We Need Law Students to Clean the Stain on the Legal Profession

Now that nine of the largest firms in the US have chosen their own financial interests over protecting the rule of law, leverage in the form of courage remains hard to find. But law students may offer some hope.

Like the once-esteemed Skadden, the law firms Willkie Farr, Milbank, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Cadwalader, and A&O Shearman have preemptively cowed to the threat of an executive order by asking President Donald Trump how high they should jump. The answer, at least as translated to the rest of the profession, is high enough to allow the president to participate in running critical functions of their firms.

Paul Weiss, and these other firms will be remembered for handing over their culture and values to maintain the status quo of their economic stability. The general playbook has been for the firms to deliver a doleful message, sharing that their difficult but necessary decision was in the best interests of the firm’s clients and employees.

These “arrangements” (they aren’t settlements, as the door seems wide open for repeat intrusions once the administration becomes annoyed by future clients or new hires) result in the firms’ collective severance of their once active commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Instead, the new form of obedience is to offer bland statements ensuring they will continue to follow the law in their employment practices—hardly an inspirational message to young law students.

Each firm also has agreed to subject their pro bono programs to presidential approval. The placement of patriotic words around the nature of the pro bono cases the firms will be expected to accept obscures the real dilemma that will arise when trying to assign cases that are anathema to the civil rights and social justice causes that have historically energized associates in their pro bono work.

To paraphrase a former vice presidential candidate, there isn’t enough lipstick in the world to disguise what happened here.

With few profiles in courage emerging from this stain on the profession, it may well be the newer entrants who can clean up its reputation. Skadden has already lost associates whose public rebukes were powerful testaments to their legal advocacy skills.

There are also reports that some associates are considering opting out of or otherwise refusing to be used to “sell” their firms to interview candidates. Perhaps these actions will inspire more associates to find their voices.

But another form of power in this battle for our justice system and the rule of law can be found behind desks in law schools around the country. Firms invest heavily in recruiting top talent and proudly tout the result of those efforts to their clients. But good students generally have choices. And they certainly have agency to ask questions.

Law students can do their part for democracy by agreeing to ask a certain set of questions in their interviews. After all, these are supposed to be conversations in which the firms put their best foot forward to sell themselves as a great place to work. Perhaps law students can drill down on those conversations by asking questions that reveal more, for example:

• How would you describe the firm’s culture?
• What is your philosophy about pro bono matters? What types of cases did you historically accept? Do you foresee that changing?
• How would you describe the firm’s values?
• How do you think the firm would respond if it were the target of a presidential executive order? What would be the process by which lawyers in the firm have input in the decision to file a lawsuit or seek a deal?
• How is the firm responding to pressures to drop its DEI commitments? Have the website statements been changed on these topics? What does DEI now look like here, particularly with respect to formerly marginalized communities?

Law students willing to engage on this topic could come up with a pointed list of questions to shed light on exactly what they will be facing in the years ahead with a federal government inching closer to full oversight of the legal profession. And they can also be clear in refusing offers at firms as to why they did so.

In any democracy, the lawyers are the guardrails. With our country heading toward autocratic rule, the question is whether lawyers will be actors in this drama facilitating the transition, or whether they will abide by their oath and their professional obligations to stand strong against unconstitutional edicts.

We see how some firms have chosen. But it isn’t too late for others in the profession, including those who are close to taking that solemn oath, to choose to keep our democracy.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Lauren Stiller Rikleen is the executive director of Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines