Some want to leave law firms with White House agreements, and others avoid firms that pushed back
John Keker, a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk who has been trying federal jury cases for five decades, is not known for shrinking from a fight. When President Donald Trump began targeting law firms with executive orders that suspended their security clearances and barred them from federal buildings, the San Francisco lawyer’s firm, Keker, Van Nest & Peters, immediately put out a statement pushing back.
The firm hasn’t stopped fighting. In late March, the senior partners wrote in an essay in the New York Times, “If lawyers and law firms won’t stand up for the rule of law, who will?”
The law firm did not return a request for comment. Both actions came after the president’s February announcement he was targeting law firms with executive orders to send a message, which was that the federal government will no longer tolerate “the abuse of power by partisan actors who exploit their positions for political gain.”
In April, the White House claimed it had entered deals with five law firms, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Other law firms, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey, challenged the executive orders in federal court.
With the legal industry under attack, law firms risk damage to their business and reputation as well as attorney recruitment and retention if they stay silent, according to some legal observers. Others aren’t so sure and say some lawyers are avoiding law firms that entered White House agreements in addition to those that are fighting back.
Meanwhile, at a May federal court hearing over an executive order aimed at Susman Godfrey, a Justice Department lawyer admitted that he didn’t know about any written agreements with law firms beyond what was described in press releases.
Clients want their law firms to have “healthy working relationships with the government,” says Peter Zeughauser of the Zeughauser Group. (Photo by the Zeughauser Group)
Keeping quiet
A bulk of law firms are stuck in a “logjam” over messaging, says Ian McCaleb. He’s the founder of Blue Highway Advisory, a Washington, D.C.- and London-based public relations firm specializing in crisis and litigation communications and legal marketing strategy.
“There’s no getting around the fact that the stasis is based on fear of being targeted for sticking your helmet too far above the trench line,” McCaleb says.
The popular wisdom, some law firm consultants say, has been that battling with the Trump administration would cause clients to flee.
Clients want their law firms to have “healthy working relationships with the government,” says Peter Zeughauser of the Zeughauser Group.
“If it is perceived that a healthy working relationship is not possible, that would no question hurt the business of the firm,” says Zeughauser, a former senior vice president and general counsel of the Irvine Company, who now advises law firms on strategic planning.
But there are some indications firms that cut deals with the Trump administration could lose clients. In May, Microsoft revealed that it dropped Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, which settled with the White House, in favor of Jenner & Block, a firm that is fighting an executive order against it. The matter involves a $69 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard. While filings in the Delaware Chancery Court case don’t reveal a reason for the firm switch, legal observers suggest that companies could be having their doubts about law firms that they see as having buckled under pressure by the Trump administration.
Neither firm responded to requests for comment.
Matthew Diller, a Fordham University School of Law professor and dean emeritus, thinks the firms that fought the executive orders are now benefiting from a “positive message to their brand.” (Photo by Chris Taggart)
Matthew Diller, a Fordham University School of Law professor and dean emeritus, thinks the firms that fought the executive orders are now benefiting from a “positive message to their brand.”
Their reputation is that “they fight hard and won’t be intimidated,” says Diller, who studies access to justice and the legal system.
Jeffrey A. Lowe, market president of CenterPeak, a legal placement firm, says that both partners and associates are discussing leaving firms that have decided to cut deals with the government, but he’s also seeing partners moving away from firms that have elected to fight back “because of the uncertainty the order and the ensuing litigation has caused to their practices.”
“While it may have a material effect on some of those firms in the short term, it is unclear whether it will have a lasting effect over the long term,” Lowe says.
Lauren Drake, a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of recruiting firm Macrae, says that while she’s seeing some partners switching firms based on responses to executive orders, it’s “not as much as you might expect.” She says that partner moves “are less driven by ideology than [they are] by the needs of their clients.”
Drake adds that some of the associates want to hold off considering firms “caught up in this,” either in challenging an executive order in court or making an agreement with the White House.
Deep relationships
On the business development front, there are reports that some in-house counsels are “disgusted” with law firms that made deals with the Trump administration, and that could create friction, says Susan Hackett. She’s the founder of Legal Executive Leadership, a law practice management consultancy in Bethesda, Maryland, and a former senior vice president and general counsel of the Association of Corporate Counsel.
“It’s perceived as a lack of fortitude for professional principles,” she adds.
But Hackett notes that in-house lawyers are unlikely to recommend any changes in their outside counsel based upon their personal beliefs about how to handle the Trump administration. She adds that in-house counsels have relationships with law firms they know and trust, and they’d be reluctant to disrupt that.
Hackett also says corporate lawyers are “beholden to their corporate entities” and would not take lightly telling stakeholders that they must incur increased cost and uncertainty by transferring work to another firm.
Students need jobs
Pro bono work, something firms often use as marketing for recruitment and positive press, also figures in. In April, Trump posted on Truth Social that four law firms agreed to provide “at least $500 million dollars in pro bono and other free Legal services.”
According to his writing, the work would include helping veterans, law enforcement officers and first responders, as well as “ensuring fairness in our justice system.” He later announced expectations that the firms would also provide pro bono services related to his tariffs plan and the coal industry, CNN reported.
Many law firms that entered the agreements have a long history of doing pro bono work, with clients who may have been targeted by the White House. If the Trump administration increases rather than decreases the pressure on law firms about the pro bono clients they take, “it will impose continuing pain and cost to them and their reputation,” Diller says.
“Having said that, students need jobs, so the firms will still attract students, just maybe not their first choices,” he adds.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
