Big Law Firms Who Surrendered to Trump’s Demands Ended up Losing

One year ago, President Donald Trump issued the first of his executive orders targeting law firms who represented clients or causes he didn’t like for retaliation and punishment.

The orders imposed significant sanctions designed to chill the legal profession—especially elite Big Law firms—from taking positions antithetical to the administration.

The strategy of self-preservation embraced by some of the most prestigious firms in the face of Trump’s demands didn’t work. Those that caved have lost partners and clients, and remain bound by unconstitutional deals that require them to do Trump’s bidding.

The message Big Law sent to ordinary citizens was clear: When the going gets tough, lawyers look after themselves first and everything else second.

It only took a few weeks for nine of the country’s biggest firms to capitulate to Trump’s demands, agreeing to provide the administration with a total of nearly $1 billion in free legal assistance in exchange for an unenforceable promise from the president not to issue an executive order punishing the firm.

Four firms targeted by Trump’s executive orders chose to fight: Perkins Coie; WilmerHale; Jenner & Block; and Susman Godfrey. Their decision proved the wiser course. Each won federal district court rulings holding that the orders violated their First Amendment right to advocate for clients and causes of their choosing.

The administration told the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that it intended to abandon its appeal of the district court decisions but then, a day later, announced that it would pursue the appeal after all.

Lessons Offered

It is rare for the Department of Justice to reverse course in such a publicly transparent and seemingly inexplicable manner. The immediate about-face offers four important lessons.

First, the administration knows it has little chance of convincing any US Court of Appeals, or the US Supreme Court for that matter, that the executive orders are lawful. The initial decision to abandon the appeal couldn’t have been made without the approval of top officials in the Justice Department. So why change back?

Some suggest the White House decided it was more important not to appear weak by admitting it was wrong. That could be part of the reason, but it’s likely more pragmatic than that.

If the appeal is abandoned and the district court rulings are left to stand, the deals with the nine firms are no longer legally valid or enforceable, and the hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal assistance is gone. With the appeal in place, Trump can continue to coerce Big Law into representing him and his causes—at least until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

Second, it’s now clear just how grievous a mistake it was for the nine law firms to cave without a fight. Former Biden adviser Neera Tanden said one of the firm’s actions would “live in infamy.”

Each of these firms—A&O Shearman; Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; Milbank; Paul Weiss; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Skadden; and Willkie, Farr & Gallagher—inflicted permanent damage not just on themselves, but on the legal profession as a whole.

The surrender was led by a Wall Street powerhouse, Paul Weiss, and its former managing partner Brad Karp, who met with Trump in person to hammer out a deal he hoped would preserve the firm’s profitability, which at $7.5 million per partner made it one of the most lucrative legal practices in the world.

Other firms decided to follow suit, figuring that if Paul Weiss was no match for Trump, neither were they. Many just stayed quiet, hoping not to be the next target.

My own efforts following the Paul Weiss agreement to rally opposition from firms and partners that I had worked with and respected over nearly 40 years as a civil rights lawyer working for non-profits and at my own firm were met with surprising equivocation.

At many firms there was little to no commitment to resist or fight an unconscionable and unconstitutional assault on the legal profession and the judiciary.

Those that caved have suffered reputational damage that could hurt their ability to recruit young lawyers and clients for many years. In contrast, all of the firms that stood up to Trump—Perkins Coie; Jenner & Block; WilmerHale; and Susman Godfrey—have posted an increase in profits per partner for 2025 over 2024.

Third, the law firms’ actions should help shape how we should think about resisting Trump’s authoritarian tendencies in the remainder of his second term.

The strategic mistake in Big Law’s response to what it saw as an existential threat to its survival was the failure to stick together. Collectively, the legal profession has enormous power. Had each firm looked out for the others, Trump’s early efforts to coerce and co-opt a critical pillar of our democracy could have been thwarted.

The president came after the legal profession first for a reason. Without lawyers, other powerful institutions are defenseless.

Big Law’s failure to stand together gave the White House an opening to push ahead with its efforts to coerce money and limit academic freedom at places like Columbia, Brown, University of Virginia, and Harvard. They followed Big Law’s playbook, each trying to cut their own deal. The outcome for many universities might well have been different if Big Law had led by example and held firm.

Of all the elite universities threatened with punitive action by Trump, only Harvard fought back in court. Like the firms that stood up, it is winning.

That brings me to the final lesson. For those who have faith in the rule of law and the conviction to persevere, an authoritarian can be defeated.

Anyone in Trump’s current crosshairs would do well to pay attention to the brave firms that made the decision to fight—not fold. As District Judge Beryl Howell put it, they “will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written.”

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

Author Information

John Relman is the founding partner of Relman Colfax, a national civil rights law firm, with a litigation practice focused on combating discrimination and obtaining equity.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines