that powers our justice system.”
Mr. Trump justified the orders as furthering his administration’s commitment to addressing the “significant risks” associated with “Big Law firms,” which he claims “engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests.”
The president’s orders specifically require any government contractors to disclose any business they have with the firms and also direct agency heads to cancel any contracts with the targets of the orders. Agencies also must reassess contracts with the firms or companies that do business with them to ensure funding decisions align “with the interests of the citizens of the United States” and administration priorities.
Finally, Mr. Trump’s executive actions calls on his administration to restrict access to federal buildings for employees of Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block.
The three firms have all filed federal lawsuits challenging the orders as violations of the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
“This lawsuit is absolutely critical to vindicating the First Amendment, our adversarial system of justice, and the rule of law,” Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush and has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, said in a statement. Clement is representing WilmerHale in its challenge to Mr. Trump’s executive order.
Three different judges assigned to each of the cases — appointed by two different presidents — have agreed to temporarily block portions of the orders while proceedings move forward. While the cases may end with a decision from the Supreme Court months from now that invalidates the directives as unconstitutional, the fallout has been swift.
Thomas Perrelli, firm chair and a partner at Jenner & Block, said in a declaration last week that one client was notified by the Justice Department that they could not bring their lawyers from the firm to a department meeting set for April 3. That client, Perrelli wrote, would’ve had to attend the meeting without their outside representation or hire new counsel. A federal district court blocked enforcement of the portion of Mr. Trump’s order restricting Jenner & Block employees’ access to federal buildings and the requirements for government contractors.
He also wrote that 40% of the firm’s revenue last year came from clients who are government contractors or subcontractors, and warned that if the firm lost that business, “it would be a serious threat to the firm’s financial health.”
Bruce Berman, general counsel at WilmerHale, wrote in his own declaration that at least 21 of the firm’s 25 largest clients in 2024 — which accounted for 30% of its revenue, or nearly $500 million — have federal contracts. He noted that WilmerHale attorneys are set to meet with Justice Department lawyers over videoconference this week, but said at the time of his filing that it was uncertain whether they would refuse to meet with them.
At Perkins Coie, David Burman, a partner at the firm, told a federal court in a filing that several clients terminated or said they were considering ending their legal engagements because of the restrictions imposed by Mr. Trump’s order. Burman said that a major government contractor that had been a client for more than 35 years withdrew its work from Perkins Coie in light of the order, and four other clients rescinded its work from the firm early last month because they needed to engage with federal agencies.
“The orders don’t have to go into effect for them to strike fear in the hearts of lawyers across the country,” Lat said, adding that while law firms are wealthy, they can also be fragile.
For many so-called “Big Law” firms, their work involves serving not only individuals, but also large corporations that seek help with patent or trademark applications, mergers and acquisitions or energy transactions — areas that land before a federal regulatory agency.
But a swift departure of those clients means firms are at risk of losing sizable chunks of business at once, which could also force their lawyers to leave if their practice area involves significant government involvement.
“These firms can face a run of clients against them the same way the banks can face a run of depositors trying to take out their money at once,” Olson said. “This can quickly turn into a downward spiral.”
The potential damage to their business — and the ripple effect that would have on employees — may be why some law firms have remained on the sidelines and chosen not to speak out against Mr. Trump’s sanctions. Olson acknowledged there are many reasons why other firms may want to stay out of the president’s sight line for fear of retaliation.
But he said that an “age-old part of being a free republic” is protecting the independence of the court and the legal profession so they don’t become instruments of the person in power.
“Sometimes the times call for courage,” Olson said. “Are you recognizing that this is one of those times that the ordinary calculations aren’t good enough, the calculations that would do against many ordinary sorts of danger? This is an extraordinary danger. Maybe it calls for extraordinary courage.”
