Judges block Trump orders targeting firms tied to Russia collusion hoax figures

Multiple judges have blocked efforts by President Donald Trump to hold “Big Law” firms accountable for their connections to lawyers closely tied to the Russia collusion hoax.

The executive orders make allegations against some of the most powerful law firms in the nation: the WilmerHale law firm for previously employing former Special Counsel Robert Mueller and two of his top prosecutors; against Jenner & Block in part for previously employing top Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann; and against Perkins Coie in large part for previously employing Democratic-party-aligned election lawyer Marc Elias, for helping Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign fund British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s debunked anti-Trump dossier.

Elias, who worked at Perkins for many years as the chair of the Political Law Group, went on to serve also as the general counsel for now-former Vice President Kamala Harris’s failed 2020 presidential bid. Perkins announced in 2021 that Elias and others were leaving to form Elias Law Group.

Judges have blocked significant portions of Trump’s executive orders aimed at each of those firms, although the Paul Weiss law firm — targeted by Trump in part for employing former Mueller prosecutor Jeannie Rhee — acquiesced to Trump’s demands, with Trump announcing last week that the firm would now be "taking on a wide range of pro bono matters representing the full political spectrum; committing to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention, instead of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' policies; [and] dedicating the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during my term in office to support causes including assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism."

Trump has used similar language in multiple executive orders addressing the "significant risks” posed by so-called “Big Law” firms which “engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests.”

“Many firms take actions that threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles,” Trump said in these executive orders. “Moreover, law firms regularly conduct this harmful activity through their powerful pro bono practices, earmarking hundreds of millions of their clients’ dollars for destructive causes, that often directly or indirectly harm their own clients. Lawyers and law firms that engage in such egregious conduct should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should such conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts.”

Trump's history with the targeted lawyers

The common thread in this batch of executive orders is that each of the firms targeted centers around the previous litigation and law enforcement activity executed against Trump. Those cases did not pan out.

An investigation by special counsel Mueller “did not establish” any criminal Trump-Russia collusion. DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz found huge flaws with the FBI’s investigation, criticizing the “central and essential” role of the dossier in the FBI’s politicized surveillance of former Trump campaign associate Carter Page.

Special Counsel John Durham’s report concluded that “neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.” The special counsel noted that “the FBI ignored the fact that at no time before, during, or after Crossfire Hurricane were investigators able to corroborate a single substantive allegation in the Steele dossier reporting.”

• WilmerHale — The Mueller Connection

Trump’s executive order on “Addressing Risks from WilmerHale” was issued on March 27, and it included a heavy focus on Mueller and members of his team.

The Trump order said that WilmerHale “is yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States” and argued that the firm “is also bent on employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice.”

“WilmerHale rewarded Robert Mueller and his colleagues — Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s ‘top aide’ and ‘closest associate,’ and James Quarles — by welcoming them to the firm after they wielded the power of the Federal Government to lead one of the most partisan investigations in American history,” the executive order contends. 

“Mueller’s investigation epitomizes the weaponization of government, yet WilmerHale claimed he ‘embodies the highest value of our firm and profession.’ Mueller’s ‘investigation’ upended the lives of public servants in my Administration who were summoned before ‘prosecutors’ with the effect of interfering in their ability to fulfill the mandates of my first term agenda. This weaponization of the justice system must not be rewarded, let alone condoned,” Trump said in the executive order.

In his directive, Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to “take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at WilmerHale, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.” 

The executive order also requires "Government contractors to disclose any business they do with WilmerHale and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract” and to terminate as many federal contracts for the firm as possible.

Mueller worked at WilmerHale after his time as FBI director, and returned there as a partner after his time as Special Counsel. 
“We couldn’t be happier to have Bob, our extraordinary friend and colleague, return to WilmerHale,” Robert Novick, the firm’s co-managing partner, said in 2019. “Few lawyers have been entrusted with as many matters of national significance as Bob, in both his public service and in private practice. Bob embodies the highest values of our firm and profession. We’re privileged to work alongside him once again.”

Mueller said at the time that “it was an honor to serve as Special Counsel” and “now, I look forward to resuming my private practice alongside the talented lawyers at the firm.”   

Mueller’s team concluded in 2019 that the Russian government interfered in a “sweeping and systematic fashion” during the 2016 election and “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” — and at the same time — the Special Counsel “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Mueller’s team declined to reach an assessment one way or the other on whether Trump had obstructed justice, but then-Attorney General William Barr determined that Trump had not done so.

Lawyers for WilmerHale filed a complaint and a request for a temporary restraining order on Friday, arguing that “the Order’s declared purpose is to retaliate against WilmerHale—and certain of its clients—for WilmerHale attorneys’ constitutionally protected advocacy in matters that President Trump perceives to be adverse to his personal and/or political interests.”

Judge Richard Leon, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, granted the firm a partial temporary restraining order, letting the pulling of security clearances stand for now, but blocking Trump’s efforts to cut government contracts tied to the firm and his efforts to block the firm from federal buildings.

Lawyers for WilmerHale told the court in pleadings, “WilmerHale has been a professional home for public servants like Robert Mueller and represented (among many others) President Trump’s political opponents… Among the WilmerHale attorneys who have answered the call to public service is Robert S. Mueller III,” the WilmerHale lawyers wrote, adding, “WilmerHale itself had no role in the report or Mr. Mueller’s work as Special Counsel, and indeed represented a number of clients adverse to the Special Counsel’s office during that time. Mr. Mueller retired from the Firm more than three years ago.”

“The retaliatory nature of the Executive Order here is clear from its face,” the judge wrote, adding, “There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as constitutional harm.”

• Jenner & Block — and Weissmann

Trump issued his executive order on “Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block” on March 25, with a notable focus on Weissmann. The order ostensibly yanked their security clearance and restricted government contractual relations. The president contended that Jenner was “yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession’s highest ideals, condoned partisan ‘lawfare,’ and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.”

Trump then zeroed in on the firm’s prior hiring of former FBI general counsel Weissmann: “Jenner was ‘thrilled’ to re-hire the unethical Andrew Weissmann after his time engaging in partisan prosecution as part of Robert Mueller’s entirely unjustified investigation,” the executive order said. “Andrew Weissmann’s career has been rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power… The numerous reports of Weissmann’s dishonesty, including pursuit of nonexistent crimes, bribery to foreign nationals, and overt demand that the Federal Government pursue a political agenda against me, is a concerning indictment of Jenner’s values and priorities” Trump continued. 

“And Andrew Weissmann is the main culprit with respect to this firm?” Trump asked during the signing ceremony, adding that “he’s a bad guy.” Weissmann is currently listed as a professor at the New York University School of Law. His Biden-era “Prosecuting Donald Trump” podcast on MSNBC has since been renamed the “Main Justice” podcast for the openly left-wing cable news network.

This executive order would quickly be partially blocked by Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

FBI Special Agent William Barnett, one of the FBI agents involved with the inquiry into retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, jokingly referred to the Trump-Russia investigation as “Collusion Clue” in 2020 and argued that many investigators, including some on Special Counsel Mueller’s team, such as Weissmann, were out to “get Trump.” Barnett said Mueller investigators such as Weissmann were single-minded and overly aggressive in their tactics in going after people in Trump’s orbit, including Flynn.

Weissmann argued in his 2020 book, "Where Law Ends," that Mueller should have been tougher on Trump. “Had we given it our all — had we used all available tools to uncover the truth, undeterred by the onslaught of the president’s unique powers to undermine our efforts?” Weissmann wrote. “I know the hard answer to that simple question: We could have done more.”

Mueller responded in a rare public statement in 2020: “It is not surprising that members of the Special Counsel’s Office did not always agree, but it is disappointing to hear criticism of our team based on incomplete information… When important decisions had to be made, I made them. I did so as I have always done, without any interest in currying favor or fear of the consequences. I stand by those decisions and by the conclusions of our investigation.”

Republican investigators raised questions about whether Weissmann and others on the special counsel team had purposely deleted information from their phones ahead of a DOJ watchdog inquiry, which Weissmann denied doing.

Lawyers for Jenner on Friday quickly filed a lawsuit and a request for a temporary restraining order, arguing that Trump’s executive order “is an unconstitutional abuse of power against lawyers, their clients, and the legal system” and “is intended to coerce law firms and lawyers into renouncing the Administration’s critics and ceasing certain representations adverse to the government.” The Jenner legal team added that Weissmann “has not been employed by Jenner since 2021.”

“Mr. Weissmann has not performed legal work for Jenner & Block since his departure on July 16, 2021,” the lawyers for Jenner told the court. “All payments associated with his time at Jenner have been completed. The Firm has no current financial obligations to Mr. Weissmann. The purported security concerns based on Mr. Weissmann’s association with Jenner & Block cannot justify the Order.” The request for a temporary restraining order also reiterated that the association with Weissmann was in the past.

Judge Bates, appointed by President George W. Bush, granted the firm’s request for a temporary restraining order in part, allowing the limitations on security clearances to remain in place for now, but reversing Trump’s other limitations on the firm and disallowing the Trump administration from continuing to use the negative statements the president made about Jenner.

"Consistent with the law, the court has agreed that this is an unconstitutional executive order holding no legal weight,” Jenner said in a statement after the judge’s ruling. Weissmann wrote in an article titled "The New 'Blacklists' Work When Law Firms Stay Silent" for Just Security that "I have been the subject of...an executive order and know what it feels like when the immense power of the presidency is used to harass and intimidate. The right response is not appeasement or silence."

• Perkins Coie and the Steele Dossier

Trump issued his executive order on “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie” on March 6, which stated that “The dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP has affected this country for decades.” Trump said in his early March executive order that “Notably, in 2016 while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false ‘dossier’ designed to steal an election.”

Judge Beryl Howell, named to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Obama, issued a temporary restraining order from the bench on March 12 after hearing arguments from Justice Department chief of staff Chad Mizelle and from Dane Butswinkas of Williams & Connolly, who are representing Perkins Coie.

The law firm’s role in generating the Steele Dossier was front-and-center during discussions between the judge and the DOJ, but the judge ultimately ruled that Perkins Coie “has met its burden” for a temporary hold on parts of Trump’s order. Howell ruled that Perkins Coie showed a likelihood of success on First Amendment and viewpoint discrimination claims, and that “Perkins Coie and its employees were targeted” for having “political viewpoints that are unpopular” with the Trump Administration.

The judge rejected the “national security” concerns made by the Trump Administration and said that “cannot mask,” in her view, Trump’s aims to “punish the president’s political opponents.” Howell ruled that Trump was motivated by a “personal grievance” and a “personal vendetta” against the firm. Howell said that Perkins Coie also showed it is likely to succeed on a host of other claims it made and contended that Trump’s executive order was essentially an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

The lawyers for Perkins successfully sought to stop three sections of the Trump order: The section laying out Trump’s reasoning on why Perkins Coie posed a risk to national security and U.S. interests; the section ordering all federal agencies to review all contracts with Perkins Coie or with entities doing business with Perkins Coie; and to terminate those contracts to the maximum extent required by law, and the section limiting Perkins Coie’s access to federal buildings.

Marc Elias, a former Perkins Coie lawyer who served as general counsel for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, played a key role in the funding and spreading of Steele’s discredited dossier, which was used to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against a former member of the Trump campaign.

John Durham’s Special Counsel inquiry further undercut the dossier’s credibility and resulted in indictments against Steele’s primary source, Igor Danchenko, as well as against Elias’s former Perkins Coie law partner, Michael Sussmann, with whom Elias worked closely in 2016. Danchenko and Sussmann were found not guilty at trial.

In court, the DOJ’s Mizelle contended that the Steele Dossier “goes to the heart of national security” and that the claims of collusion between Trump and Russia “were proven to be false” as he cited John Durham’s investigation. Howell cut him off, retorting that “I’ve also read the Mueller report… I’m not going to get into a debate about it.” The judge said that Mizelle could not be saying that there were zero people involved in the 2016 Trump campaign who had any connection with Russia. Howell also said of Trump: “He was upset about that in 2016… He keeps bringing it up. He doesn’t let any of us forget about Fusion GPS. He doesn’t let us forget about any of this. He really has a bee in his bonnet.”

Perkins Coie was thrilled with the result. “Today's decision granting our motion for a temporary restraining order is an important first step in ensuring this unconstitutional Executive Order is never enforced,” Perkins Coie celebrated in March.

The DOJ’s Mizelle also argued on March 21 that Howell should recuse herself from the case. “Fair proceedings free from any suggestion of impartiality are essential to the integrity of our country’s judiciary and the need to curtail ongoing improper encroachments of President Trump’s Executive Power playing out across the country,” the DOJ argued. 

Mizelle argued that Howell had made “gratuitous and biased references…regarding the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller” which “confirm that reasonable observers may view this Court as incapable of fairly adjudicating these claims against the Commander-In-Chief.” The DOJ official added that “the Court’s condescending remark that President Trump had ‘a bee in his bonnet’ about Fusion GPS demonstrate a concerning and dismissive approach to the entire Durham Investigation.”

Howell refused to recuse herself in a March 26 ruling. “When the U.S. Department of Justice engages in this rhetorical strategy of ad hominem attack, the stakes become much larger than only the reputation of the targeted federal judge,” the judge said. “This strategy is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and blame any loss on the decision-maker rather than fallacies in the substantive legal arguments presented.”

Trump had also issued a March 22 executive order on “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court” — where he singled out Marc Elias.

“Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable,” Trump wrote, adding, “Recent examples of grossly unethical misconduct are far too common.  For instance, in 2016, Marc Elias, founder and chair of Elias Law Group LLP, was deeply involved in the creation of a false ‘dossier’ by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election. Elias also intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier.”

Elias issued a response to Trump's March order, arguing that “President Trump’s goal is clear. He wants lawyers and law firms to capitulate and cower until there is no one left to oppose his Administration in court. Elias Law Group will not be deterred from fighting for democracy in court.”

• Paul Weiss submits to executive order

Trump issued an executive order on “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss” on March 14, with the presidential directive mentioning, among other things, the role that Paul Weiss partner Jeannie Rhee had played as a prosecutor on Mueller’s team. The firm would soon agree to Trump’s demands.

“My Administration has already taken action to address some of the significant risks and egregious conduct associated with law firms, and I have determined that similar action is necessary to end Government sponsorship of harmful activity by an additional law firm: Paul Weiss,” Trump said. “In 2021, a Paul Weiss partner and former leading prosecutor in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General.”

The president's executive order demanded the disclosure of any business they do with the federal government, and also that Paul Weiss employees should not be hired by the federal government and should be limited from accessing federal buildings.

Rhee, who had also previously worked at WilmerHale, was welcomed to Paul Weiss in 2019 after leaving Mueller’s team. “We are delighted to welcome Jeannie, who brings unrivaled experience as one of the nation's leading white-collar and regulatory defense lawyers and as a first-chair trial lawyer,” Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp said in 2019. “Jeannie's years of government service—as a senior Justice Department prosecutor, a member of the Mueller investigative team and an advisor to the U.S. Attorney General and to the White House—will be an invaluable asset to our clients.”

Rhee was involved in Mueller’s efforts to prosecute Russian companies called Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering, which Mueller alleged had helped “fund the conspiracy” related to alleged efforts by Russia’s Internet Research Agency to use troll farms to influence the 2016 election. Concord attacked the Special Counsel’s investigation. The Justice Department eventually dropped its case in 2020 against Concord, arguing that “it is no longer in the best interests of justice or the country’s national security to continue this prosecution.”

William Barnett, the FBI Special Agent, provided fuel for the current DOJ, saying there was a “get Trump” attitude by some inside Mueller’s team. He said in 2020 that he “thought Rhee was obsessed with Flynn and Russia and she had an agenda,” and that when “Rhee told Barnett she looked forward to working together, Barnett told Rhee they would not be working together,” according to court filings. Barnett said he “expressed his concerns about Rhee” to a member of the special counsel team.

While at Paul Weiss, Rhee was among the lawyers helping Karl Racine, the Attorney General of the District of Columbia, with a December 2021 lawsuit against the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and others related to January 6. Brendan Downes, now the local attorney general for the nation’s capital, moved to dismiss the lawsuit in February of this year, and the judge dismissed it in March.

Paul Weiss has an extensive history of opposing Trump and supporting Democrats. Karen Dunn, a key member of Paul Weiss’s litigation practice, helped Hillary Clinton prepare for debates in 2008 and 2016, helped Barack Obama prepare for debates in 2012, and helped Kamala Harris prepare for her debate with Mike Pence in 2020 and with Trump in 2024. Paul Weiss gave significant help to Harris’s failed presidential bid last year, according to Reuters.

Former Obama attorney general Loretta Lynch, a partner at the firm, led a letter with over 40 former DOJ officials last summer to “Thank President Biden and Endorse VP Kamala Harris for President of the United States.” The letter argued that “the fabric of the nation, the rule of law, and the future of the Democracy are at stake in this election.”

Lynch was also doing work last year for DJI, China’s largest drone company, as Paul Weiss helped the Chinese company battle against the Pentagon in court, as first revealed by Reuters. She withdrew from the case in November 2024 after Trump’s win.

Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul Weiss, co-wrote a 2018 New York Times opinion piece opposing Trump’s first-term immigration policies titled “The Law Did Not Create This Crisis, but Lawyers Will Help End It.” Karp was also interviewed for a 2018 New York Times piece headlined, “Why Big Law Is Taking on Trump Over Immigration.” He told the outlet at the time that “we’re reuniting families destroyed by the [Trump] administration.”

Following the executive order by Trump this month, the New York Times reported that Paul Weiss’s competitors had looked to exploit the moment, which influenced Karp’s decision to acquiesce to Trump's order. “We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm,” Karp said in an email to the firm. 

The note added, “But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the administration.”

Trump said on March 20 on Truth Social that he would withdraw his executive order against the firm, revealing that “Paul Weiss will dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services over the course of President Trump’s term to support the Administration’s initiatives.”

The Trump White House said the next day that “Paul Weiss indicated that it will engage in a remarkable change of course… This development should give Americans hope. If the legal profession dedicates a fraction of its energy to bringing justice to local communities, unleashing hard-working businesses, strengthening the American family, and unifying our Nation, all Americans will benefit.”

• Skadden Arps cuts preemptive deal with Trump

The law firm Skadden Arps also appeared to yield to Trump before any executive order was issued related to the firm. The president said on March 28 that “Skadden will provide a total of at least $100 Million Dollars in pro bono Legal Services, during the Trump Administration and beyond, to causes that the President and Skadden both support.”

The White House said the leaders of the firm had "declared the Firm’s strong commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession."

Skadden executive partner Jeremy London said that “we engaged proactively with the President and his team in working together constructively to reach this agreement" and that "Skadden is pleased to have achieved a successful agreement with President Trump and his Administration.”

Prior to the announcement by Skadden, Rachel Cohen, a lawyer at the firm, put in her two-week notice and then shared it in a viral LinkedIn post. She said in her notice to the firm that she would agree not to go through with quitting her job if Skadden signed onto an amicus brief — a letter of support filed with the court — for Perkins Coie.

Cohen wrote that “Paul Weiss’s decision to cave to the Trump administration” had “forced my hand.” She added in her LinkedIn post that “if being on this career path demands I accept that my industry—because this is certainly not unique to Skadden—will allow an authoritarian government to ignore the courts, I refuse to take it any further.” No letter of support from Skadden for Perkins Coie was forthcoming.

After the deal announcement by Skadden, another lawyer with the firm, Brenna Trout Frey, announced her own resignation late last week in another viral LinkedIn post.

Frey called Skadden’s deal with the Trump administration a “craven attempt to sacrifice the rule of law for self-preservation.” Her post added: “There is only one acceptable response from attorneys to the Trump administration's demands: The rule of law matters.”

Stage set for Trump vs. American Bar Association showdown

Another judge tied to the fallout from the Trump-Russia saga has earned the ire of the Trump administration — and the involvement of the American Bar Association — in defending the judge as well as attacking Trump’s executive orders aimed at Big Law firms, setting the stage for a broader showdown between Trump and the ABA.

Judge James Boasberg issued an order in mid-March temporarily blocking the administration from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to carry out deportations. The judge also attempted unsuccessfully to stop multiple U.S. deportation flights from leaving the country. Boasberg's rulings and his association with various immigrant advocacy groups have been the subject of considerable controversy. Just the News reported on March 24 that Boasberg was paid to attend a privately-funded conference with an anti-Trump organization last year.

Boasberg, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by then-President Barack Obama in 2011, also for years served as the head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, during which time he made a number of divisive decisions related to the Russiagate saga.

“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” Trump said on Truth Social on March 18 in response to the judge’s immigration ruling.

Just hours later, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts released a statement to some media outlets rebuking Trump, and the American Bar Association (ABA) quickly jumped in to support Boasberg and Roberts and to criticize the Trump administration. “The American Bar Association stands firmly with Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement rejecting calls by government officials to impeach federal judges who issue rulings with which they disagree,” the ABA said that day.

ABA president William Bay released a statement the same day as Trump’s early March executive order targeting Perkins Coie, with the ABA saying that “the efforts to intimidate have now expanded to include the legal profession” and that “the government has decided to punish a prominent Washington, D.C., law firm because it represents a party that the administration does not like.”

The White House defended its actions aimed at Perkins Coie and others in a March 21 fact sheet. “President Donald J. Trump signed a memorandum to hold attorneys and law firms accountable for unethical conduct when litigating against the Federal government or pursuing baseless partisan attacks,” the White House argued. “President Trump is delivering on his promise to end the weaponization of government and protect the nation from partisan and bad faith actors who exploit their influence.”

The ABA soon led dozens of other bar associations in a March 26 letter condemning Trump’s efforts aimed at reining in Big Law firms. “We reject the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways,” the ABA said. 

“We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not,” that letter said.