President Donald Trump was expected to go after his enemies when he returned to the White House. But few predicted he would target “Big Law” the way he has.
“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 in a March 22 memorandum. But the American Bar Association, which oversees academic standards for law schools and ethical codes for lawyers in the U.S., has pushed back at the idea that his actions taken against specific firms is about professional conduct.
“Lawyers must be free to represent clients and perform their ethical duty without fear of retribution,” ABA President William R. Bay said in a statement on March 3, after reports that the government “decided to punish a prominent Washington, D.C., law firm because it represents a party that the administration does not like” and “that actions may be taken against more law firms” in the weeks to come.
“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,” Bay’s statement, which also addressed efforts by the Trump Administration to “undermine the courts” or “punish judges who rule certain ways.”
But that didn’t stop Trump. Over the past couple of weeks, the President has, through a series of executive actions, sought to punish several specific law firms that have been involved in any capacity in working against him, primarily by cancelling their national security clearances, which can impede the firms’ work.
Here’s what to know about the law firms that Trump has issued orders against so far, why he’s done so, and how each firm has responded.
WilmerHale
On March 27, Trump ordered the federal government to stop working with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale)—suspending the law firm’s security clearances, directing federal agencies to terminate contracts they have with the firm, and limiting WilmerHale employees’ access to government buildings.
Trump lambasted the firm for employing former special counsel Robert Mueller—who led the special investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties with Russia. Trump said WilmerHale “rewarded” Mueller and his colleagues 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 President’s order also criticized WilmerHale’s diversity efforts, and claimed it worked against American interests as it “engages in obvious partisan representations” and “backs the obstruction of efforts” against illegal immigrants and drug trafficking.
In a statement to the media, a spokesperson for WilmerHale called the order “unlawful” and said the firm will pursue “all appropriate remedies” to countermand it. The spokesperson added that Mueller “retired from our firm in 2021.”
“Our firm has a longstanding tradition of representing a wide range of clients, including in matters against administrations of both parties,” the WilmerHale spokesperson said.
Jenner & Block
On March 25, Trump issued an executive order against Chicago-headquartered firm Jenner & Block. Trump suspended security clearances for the firm’s employees and restricted the firm’s access to federal buildings and contracting work.
In his order, Trump singled out Andrew Weissmann —a longtime deputy of Mueller and a top prosecutor in the Russia investigation—whom he says Jenner & Block was “‘thrilled’ to re-hire.” Weissmann worked for the firm from 2006 to 2011 and then again from 2020 to 2021 between stints in government.
A spokesperson for Jenner & Block responded to the order: “We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients’ interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies.” The firm added in its statement that the executive order resembled one that “has already been declared unconstitutional” by a federal judge.
Paul, Weiss
On March 14, Trump extended similar revocations of security clearances and government building access to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul, Weiss), which is headquartered in New York.
In the order, Trump cited Paul, Weiss’ former lawyer Mark Pomerantz, who investigated Trump for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office from 2021. Pomerantz looked into Trump’s finances and his links to adult film star Stormy Daniels but resigned from the DA Office in 2022, despite believing he had sufficient evidence against Trump, after DA Alvin Bragg opted not to pursue charges.
In a surprise move, Trump rescinded the order against Paul, Weiss on March 21 after Paul, Weiss “acknowledged the wrongdoing” of former partner Pomerantz and vowed to some policy changes, including the dedication of $40 million worth of pro bono legal services to “support causes” of the Trump Administration like anti-Semitism efforts and “fairness in the justice system.”
Other law firms and lawyers described Paul, Weiss’ response as cowing to Trump. Former associates wrote a letter calling the deal “a permanent stain on the face of a great firm that sought to gain a profit by forfeiting its soul.” But the firm’s chairman Brad Karp defended the agreement with Trump in an internal email to its employees, the New York Times reported, arguing the firm “would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the administration.”
Perkins Coie
On March 6, Trump targeted Perkins Coie LLP, similarly suspending security clearances for the Seattle-headquartered law firm and ordering federal agencies to stop business with it.
In the order, the President criticized the firm’s “dishonest and dangerous activity.” The firm is known in Washington for working with the Democratic Party, including commissioning a research and intelligence firm to look into Trump’s ties to Russia for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Trump also criticized the firm for its diversity initiatives and for taking on clients that work against the Administration’s agenda.
Perkins filed a suit on March 11 challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s order, claiming that “its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the president perceives as adverse to the views of his administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients.” A day later, a federal judge temporarily blocked part of Trump’s order.
Covington & Burling
On February 25, Trump signed an executive action stripping the security clearances of and reviewing all work the federal government has with Covington & Burling LLP, the largest law firm in D.C.
In the memorandum, Trump named Peter Koski—a partner at the firm who represented former special prosecutor Jack Smith. Smith brought two criminal cases against the President, though they were dropped after Trump’s election victory last November.
Read More: How Trump Got Away With It, According to Jack Smith
Politico reported that Smith received $140,000 in pro bono legal services from Covington before he resigned in January.
A spokesperson for Covington said in a statement to ABC News that the firm agreed to represent Smith “when it became apparent that he would become a subject of a government investigation” and that the firm serves as defense counsel to Smith “in his personal, individual capacity.” The spokesperson added: “We look forward to defending Mr. Smith’s interests and appreciate the trust he has placed in us to do so.”
