Former Skadden associate says ABA inspired her letter asking BigLaw to push back on White House executive orders
"If we are in the early stages of authoritarianism, why would people be waking up and going to work the same as they did yesterday? The answer is that some people are acting differently, and you can too," says Rachel Cohen. (Photo courtesy of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom)
A week ago, Rachel Cohen was a finance associate in the Chicago office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. She watched as the Trump administration issued several executive orders aimed at law firms and the legal industry and noted BigLaw’s muted response.
In addition, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent letters to 20 top firms demanding information about their employment practices, particularly their diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Cohen, with other associates, prepared an open letter to BigLaw, calling on firms to “to defend their colleagues and the legal profession by condemning this rapid purge of ‘partisan actors,’ a group that seems to be synonymous with those the president feels have wronged him.”
Last week, Cohen also shared with Skadden a conditional notice of resignation unless the firm came up with a “satisfactory response to the current moment.” Skadden did not return a request for comment. Screenshots of her letter are on her LinkedIn page.
Over the weekend, President Donald Trump issued a memo authorizing the attorney general and the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to sanction firms filing lawsuits that they determine to be “frivolous.”
Cohen, who said she was in part inspired by the ABA’s statement rejecting efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession, answered questions about her unease with the Trump administration’s executive orders and BigLaw’s response, along with why she decided to speak up.
What are your concerns about the Trump administration’s efforts regarding lawyers and law firms?
If you read the executive orders, it is very obvious what Trump is doing. Donald Trump is trying to scare lawyers out of providing representation that he doesn’t want lawyers to take, and he is trying to bankrupt the lawyers he can’t scare. The lack of response [from many firms] makes no sense unless you either think that these attorneys are very, very stupid, which I do not think, or they are not going to do anything, which is unacceptable to me. The first response should be to say, “We aren’t scared.” But they aren’t speaking up publicly because they are scared of losing profits.
Photo from Shutterstock.
What made you decide to put together the open letter from associates?
My friends and I wanted to demonstrate how widespread the concerns were about the Trump administration’s attack on the rule of law. I also wanted to undercut the notion that it’s not possible to get BigLaw attorneys organized. We managed to do it in 36 hours. This has been described as a generational divide, but I don’t think that’s right. It’s a profit-sharing divide.
Why did you give your conditional notice to Skadden?
I was sitting in the realization that the answers that I was getting from my firm about how they were going to handle the executive orders and how they would handle it if the Trump administration continued to assault the judiciary were not answers. If you read the executive orders carefully and you saw the lack of response from BigLaw, you could see where things were going. The firms were moving towards complying with the Trump administration when they didn’t need to comply or trying to run out the clock. We have a real issue, and not just in BigLaw, with not speaking up about things until after they happen, with being reactive and not proactive. That’s why statements often feel unsatisfying or performative. If statements are condemning something that’s already happened, it’s hard to view them as particularly meaningful or as statements that have the chance to create change. To be proactive, you have to move quickly and trust that your prediction of what will happen next will be right.
How are you feeling now after putting yourself forward like this? Do you have any regrets?
I feel clarity and certainty. I have gotten so much outreach and support over this, and I also think it is one step in a long path in activism and advocacy. Even if it hadn’t been so well-received, I wouldn’t have regretted it because sometimes you have to make certain moves in order to see if they will work. Hopefully, it will continue to create a moment where people are paying attention and understand what the stakes are. If we are in the early stages of authoritarianism, why would people be waking up and going to work the same as they did yesterday? The answer is that some people are acting differently, and you can too.
What are the next steps for you?
I don’t know what the possibilities are for me. Right now, I want to keep people’s attention on the attacks on law firms and lawyers.
What is your message to other lawyers?
You don’t have to act the same way I did, but your gut is right. It is as bad as it seems, and you do have to act differently.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
