LAW FIRMS

---

this is a newish category: see also legal

SEE LAW FIRMS BAD CORPS

also lobbyist

tort, slapp, foia

fedsoc

skadden opioid ceo bonus bankrupt white collar crime

judges

BAK

law firms play many roles: incubators, Pac Leg/WLF, BUFFER, attack critics, defend orgs and ppl (eg james o'keefe pro bono)

---

AN 10 25

A New York Timessurveyof 50 members of the Washington legal establishment show deep pessimism on how President Donald Trump has taken a "wrecking ball" to the legal system.

"What’s happening is anathema to everything we’ve ever stood for in the Department of Justice,” said a former official who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, including Trump’s first term.

And although 42 of those surveyed—former attorneys general, solicitors general, former U.S. attorneys and retired federal judges from across the country—were previously surveyed before Trump took office for his second term, many did not want to speak on record, because, theTimesexplains, "they’re worried about retribution, for their law firms or their family members, if they draw Trump’s ire."

The new survey, the Times says, "channeled their collectively grim state of mind. All but one of the respondents rated Trump’s second term as a greater or muchgreaterthreat to the rule of law than his first term."

Respondents say this second term is "far worse than they imagined," and all agreed that "Trump and his attorney general, Pam Bondi, have used the Justice Department to go after the president’s political and personal enemies and provide favors to his allies."

IFrame Content

Contrasting Trump's first term, during which time safeguards were held because "there were lawyers in the room;" this time is different, the Times reports.

I still think we get through it,” a former official who served in several administrations said, “but I’m less certain of that each passing day.”

Trump'sbullying of law firms has raised deep concern among the group as well, with one former Republican-appointed judge saying, “Whatever happened to the bedrock principle that everyone deserves the best lawyer they can find? My firm is scared to death.”

The firing of the Jan. 6 prosecutors, the resignations over Trump's dismissal of corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, the conduct of Trump's U.S Pardon Attorney Ed Martin, who promised to smear the reputations of any targets he couldn’t indict, and the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey"corroded the Justice Department in the eyes of our respondents," the Times says.

“It’s all about dismantling the institution,” said the former official who served in multiple administrations. “And the message to everyone in the department is that if you speak up, something could happen that has never happened before. Maybe you’ll only be demoted or fired. But maybe it will be worse. Either way, you’d better bow to the emperor.”

---

an 8 25

Even though President Donald Trump's administration secured promises from some of the nation's biggest law firms to contribute more than $1 billion worth of pro bono work to further the administration's goals, the White House is now reportedly having a hard time getting some of those firms to follow through on their promises.

According to a Thursday report in the Wall Street Journal, many of those promises law firms made to perform free legal services have already been broken. This could be partially due to the success that firms who have sued in response to Trump's executive orders targeting them have had in court, with the Journal reporting that all four firms that fought back have so far prevailed. And firms that haven't fulfilled their commitments are reportedly hoping the administration will be too distracted with the work of governing to follow through on threats to suspend security clearances, federal contracts and access to federal buildings.

The Journal reported that the firms that agreed to help Trump only typically perform between $4 million and $5 million worth of pro bono work per year, meaning that in order to fulfill some of those commitments — like the firm Skadden's $100 million promise — it would take decades. And because Trump will leave office in January of 2029, many firms likely aren't taking their commitment to his administration seriously.

The paper further reported that far-right groups who have inundated the firms with requests for legal assistance have so far been stiff-armed. This includes the far-right Heritage Foundation (which is responsible for the notorious Project 2025 playbook), which has asked for help but has yet to receive any outside of initial meetings with some attorneys.

IFrame Content

And while Attorney General Pam Bondi has asked the Department of Justice to create ways to help law enforcement officers facing misconduct allegations receive free legal representation from the firms in question, none of them have responded to inquiries. California-based attorney Harry Stern, who represents police officers facing legal proceedings, told the Journal: "It's not happening."

Gary DiBianco, who leads a pro bono litigation group, told the Journal that the administration has likely lost its credibility with any lawyers it hopes to strong-arm into performing free work.

"I think the administration has completely lost the leverage it has over future firms," DiBianco said.

Click here to read the Journal's report in its entirety (subscription required).

---

an 6 25

Since returning to office, Donald Trump has often called the US legal system into question. He has criticised judges as activists, challenged the role of the courts and insisted some firms do free legal work in support of his administration’s causes to make up for working for some of his political opponents.

Meanwhile, Vice-President J.D. Vance has advised US Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts that he ought to be “checking the excesses” of the lower courts.

And Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, said: “We are living under a judicial tyranny,” after the US Court of International Trade ruled the president didn’t have the power to impose international trade tariffs. Meanwhile, judges are asking for more security to protect them from threats.

Trump’s federal investigations and volley of executive orders (presidential directives that don’t require legislative approval by Congress) have also put enormous pressure on law firms. And a recent report shows that both trust in law firms’ independence, and even the rule of law itself, is perceived as under threat in the US. But what does this mean, and why is it important?

The president has taken action against law firms in two prominent ways:

First, by federal investigation. Specifically, letters to a group of 20 law firms from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These demanded information about their diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) policies, based on the proposition that any sort of treatment of underrepresented groups that appeared preferential to them in policy, or practice, was unequal treatment for other groups, and, consequently, discriminatory.

Second, the president has passed numerous executive orders introducing punitive measures on specific law firms that previously represented clients opposing his administration, or employed attorneys involved in past investigations against him. His administration has also revoked government contracts and suspended security clearance from buildings. In practice, the orders would prevent attorneys from accessing from where they work, such as courthouses and federal agencies.

In response, some prominent law firms have sought to mitigate the fallout with the Trump administration by entering into agreements with it. These have included pledging US$1 billion (£730,000,000) in pro bono (free) legal services supporting causes aligned with Trump’s agenda.

For example, support for veterans, representing police officers, and antisemitism prevention. Noteworthy is that law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison have now agreed to discontinue certain DEI policies, in addition to committing US$40 million (£29.4 million) in pro bono work for the president’s causes. In response the Trump administration has now lifted restrictions against them.Judges say they are under threat.

More broadly, it has been reported that 70% of the US Justice Department civil rights division’s attorneys are leaving their posts. The mass exodus is believed to be part of attempts to reshape the division into one focused on enforcing executive orders.

The consequences of these developments are that the president’s actions have led to a significant realignment in the legal professions. Some US attorneys have reported that law firms are now more hesitant to engage in pro bono workthat could be viewed as opposing the administration’s policies.

By contrast, some lawyers are now trying to establish independent firms aimed at defending civil servants and challenging federal overreach, ensuring at least some, albeit less resourced, support for underrepresented groups.Trump criticizes judges and legal activists.

Other lawyers have sought legal action against the orders as unconstitutional interference. Some of these have led to success. For example, Perkins Coie challenged theirs and got it struck down. The concern here centred around their representation of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In arriving at the decision, the district judge ruled the president’s actions to be an “overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints”.

Why this matters

These developments call into question the balance between governmental influence and the independence of lawyers in upholding the rule of law. Lawyers must be impartial in representing their clients in order to effectively represent their interests, and allow the judiciary to fulfil their duty of checks and balances on the government’s decisions.

When unfettered power is wielded by the government, and the law is undermined, scope for monitoring the constitutionality of decision making is compromised.

The rule of law is a foundational principle of western democracies. It means that everyone is subject to the law, including governments. Laws must be applied equally, fairly and consistently, and no one is above them.

In essence, laws govern the nation, not arbitrary decisions by individuals in power. In that sense, following the rule of law helps prevent tyranny, protect people’s rights and liberties, and ensures a stable and predictable society.

In order to deliver these objectives, an independent legal sector is needed. Trump’s actions are a threat to achieving this cornerstone US constitutional principle. Some have gone as far as to suggest that by entering into agreements with Trump, law firms have become subsidiaries of his administration.

A recent study on trust in the rule of law found that Americans’ trust in lawyers was already undermined, even before the second Trump administration.

The results, based on public attitudes in 2024, compared public perceptions in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Norway, the UK and the US. Norway and the UK ranked highest in respect of trust in the rule of law (81% and 74% respectively), and Spain and Italy were least trusted (49% and 43%).

The results for the US are interesting. Around 71% of American respondents stated that they had a high level of trust in the rule of law. Yet the country came third from the bottom under the metric “you feel like you are in good hands in US courts”.

The reasons for this are implied in the responses to the other questions in the survey. The US performed second worst (just behind Spain) in respect of belief that judges could be biased. The US also performed worst of all in the category where the public were asked if lawyers were impartial (just 41% agreed).

In interpreting these results it is important to note that the survey was conducted in 2024, prior to Trump’s second term. But anti-elite and anti-judge rhetoric pointing to arguments for more presidential power and less judicial oversight had already been prominent in the first Trump term, and the 2024 campaign.

The results expose the already fragile nature of trust in the legal sector in the US, and underline how this could be ramped up further after the announcements in recent weeks.

Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, *Bangor University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

---

an 6 25

Federal judges — appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents — have delivered major setbacks to the legal push behind President Donald Trump’s efforts to penalize certain law firms, The Hill reportedSunday.

In recent rulings, three judges invalidated executive actions designed to restrict government work for prominent firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block.

"The early wins underscore the legal system’s ability to withstand the Trump administration’s pressure test, and have led some in the legal community to take shots at other elite firms that struck deals with Trump to avoid punishments," the report noted.

Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale Law School professor, told The Hill: “This is a moment for courage, not capitulation."

IFrame Content

“The firms that showed courage are being vindicated, and the ones who have capitulated have another chance to show courage,” he added.

Several major law firms have become targets of Trump’s backlash, largely due to their ties to figures and investigations he considers hostile.

Perkins Coie has been in Trump’s crosshairs for years, primarily because of its legal support for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and its connection to the opposition research that produced the widely discredited Steele dossier.

WilmerHale drew scrutiny from Trump for employing Robert Mueller both before and after he led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Similarly, Jenner & Block came under fire for its past association with Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor involved in Mueller’s team and a frequent Trump critic.

In a sharply worded decision issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon — appointed by President George W. Bush — ruled in favor of WilmerHale, denouncing Trump’s actions as an attack on the foundational principles of the American legal system.

Leon argued that targeting major law firms with executive orders undermines the independence of both the judiciary and the legal profession, which he described as essential pillars of the nation’s justice system.

Meanwhile, in a piece publishedlast week, Democracy Docket, a platform supporting voting rights, highlighted analysis by Stanford political science professor Adam Bonica which indicates that federal district courts have ruled against the Trump administration in 96% of cases in May.

"Bonica’s findings suggest that judges from both political leanings are consistently ruling against Trump, with 72% of Republican-appointed judges and 80% of Democratic-appointed judges issuing unfavorable decisions.Trump’s cross-ideological loss rate is likely due to several factors," the article said.

---

nyt

Law firms

Mr. Trump targeted a number of law firms with executive orders that would strip their lawyers of security clearances, a move that would cripple the firms’ business. Some of the targeted firms employ lawyers who have worked on investigations into Mr. Trump or on causes that his supporters object to. Many of the firms have reached agreements with the Trump administration to avert the order, and top partners have closed ranks in support of the agreements.

Covington

& Burling

Perkins

Coie

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison

Jenner

& Block

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Milbank

WilmerHale

Other firms and lawyers

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sent letters to 20 law firms requesting information about their diversity, equity and inclusion-related employment practices. The letters suggested that the firms may have discriminated against white candidates and violated civil rights laws.

Mr. Trump issued an order directing the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States.”

---

reuters

Summary

Association of more than 700 partners files court brief assailing Trump orders
Signatories include lawyers at three firms that struck deals with Trump
Judges are weighing whether to strike down Trump's law firm orders

April 25 (Reuters) - An association of more than 700 partners at major U.S. law firms submitted a court brief on Friday supporting Susman Godfrey in its federal lawsuit challenging U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order against the firm.

Trump's punitive orders targeting Susman and other law firms "threaten the legal profession, the judiciary, and the rule of law itself," the filing said.

The friend-of-the-court brief, opens new tab, filed in Susman's case in Washington, D.C., by the non-profit Law Firm Partners United, comes as some lawyers have split with their firms over the response to Trump's intensifying crackdown on the legal profession.

At least 110 individual law partners signed the brief. The filing said the association's more than 700 members, all partners at the 200 largest law firms in the US by revenue, were supporting Susman in their personal capacities, not on behalf of their firms.

The signatories included three partners from law firms that reached deals with Trump to avoid White House actions like the Susman executive order. The partners and their firms - Cadwalader, Simpson Thacher and Willkie Farr - did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The lawyers' organization said in a statement that its members "are driven by a collective commitment to protect the rule of law in the United States."

Susman Godfrey sued earlier this month to block Trump's order, which restricted its lawyers' access to government buildings and officials, and threatened to cancel federal contracts held by its clients.

The executive order accused Susman Godfrey of undermining U.S. elections, which it has denied. The firm has represented machine voting company Dominion Voting Systems in defamation lawsuits against Trump's allies who repeated false claims that the 2020 election was rigged in favor of Democrat Joe Biden.

"Orders like this tell the entire profession that taking on cases and clients that are out of favor with the current administration may result in severe retaliation," Friday's brief said.

Judges have already issued rulings temporarily blocking key provisions of Trump's similar orders against Susman; Perkins Coie; WilmerHale; and Jenner & Block; finding that the president's actions likely violated constitutional protections for free speech and due process.

Wednesday's ruling from the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade ...

All four firms have asked the federal court in Washington to permanently strike down Trump's orders. The Justice Department has argued that Trump acted within his authority to penalize the firms for allegedly working to "weaponize" the legal system against him and his allies.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawyers' brief.

Nine other law firms have pledged $940 million so far in free legal work and made other concessions to Trump in efforts to rescind or avoid punitive measures against them, leading some lawyers at the firms to quit in response.

Most of the largest U.S. law firms have remained on the sidelines. Only a handful of major firms have joined court briefs supporting law firms that are suing the Trump administration.

Law professors, advocacy groups, state attorneys general, former top legal executives at large companies and others have also filed court briefs in support of the challenges.

Reporting by Sara Merken, David Thomas and Mike Scarcella

---

cnbc

A federal judge on Tuesday angrily tore into President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting the top law firm WilmerHale and struck down the entire order as unconstitutional.

“The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this!” wrote Judge Richard Leon in the scathing, exclamation-point-filled opinion in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

To let Trump’s order stand, Leon wrote, “would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!”

The judge, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President George W. Bush, suffused his 73-page order with a tone of open fury rarely seen in judicial pronouncements.

“Please—that dog won’t hunt!” Leon wrote in response to arguments from the Trump administration that WilmerHale’s claims of harm resulting from the executive order were merely speculation.

“This argument is absurd!” the judge later wrote, balking at the administration’s attempt to dispute whether Trump’s order caused WilmerHale to lose clients.

Since becoming president a second time, Trump has issued a laundry list of presidential orders and memos targeting law firms that have either worked on cases brought against him or hired his political enemies.

Trump’s order targeting WilmerHale explicitly criticized the firm for hiring Robert Mueller, who served as Department of Justice special counsel and oversaw a probe of possible coordination between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.

As part of the order, Trump instructed the U.S. attorney general to suspend security clearances for the firm’s lawyers and he commanded federal agency heads to terminate WilmerHale’s government contracts. Trump’s order also barred WilmerHale employees from entering U.S. government buildings and prohibited federal agencies from hiring the firm’s lawyers.

The law firm sued in late March, calling the order an “unprecedented assault” on the foundations of the judicial system and seeking to have it invalidated.

″The Court’s decision to permanently block the unlawful executive order in its entirety strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients,” WilmerHale said in a statement after Leon’s ruling Tuesday afternoon. “We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients.”

The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on Leon’s opinion.

---

an 5 25

President Donald Trump's administration was just handed another significant loss in court – this time, at the hands of a Republican-appointed federal judge.

In a 52-page order issued Friday, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates (who was appointed by President George W. Bush), Trump's March executive order targeting the law firm Jenner & Block has been permanently blocked. Jenner & Block's attorneys will now once again have access to federal buildings and have security clearances restored.

Bates wrote in the ruling that the executive order was designed to punish Janner & Block because one of its attorneys worked with on former FBI Director and Department of Justice special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Trump during his first term in office. He observed that the order was illegal as it undermined the separation of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

"This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," Bates wrote. "It thus violates the Constitution and the Court will enjoin its operation in full."

IFrame Content

The Bush-appointed judge also observed that because Jenner & Block is a 900-person law firm with offices in multiple major cities like Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and London, its attorneys have to regularly enter federal buildings, interact with federal employees and handle cases that sometimes involve classified information — hence the need for security clearances. And he pointed out that the firm's lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's order brought up "many more claims of unconstitutionality" outside of the concerns for its own staff.

"These present interesting, difficult, and potentially meritorious questions about the scope of presidential power and more," he wrote. "What has been said here of the First Amendment (and in passing of the Fifth and Sixth), however, is sufficient to declare Executive Order 14246 unlawful and enjoin its operation, eliminating the need to explore those other questions."

The victory for Jenner & Block marks a sharp contrast between how some law firms Trump has targeted with his executive orders have responded, with some opting to cut deals with the administration and others choosing to fight back. The law firms that have taken Trump to court have notched notable successes, including major firms like WilmerHale.

Click here to read Bates' order in its entirety.

---}:

AN 5 25

The Big Law firms that capitulated to President Donald Trump’s unconstitutional demands thought they were buying peace with his administration, preserving their client relationships, and protecting their bottom lines.

Recent developments illustrate the growing magnitude of their mistake.

Fighters Are Winning

On May 2, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell became the first court to issue a final ruling that Trump’s executive orders targeting Big Law firms violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In a 102-page opinion, the court shredded Trump’s edict with a straightforward analysis that other courts are likely to follow:

“In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill allthe lawyers,’ [Trump’s Executive Order] takes the approach of “Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,” sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.

IFrame Content

“Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution,…. Simply put, government officials ‘cannot . . . use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’

“That, however, is exactly what is happening here.”

For those keeping score, Trump’s Justice Department has now lost every courtroom fight on the subject. Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey obtained immediate temporary relief from his executive orders, as did Perkins Coie, which has now won a permanent injunction from Judge Howell.

Meanwhile, how are the firms that caved to Trump doing?

The Other Shoe Drops: #1

After providing Trump with a war chest totaling almost $1 billion in free legal services, the settling firms are now learning how he plans to use it. Previously, Trump had mused about using Big Law attorneys on coal leasing and tariff deals, but on April 28 things got real.

Trump issued an executive order titled, “STRENGTHENING AND UNLEASHING AMERICA’S LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PURSUE CRIMINALS AND PROTECT INNOCENT CITIZENS.”

The order emphasized the need to “protect and defend law enforcement officers wrongly accused and abused by State or local officials.” It directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to provide the legal resources necessary to defend those officers, including “private-sector pro bono assistance.”[emphasis supplied]

Stated simply, police officers accused of brutality and other misconduct will get Big Law attorneys to defend them – free of charge.

Meanwhile, traditional pro bonocauses, including defending immigrants’ rights, are suffering from the deterrent effect of Trump’s attack. Fearing his wrath, they are declining work that challenges his policies.

Settling firms were already getting blowback from their partners and associates as many have left their firms. Trump’s newly-added page to their pro bonocatalog won’t help recruiting or retention. And as with all things Trump, there’s no limiting principle. Appeasement never produces finality.

The Other Shoe Drops: #2

The firms’ stated reason for capitulating to Trump was concern that clients would leave any firm that was not in Trump’s good graces. That premise is not aging well either.

On April 11, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett agreed to provide $125 million in pro bonowork “and other free legal services” to Trump-designated causes.

On April 22, the firm informed the Delaware Chancery Court that it would no longer be representing Microsoft in a case related to its 2023 acquisition of Activision. The same day, Jenner & Block replaced Simpson Thacher as Microsoft’s counsel.

Losing a client to another firm is not uncommon, and none of the players has commented on Microsoft’s switch. But capitulation to Trump has not been a panacea for preserving client relationships. A firm that challenges an unconstitutional order threatening its existence is a firm that many clients want fighting for them.

The Other Shoe Drops: #3

On April 24, 16 House members sent letters to nine firms that settled with Trump. Asking about their motivations and urging them to disavow the deals, lawmakers suggested that the agreements may violate federal and state criminal and civil laws while creating “potentially irresolvable violations of applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.” Previously, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sent requests for information from several firms and White House counsel on April 6 and April 18.

The Other Show Drops: #4

Firms assumed that capitulation would occupy a single news cycle and then disappear. But their public relations nightmares aren’t going away. Apart from the widespread and ongoing condemnation of the legal community, the story continues to have legs as a fateful moment for the rule of law in the United States.

The May 4 edition of CBS’s 60 Minutes ran a damning segment on Big Law firms that settled with Trump. None was willing to appear and defend itself or its deal. The legal term for such continuing cowardice is res ipsa loquitur– the thing speaks for itself. In this case, the firms didn’t speak at all.

On May 9, an article that later appeared in the New York TimesSunday print edition ran with this headline and subhead:

*Can Elite Lawyers Be Persuaded to ‘Wake Up and Stand Up’?

When the law firm Paul Weiss cut a deal with the Trump administration, a new kind of activist emerged.

Some of the settling firms, including Kirkland & Ellis and at least one other, have an escape hatch: Their “handshake deals” with Trump are not in writing. They can do what Trump does when he no longer likes his own prior agreement: Walk away.

In fact, even firms with a written agreement can walk away too. Whatever their form, the deals are probably not enforceable. But that was never Trump’s main objective. It was always about intimidation and deterrence. When firms bent the knee to him, he won and scored an invaluable public relations victory.

And his accompanying billion-dollar windfall didn’t hurt.

NOW READ:The single stupidest statement about Trump ever made

---

AN 5 25

U.S. President Donald Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi “to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation,” including legal filings for improper purposes and statements that are not based on evidence.

Bondi should start with the White House attorneys who drafted Trump’s executive orders targeting Big Law firms—and her Justice Department lawyers trying to defend them.

Did Real Lawyers Write These Orders?

Cloaked in empty rhetoric about “conduct detrimental to critical American interests,” retribution is at the core of Trump’s edicts.

For example, the only detailed rationale for Trump’s Jenner & Block order was the firm’s association with Andrew Weissmann, who returned to the firm in 2020 after completing his work for Special Counsel Robert Mueller on the Trump-Russia investigation. Other than the Weissmann diatribe, Trump’s order merely recited vague and unsupported assertions about alleged “partisan ‘lawfare,’” “abuse of its pro bono practice,” and “racial discrimination.”

IFrame Content

But on that basis, Trump directed all federal agencies to: 1) limit the entire firm’sengagement with federal employees; 2) limit the entire firm’s access to federal buildings; 3) suspend the entire firm’s security clearances; 4) terminate the firm’s government contracts; and 5) require all government contractors to disclose any business that they do with Jenner—with an eye toward terminating those contracts as well.

Zealous advocacy on behalf of any client—even the president of the United States—has limits.

Four law firms have challenged Trump’s similar orders. In stark language, four separate federal courts have granted immediate relief:

“Disturbing”

“It sends little chills down my spine.”

“It threatens to significantly undermine our entire legal system and the ability of all people to access justice.”

“There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.”

“The framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power.”

In three recent hearings, Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson—Bondi’s longtime Florida colleague and Trump loyalist—struggled to answer judges’ basic questions about the orders targeting Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block:

Do law firms have to make deals with Trump to avoid executive orders?

“I can’t speak to that.”

Are the deals in writing?

“I have not been privy to this.”

Has Trump achieved $1 billion in deals yet?

“I do not know.”

When Lawson argued that Trump could target Jenner because it “discriminates against its employees based on race,” U.S. District Court Judge John Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush, snapped back, “Give me a break.”

In fairness to Lawson, Trump and his White House attorneys who wrote the orders hadn’t given him much to work with.

Jenner: A Case Study

Take a closer look at Jenner’s claims, followed by selected highlights of the government’s 37-page response:

The First Amendment:

Prohibits retaliatory actions for protected speech and viewpoint discrimination;

Bars government interference with a client’s right to associate; and

Prevents the government from imposing unconstitutional conditions on access to government services and benefits.

The government says that Trump was just exercising his free speech rights. It asserts that Jenner’s lawsuit “carries with it a dangerous risk of muzzling the Executive.” The government also argues that Jenner’s speech is not protected insofar as it “consists of employment practices involving racial discrimination [favoring women and minorities].”*

The Fifth and Sixth Amendmentsguarantee a litigant the unfettered right to the effective assistance of counsel of his or her choice.

The government says that: 1) clients (not law firms) have to assert such claims; 2) any impact of barring Jenner from federal buildings or its clients from federal contracts is speculative; and 3) Trump’s order does not violate those rights in any event.*

Due Processis required before the government can deprive a person of liberty or property interests. It requires notice of the claims, clarity about their meaning, and the opportunity to be heard before the deprivation occurs. None of that occurred. The resulting harm, including damage to the firm’s reputation, was immediate and ongoing.

The government says that: 1) the order is sufficiently clear; 2) it has not yet harmed the firm; and 3) the firm will receive any required notice before the order actually injures it.*

Equal Protectionrequires the government to treat similarly-situated entities similarly or, at a minimum, have a rational basis for failing to do so.

The government insists that Jenner is not being singled out for unfair treatment.*

The Constitution’s Separation of Powersprohibits Trump from acting as accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. But he wore all of those hats in his executive order.

The government says that Trump’s order is an appropriate exercise of presidential power.*

Attention All Trump Lawyers: It’s Time for a Gut Check

Zealous advocacy on behalf of any client—even the president of the United States—has limits. Upon admission to the bar, every attorney swears an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and to uphold the rule of law. A code of professional ethics requires any legal argument to be “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument” for changing it. Attorneys must ensure that their statements about facts are “reasonably based” on evidentiary support.

Trump’s retaliatory orders seek to intimidate lawyers and law firms into submission and thereby undermine the legal system. His own conduct refutes his lawyers’ contrary arguments. As other firms have capitulated, pledged “political neutrality,” and collectively committed to provide almost $1 billion in free legal services to Trump-designated causes, his executive orders’ stated concerns about those firms’ “conduct detrimental to critical American interests” miraculously disappeared.

Trump even boasted, “And I agree they’ve done nothing wrong. But what the hell—they give me a lot of money, considering.”

In one of the many amicus briefs supporting Jenner’s challenge, more than 800 law firms—including Deputy Associate Attorney General Lawson’s former firm, Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips—urged that Trump’s executive order “should be permanently enjoined as a violation of core First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment guarantees, as well as bedrock separation-of-powers principles.”

“But something even more fundamental is at stake… [Trump’s] Orders pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself.”

I don’t know what Trump’s lawyers see when they look into a mirror. But I know this: History will not be kind to them.

---

an 4 25

In an open letter published Wednesday, amid the Trump administration's unprecedented scrutiny on Big Law, multiple legal groups are calling on elite American law firms to convene and coordinate a unified response to U.S. President Donald Trump's "unconstitutional actions" and "threats to the rule of law and system of justice."

The legal groups include the coalition Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), the coalition Lawyers Allied Under Rule of Law, and the Steady State—which, according to the executive director of LDAD, "formed in the first Trump term as a loose association that maintained a low internet profile because many members were in government," but has "become much more organized and active" in response to the president's Department of Government Efficiency.

The groups drew a distinction between the several elite law firms who in recent weeks have negotiated deals with the Trump administration either in response to punishments imposed via executive order or to avoid the prospect of an executive order, and law firms who have resisted the Trump administration's pressure.

The law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey have all filed suits challenging Trump's executive orders targeting them. All four have won initial relief in court.

According to the letter, more than 800 other firms, including 17 firms on the Am Law 200—a ranking of top law firms based on gross revenue—have joined amicus briefs in defense of the firms that have sued.

IFrame Content

"Lawyers Defending American Democracy calls on the 170 undeclared Am Law 200 firms to avoid the path of those now notorious nine," the letter states.

"If you are one of these firms, you understand that the threatened executive edicts are not legal or enforceable. Rather, they are a tactic designed to enlist you in undermining the rule of law. Any concession by your prestigious firms only helps the administration intimidate the legal profession from challenging its actions," according to the legal groups.

The letter states that negotiating with the administration is futile in part because "there exists no reasonable terms for resolving this dispute."

The letter also points to the fact that all four courts that have heard the cases from firms challenging Trump "have held that the likelihood of these law firms succeeding on the merits is so great that they have taken the extraordinary step of issuing temporary restraining orders against the government’s enforcement." This is evidence, according to the letter, that negotiation is unnecessary.

"If you band together and agree to support one another, the White House strategy will collapse," the letter states. "These threats reveal the administration's own fear. They don't want you in court where they will lose. They are afraid to find out what happens if you and other firms stand together as a profession."

"We must fight because if lawyers don't stand up for the rule of law, who will? If we don't fight for the principles that we have devoted our professional lives to—and that make us a free society—those principles will be forever compromised," the letter concludes.

According to a statement from LDAD, the legal groups behind the letter collectively represent over 1,000 lawyers who who have worked as senior partners, judges, state attorneys general, senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice, as general counsel for major companies, and state bar presidents.

---

AN 4 25

Legal journalist Chris Geidner reports U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan agreed to temporarily block a Trump administration directive, while describing the directive as against the ideals of the nation’s founding fathers.

"Frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power," AliKhan said, according to Geidner. "While I wish other firms were not capitulating ... I admire Susman [and others challenging Trump's acts]."

Law firm Susman Godfrey launched a suit against the administration after Trump retaliated against it for its role in litigating for plaintiff Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation case against Fox News. That case, challenging false claims that Democrats stole the 2020 election from Trump, ultimately ended in victory. Fox News settled for nearly $1 billion.

READ MORE: 'Rein in this dictator': Red state constituents confront GOP senator at tense town hall

The White House accuses several firms of "weaponizing" the legal system, claiming they have a connection to Trump’s legal and political adversaries, and they work on voting rights and other cases Trump personally opposes. The administration also seeks to punish firms over employment policies that encourage diversity.

IFrame Content

Since taking office, Trump has been issuing executive orders and memos punishing major law firms by suspending security clearances, canceling government contracts, and barring employees from federal buildings, among other retaliatory tactics.

Nine firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps and Simpson Thacher have already cut deals with the White House to avoid threats to their right to conduct business. Many have pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal work to Trump’s personal political and legal causes.

Judge AliKhan became the 4^th judge to grant a temporary restraining order against the president’s retaliatory executive orders, finding the EO against Susman “retaliatory and discriminates based on viewpoint,” which is a First Amendment violation.

"Nothing in the order shows a compelling interest," Geidner reported the judge saying. She also found the order likely violates the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

See Geidner’s post at this link.

---

Susman Godfrey, the firm that won a $787 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News for spreading lies about Dominion Voting Systems, is now suing the administration over President Donald Trump’s executive order “penalizing firms that employed his enemies or engaged in work he opposes,” the Daily Beast reports.

“No administration should be allowed to punish lawyers for simply doing their jobs, protecting Americans and their constitutional right to the legal process,” the firm wrote in a statement about the suit.

As the Beast reports, “On Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order barring Susman Godfrey from federal contracts held by the firm’s clients, removed its employees’ security clearances, and banned them from accessing federal buildings.”

According to the suit, Trump has made “no secret of its unconstitutional retaliatory and discriminatory intent to punish Susman Godfrey for its work defending the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.”

“But this goes far beyond law firms and lawyers,” Susman Godfrey said in a statement, “Today it is our firm under attack, but tomorrow it could be any of us. As officers of the court, we are duty-bound to take on this fight against the illegal executive order.”

According to the Beast, “Four firms—including the two largest firms in the country, Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins—cut deals on Friday to avoid falling victim to one of Trump’s executive orders. They agreed to provide a total of at least $500 million in pro bono work for the current administration.”

“Susman Godfrey joined the handful of firms—including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—that have taken action against the president, calling the president’s spree of executive orders ‘so obviously unconstitutional,’” the Beast reports.

---

no lnx

Is this the moment American democracy finally broke?

Thom Hartmann April 11, 2025

The highest form of freedom in a democracy isn’t just the right to vote or protest — it’s the right to speak truth to power. To call out corruption. To challenge lies. To stand firm when the powerful demand silence. This is the freedom that sustains all others.

And it’s the one Donald Trump tried to crush yesterday with the stroke of a pen.

When he signed an executive order directing the Justice Department to investigate Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor — two public servants whose only crime was telling the truth — Trump didn’t just abuse his office. He weaponized the government against honesty itself.

This wasn’t law enforcement: It was political vengeance. This wasn’t democracy: It was a warning shot from the edge of autocracy.

And if we let this slide — if we treat it as just another Trump headline — we are inviting the next strongman to do the same, only worse.

The freedom to speak truth to power is either sacred, or it’s gone.

Thus, Donald Trump just moved America miles down the road toward our becoming a police state. There’s no other way to describe it.

His Executive Order (EO) signed yesterday demanding criminal investigations into Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor — and his public statement that Taylor is a “traitor” guilty of “treason” — are nothing short of a blatant assault on the rule of law and a perilous step toward turning America into a dictatorship.

This isn't just about settling personal scores; it's a calculated move to instill fear, silence dissent, and dismantle the very foundations of our democratic institutions.

Can you imagine yourself being called a traitor by the president of the United States and thus facing prison? Having to hire expensive attorneys that may well force you to sell your home to pay for, just to defend yourself? Not to mention having to protect yourself and your family from the rightwing enforcers who are probably at this moment doxxing and threatening Krebs and Taylor?

This echoes tactics used by autocrats throughout history: Stalin’s purges, Nixon’s enemies list (though less successfully executed), and more recently, Orbán in Hungary, Duterte in the Philippines, or Putin in Russia. If normalized, it risks further turning the U.S. into an illiberal democracy or autocracy, where elections occur but power is retained through fear, manipulation, and coercion. Or worse, a violent kleptocracy like Russia.

Chris Krebs, the former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), had the audacity to do his job by ensuring the integrity of our elections and debunking Trump’s baseless lies of fraud in the 2020 election. Miles Taylor, who served as Chief of Staff at the Department of Homeland Security, dared to speak out against the administration's reckless policies and wrote a book.

Their “crime”? Upholding their oaths to the Constitution and telling the truth.

By weaponizing the Department of Justice to pursue these individuals, Trump is not only abusing presidential power but also sending a chilling message to current and future whistleblowers: “Cross me, and you’ll pay.” This is the hallmark of a despot, not a democratically elected leader.

But Trump isn’t stopping there. He’s extending his vendetta to the very institutions that safeguard our legal system and might defend Taylor and Krebs.

Law firms like Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block are being targeted with punitive measures — revoked security clearances, terminated federal contracts, and restricted access to federal buildings including courthouses — all because they’ve had the courage to represent clients like these two who have challenged Trump’s overreaches.

In addition to signing an executive order targeting two former employees yesterday, Trump also signed one attacking yet another law firm, this time Susman Godfrey, which helped Dominion Voting Systems get millions from Fox for their 2020 election lies.

This is a direct attack on the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to legal representation. When the government intimidates law firms into submission, it erodes the adversarial system that is essential for justice.

The implications are dire. If attorneys fear retribution for taking on cases that oppose the administration, who will hold the government accountable? Who will defend people like Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor?

This orchestrated campaign of intimidation is designed to create a chilling effect, deterring legal professionals from defending those who dare to speak truth to power.

This EO is a tactic ripped straight from the playbook of violent, authoritarian regimes like Putin’s, Erdoğan’s, and Orbán’s, where the law becomes a tool of oppression rather than justice.

Moreover, this politicization of the Department of Justice undermines its very mission. The DOJ is meant to operate independently, free from political influence, to uphold the law impartially.

Yet, under Trump’s directive, it is being transformed before our eyes into his personal enforcer, pursuing baseless investigations to settle political scores in ways Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of. This perversion of justice not only delegitimizes the department but also erodes public trust in our legal institutions.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t just about Krebs, Taylor, or the targeted law firms: It’s about the survival of our democracy. When a president can wield power to punish dissent and dismantle checks and balances without consequence, we are treading dangerous waters.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Trump’s actions are a direct assault on these freedoms, aiming to silence opposition and consolidate power.

The legal community is beginning to push back. Over 500 law firms have united to challenge these types of executive orders, recognizing them as a grave threat to our constitutional governance. Former top lawyers from major corporations have also voiced their opposition, understanding that this isn’t just a legal issue but a fundamental attack on the principles that underpin our society.

However, resistance must extend beyond the legal profession: we all must speak out. Every American who values democracy, justice, and freedom should be alarmed by these developments.

This is a moment that demands vigilance and action. We cannot afford to be complacent as the pillars of our democracy are systematically dismantled. The phone number for Congress is 202-224-3121, and another set of demonstrations are scheduled for a week from this coming Saturday, April 19th.

If there was ever any doubt, Trump’s authoritarian ambitions are now laid bare. His actions are not those of a leader who respects the Constitution or the people he serves: They are the actions of a man desperate to exploit and cling to power by any means necessary, even if it means destroying the very fabric of our nation.

This executive order is more than just a scandal — it’s a frontal assault on democracy. It shows Trump’s willingness to use the machinery of state as a weapon against truth and accountability, and underscores the urgent need to safeguard democratic institutions, enforce accountability, and reaffirm the independence of the rule of law in America.

If we fail to hold Trump accountable for turning the justice system into a tool of revenge, we are not just rewriting the rules — we're erasing them.

Democracy doesn’t “die in darkness.” It dies when truth becomes a crime and silence becomes survival. The time to speak up is now—while we still can.

NOW READ: The sickening secret sauce to Trump's political success

---

an 4 25

Attorney General Pam Bondi just made a significant escalation in the feud between President Donald Trump's administration and the federal judiciary — and she's hoping to enlist the Supreme Court to the White House's side.

On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that Bondi made it clear she didn't appreciate having to abide by a lower court order in a memorandum sent to various heads of federal agencies. The memo was written as part of an order from U.S. District Judge John D. Bates (an appointee of former President George W. Bush) instructing Bondi and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought to tell agencies they were prohibited from implementing parts of an executive order Trump handed down targeting the law firm Jenner & Block.

In Trump's initial executive order, he prohibited the firm's attorneys from entering government buildings (a virtual impossibility for lawyers who practice in Washington D.C.), stripped attorneys of security clearances and imposed various other sanctions. The Janner & Block executive order is part of a pattern of other related orders explicitly targeting law firms that worked for Trump's political opponents.

The attorney general didn't mince words for the "unelected" judge who authored the decision, which she said "invaded the policy-making and free speech prerogatives of the executive branch." She also notably expressed hope that the Supreme Court would step in and explicitly allow the administration to sidestep lower courts.

IFrame Content

"Local district judges lack this authority, and the Supreme Court should swiftly constrain these judges’ blatant overstepping of the judicial power," Bondi wrote.

While some law firms cut deals with the administration in order to roll back his orders, other firms — like Janner & Block — sued to prevent the orders from going into effect. Janner & Block was one of three firms that found success in their litigation against the White House. WilmerHale and Perkins Coie were also targeted and successfully fought back in the courts.

Bondi's memo comes as the Trump administration has repeatedly attempted to ignore orders from federal judges striking down Trump's policies and enlist the High Court in its fight. When U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the return of an immigrant the administration admitted was wrongfully deported to El Salvador, the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. The 6-3 conservative supermajority halted the deadline imposed by Boasberg to bring the man back to the United States, and allowed the administration to continue deporting immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

NOW READ:Donald Trump's new policies are 'stupid' — according to stupidity researchers

Click here to read the Post's report in full (subscription required).

---

4 25 politico

by Adam Cancryn, Maggie Miller, James Romoser and Kyle Cheney

04/09/2025

President Donald Trump is targeting two former first-term appointees over their criticism of his actions, stripping their security clearances and opening federal probes of their tenures.

The directives that Trump signed on Wednesday order the Justice Department to scrutinize Chris Krebs, who ran Trump’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and former senior Department of Homeland Security official Miles Taylor.

The two critics are the latest to be swept up in Trump’s expansive retribution campaign, where he’s sought to use federal powers in unprecedented ways to punish political opponents, law firms, universities and others that he believes have wronged him.

A president ordering investigations of specific individuals whom he considers to be his political enemies is a remarkable breach of the traditional wall of separation between the White House and the Justice Department. Under that norm of separation, criminal investigations are supposed to be insulated from political pressure, but Trump has repeatedly scorned the notion of DOJ independence. Making Wednesday’s action even more remarkable, and perhaps unprecedented, is that Trump used the formal power of executive orders to effectively brand two individuals as subjects of criminal investigations.

Krebs, who was the administration’s top cybersecurity official responsible for election security, wasfired by Trump via tweet after he had asserted shortly after President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 that “in every case of which we are aware, these claims [of fraud] either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.” He had also authorized a joint statementby CISA and other stakeholder groups that said the election was secure and that there was no indication of votes being changed or stolen, which angered Trump.

He was also akey witness for the Jan. 6 select committee, describing his efforts to secure the 2020 election and rebut conspiracy theories about the election and shore up voters’ confidence in the results. In his interview, he lamented that Republican leaders had catered to the false notion that the election was stolen, creating a “self-reinforcing cycle” of doubt. “Republican officials, senior officials, including the former President, lied to the American people about the security of the 2020 election,” he told the panel.

The order signed by Trump labeled Krebs “a significant bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his Government authority.” As he signed the order on Wednesday stripping Krebs’ security clearance and opening an investigation into his activities, Trump repeated his false claims that the 2020 election was “rigged.”

“It was proven by so many different ways in so many different forms,” Trump said. “We’re going to find out about this guy too, because this guy is a wise guy.”

Krebs is currently the chief intelligence and public policy officer at cybersecurity company SentinelOne. The order signed by Trump also takes aim at his current colleagues, suspending any security clearances held by individuals at SentinelOne who work with Krebs.

A spokesperson for the company did not immediately respond to request for comment.

In another move stemming from Trump’s failed bid to overturn the 2020 election, the president on Wednesday signed a separate order imposing new limits on the law firm Susman Godfrey. The firm represented voting machine maker Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuits against Rudy Giuliani and other Trump associates who falsely claimed the election was rigged.

Taylor authored a high-profile anonymous op-ed in 2018 that criticized Trump and offered a scathing firsthand account of his decision-making. He later authored a book portraying the chaos inside the Trump White House, before revealing his identity and endorsing then-candidate Biden in the days before the 2020 election.

Trump on Wednesday called Taylor a “traitor,” even as he insisted that the former DHS chief of staff played a minimal role in his first administration.

“I barely remember him. Somebody that went out and wrote a book and said all sorts of terrible things that were all lies,” Trump said in the Oval Office Wednesday. “I think he’s guilty of treason.”

Taylor left the Trump administration in 2019. On Wednesday, Taylor said Trump’s decision to target him was a sign the country was headed down “a dark path.”

“I said this would happen,”he posted on X. “Dissent isn’t unlawful. It certainly isn’t treasonous. America is headed down a dark path. Never has a man so inelegantly proved another man’s point.”

---

NO LNX

Another institution capitulates to Trump

Sabrina Haake, Raw StoryApril 06, 2025

I never worked for a big law firm and never wanted to. No matter their politics, large law firms breed conformity and impose a hierarchy, and chasing 60 billable hours a week in a suit is crushing.

But watching yet another big firm cave to Trump’s extortion scheme is demoralizing. That Doug Emhoff works for the latest firm to fold adds a special sucker punch.

Trump’s racket is illegal, and every lawyer at every law firm bending the knee knows it’s illegal. But instead of standing united, doing the world a solid with the most consequential class action of all time, large law firms are caving serially to Trump’s demands.

With the exception of a noble few led by Jenner & Block, big firms are picking themselves off one by one, putting money and their short-term careers over principle. They are modeling how, in Trump’s America, the law is whatever a malicious and intellectually stunted man says it is.

Nice practice you got there.Shame if something happened to it.

Trump’s executive orders attacking law firms that have opposed his illegal conduct are not law; Trump has no Constitutional authority to make law of any kind. An executive order is a written directive to do or refrain from doing something specific, but a president’s Article II EO authority is limited. A president can issue executive orders for the sole purpose of ensuring that existing laws are “faithfully executed.” He can’t issue them to challenge existing law, he can’t issue them to retaliate against firms that applied existing law, and he can’t issue them prophylactically to insulate himself from legal consequences in the future.

Trump’s illegal EOs seek to blacklist law firms that serve his political opponents by suspending security clearances for those firms. They also instruct federal agencies not to meet or ‘engage with’ (ie, talk to or correspond with) lawyers and personnel of targeted firms. They have restricted physical access to federal buildings for all attorneys and staff employed by targeted law firms, proving that Trump sees federal property as an extension of his own tacky pay-for-play motel, which is itself a glaring violation of federal emoluments law.

There is no legitimate legal theory under which Trump’s big law firm shakedown is Constitutional. A president has the right to select his own legal counsel, and has some limited degree of control over attorneys working under the executive branch. But in a delusional dictator’s wettest dream, that authority does not extend to controlling lawyers in private practice, private industry, or the judiciary. There is no legal scenario whatsoever where Trump’s EO authority trumps the First Amendment.

Trump is targeting adversarial law firms to undermine rather than ‘faithfully execute’ federal law. As such, his EOs are unauthorized and therefore illegal on their face, even without regard to the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Like his ill-conceived tariffs, Trump is attacking law firms, throwing spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks. Instead of wiping it off with a class action any first year could write, firms like Milbank, Skadden Arps, and Paul Weiss, by agreeing to “pay up” tens of millions of dollars in legal work and adjust which clients they will represent, are eating it and asking for seconds.

The law is stronger, older, and wiser than Trump. Law firms should start acting like it.

It is beyond settled that government officials cannot try to “coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views” the government disfavors. Just last year in NRA v. Vullo, where a New York government official criticized firms for doing business with gun rights organizations, the Supreme Court limited regulatory authority at the point where that authority intersects with free speech rights. Even the partisan federalists on the bench who appear poised to serve Trump are not likely to reverse their own First Amendment ruling just one year later.

The First Amendment protects the “right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.” It has long prohibited government officials from retaliating against private actors for having engaged in this First Amendment-protected conduct. As cited in Jenner and Block’s well drafted complaint, filed last week, Trump’s retaliation against law firms that have opposed his politics is a “blatant and egregious form of content discrimination.”

These cases are well known; there is zero chance the firms capitulating to Trump’s demands are unaware of them.Even the notoriously conservative Wall Street Journal recognizes that Trump is attacking law firms in an attempt to intimidate them, seeking to deter “elite law firms from representing his opponents or plaintiffs who challenge his policies.”

Lawyers, of all people, must stop the deference

Trying to put nationwide firms out of business because they represent, or have represented, Trump’s political opponents is a direct assault on freedom of political speech and association. It is also an authoritarian attack on the rule of law.

Under the American system, every person in the nation, every organization, and even every criminal, including Trump, is entitled to legal representation. Trump’s pettiness and vindictiveness notwithstanding, he doesn’t get to decide who gets legal counsel and who does not.

As Constitutional scholars and pundits have written repeatedly, Trump hates the rule of law because he wants to stay in office for life, and law is the only thing blocking him.His fawning reverence for Roy Cohn, Putin, Xi and Jong-un aside, however, we are not a banana republic where Trump gets to decide what the law is. Large firms need to remember this basic truth.

To the next blue stocking partner Trump threatens to put out of business: Sue the bastard and honor your oath to the legal profession. It will work out better for you in the long run than throwing it under the bus.

Sabrina Haake is a 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense.Her columns are published in Alternet, Chicago Tribune, MSN, Out South Florida, Raw Story, Salon, Smart News and Windy City Times. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

---

NO VID AN 4 25

During his second term, President Donald Trump is aggressively attacking major law firms for representing his political foes. Trump's tactic is to remove security clearances for firms he considers adversarial, thus making it harder for them to do their work on behalf of clients.

Some major firms are fighting Trump in the courts, including Perkins Coie. Others are making concessions to Trump, including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Full disclosure: this journalist's mother was employed by Skadden, Arps during the 1980s.

CNN's Michael Smerconish, who practiced law in Philadelphia before becoming a prominent conservative/libertarian media figure, discussed this trend during a Saturday morning, April 5 broadcast. And he finds it troubling that Trump is being allowed to "dictate" who major law firms do or don't represent.

READ MORE: 'Message was clear': DC insider rips Trump for 'terrifying the legal profession into submission'

"Trump knows that his only true opposition could come from the bar, and that's why he's used executive orders — sometimes as threat, sometimes as actuality — against several top firms," Smerconish explained. "Financially devastating orders that would say the government won't contract with businesses represented by these firms. And it bars access to federal buildings, which apparently means lawyers couldn't go into federal courthouses or have meetings with government lawyers."

Smerconish continued, "This is a core legal principle: lawyers aren't to be punished for their clients or their zealous advocacy. They're protected by the First Amendment, which the executive orders seem to contravene. Think about that: It's akin to denying a surgeon an operating room, or telling a pilot they can't board the airplane."

The CNN host noted that Perkins Coie "worked with Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign" in 2016 and is now fighting back against Trump, while others are making concessions to Trump. And those concessions, Smerconish said, are not good for the legal profession.

"The message unsaid but implied is that these firms are not going to take on work against the Trump Administration," Smerconish argued. "Thus, it appears these firms are letting the president dictate who they'll represent. And now that they're knuckled under once, why wouldn't the president make them do it again?.... So, it's all a gut-check — a true character check for the legal profession. Stand up for yourself, your colleagues, the Constitution, the rule of law — or surrender your role and subordinate your role to the preferences of the president. "

READ MORE: Experts 'watch in horror' as Trump wages 'full frontal attack on the legal profession'

---

mediaite 3 25

President Donald Trump took a victory lap on Thursday and announced that a major law firm he targeted via executive order had capitulated to his demands.

Last week, Trump signed an EO singling out Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, a Manhattan-based firm with notable Democratic clients.

“In 2021, a Paul Weiss partner and former leading prosecutor in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General,” the order stated before going on to accuse it of discrimination based on race and gender.

Trump also cited the firm’s re-hiring of Mark Pomerantz, who left Paul, Weiss to assist in the Manhattan district attorney’s criminal investigation into Trump in 2022. Pomerantz left that job and rejoined Paul, Weiss after D.A.Alvin Bragg declined to bring charges against Trump. Bragg eventually prosecuted Trump and secured convictions on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

The president’s order rescinded any contracts the firm may have with the federal government and it prevents Paul, Weiss lawyers from entering government buildings, which is problematic if the firm needs to review sensitive materials on government property. The order was similar to another Trump issued regarding Perkins Coie, another major firm.

On Wednesday, it was reported that Paul, Weiss had lost at least one client over the executive order.

In a lengthy post on Truth Social on Thursday, Trump issued a statement announcing that Paul, Weiss had affirmed its commitment to fairness and nonpartisanship, and said it would reject DEI policies, subject to an audit “mutually agreed upon within 14 days.”

Most notably, in exchange for withdrawing the order, the firm agreed to do free work for the Trump administration to the tune of $40 million.

“Paul, Weiss will dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services over the course of President Trump’s term to support the Administration’s initiatives, including: assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the Justice System, the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects,” the statement read.

Perkins Coie, another firm targeted by Trump in a separate order, responded to it by suing the Trump administration.

“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,” the suit stated. “Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied.”

---

an 12 24 pro pub

As it failed to pull out of a financial tailspin, Endo accelerated bonuses to about two dozen executives. Records show a total of $95 million was paid in less than a year.

Four days after the last bonus round of $22 million was paid to chief executive Blaise Coleman and his three top lieutenants, Endo filed its bankruptcy petition in federal court in New York. The total Endo paid its top bosses dwarfed the controversial $7 million in pre-bankruptcy bonuses granted to a handful of Purdue executives.

The bonuses immediately came under fire from a federal bankruptcy watchdog, opioid victims and many creditors. The critics told U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge James Garrity Jr. that the payouts violated a law, championed by then-Sen. Ted Kennedy, D.-Mass., nearly 20 years ago after scandals involving windfalls paid to executives of bankrupt firms, most notably Enron.

In interviews, professors who specialize in bankruptcy said that the bonuses appeared to be an end run around Kennedy’s reforms. “It looks like pre-petition theft,” said Gregory Germain, a widely published bankruptcy expert at the University of Syracuse.

Skadden lawyer Lisa Laukitis defended the bonuses in a bankruptcy hearing. “These are not windfall payments that were made to line the pockets of executives on the eve of the filing,” she said.

The bankruptcy went on for months. Hedge funds and other investors — led by GoldenTree Asset Management, a New York firm that specializes in buying distressed debt — agreed to use their secured debt to buy Endo out of bankruptcy. In negotiations to take ownership, the group sweetened the deal by increasing the payments going to individual opioid victims and other unsecured creditors. As part of the deal, the critics dropped their complaints about Project Zed and the bonuses.

https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/law-firms-climate-change/

For too long, law firms have been given carte blanche for their contributions to the climate crisis: They lobby on behalf of the fossil fuel industry, file the paperwork necessary for carbon-emitting projects, and litigate cases against indigenous and frontline communities. With over 1,500 lawyers in offices around the world, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP is regarded as one of the top law firms in the United States. Like many of its peers, Gibson Dunn profits from squashing class action lawsuits and labor organizing drives, keeping shareholders from reforming corporate practices and debtors from getting their day in court, and shielding US companies from accountability for their actions overseas and from regulation at home. Even by the standards of the legal industry, however, Gibson Dunn’s behavior is notorious. In 2007, the Montana Supreme Court rebuked the firm for engaging in “actual malice” and “legal thuggery,” and a Delaware judge recently described its pretrial practices as constituting “fraud.”

But Gibson Dunn’s behavior goes even further. It spent more than a decade defending Chevron in a lawsuit brought by indigenous communities whose homeland was poisoned by an oil spill in Ecuador. When Ecuadorian courts awarded those indigenous communities a $9.5 billion judgment, Gibson Dunn was involved in overturning that ruling in a corporate-friendly US court, leading to the prosecution of Steven Donziger, a human rights attorney who represented the Ecuadorian plaintiffs. Gibson Dunn’s involvement in the Chevron case is a chilling example of the lengths the firm is willing to go to represent the fossil fuel industry and silence anyone in the way.

And Gibson Dunn’s record on climate change is unapologetically awful. Law Students for Climate Accountability (LSCA), an organization that scores law firms based on their environmental activities, gave the firm an F this year, the lowest score possible. In addition to its involvement in dozens of climate change cases, Gibson Dunn has lobbied for Koch Industries and represented the corporation behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, a project that would violate indigenous rights. (In another affront to native sovereignty, Gibson Dunn has also represented those seeking to overturn the Indian Child Welfare Act). Over the last decade, the firm has brought in nearly $27 billion in fossil fuel and energy revenue, with no sign of slowing down even as the need to halt and reverse carbon emissions becomes all the more urgent.

In April 2021, dozens of law student organizations signed a letter from LSCA calling on Gibson Dunn to change its contracting standards. Following Gibson Dunn’s refusal to engage with this petition, in December 2021, LSCA announced a boycott so that individual students too can announce that they are #DoneWithDunn. Meanwhile, Gibson Dunn strives to maintain a liberal, even progressive image: One of the firm’s star litigators is vocally anti-Trump, even as he heartily defends oil and gas companies. Indebted law students are enticed by high pay, diversity initiatives and pro bono opportunities, but may not be aware that their first work assignments may include overturning Covid eviction moratoriums or defeating suits for toxic exposure. In increasing numbers, however, young workers are demanding that their would-be employers disentangle from work furthering environmental and social catastrophe.

When it comes to the climate crisis, business as usual won’t cut it, and nowhere is that more true than in the legal profession. Gibson Dunn is but one of many law firms with a terrible track record on climate, yet this boycott from LSCA is a crucial step in forcing Big Law to take responsibility for how it normalizes, entrenches, and exacerbates Big Carbon work that imperils our planet and its people. By doing so, we join a movement already changing norms at ad agencies, financial institutions, and tech companies, all of which are the sites for organizing to end profiteering from carbon extraction.

Reshaping the economic and social incentives for individual workers, their companies, and indeed entire industries is no small order. But this is exactly what is asked of our generation. Law firms are not leading the way on a just transition toward renewable energy; the only way they will is if we hold their feet to the very fires they are fanning.

Leehi YonaLeehi Yona is a PhD student in environment and resources and a Knight-Hennessy Scholar at Stanford University. Her research is on climate change science, policy, and justice.

David CreminsDavid Cremins is a JD candidate at Stanford Law School.

an 12 21 shock horror

shortly after the deadly insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, some of the United States' biggest law firms and corporations vowed to stop donating to Republican lawmakers who supported Trump's "Big Lie" about the presidential election; a dangerous claim that subsequently led to a mob of angry Trump supporters storming the federal building.

Now, according to Rolling Stone, new reports suggest that commitment did not last a year because some of the law firms have already begun donating to those same Republicans who supported again.

A detailed review of campaign finance records was reportedly conducted by Rolling Stone and government watchdog groups Protect Democracy and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The shift began with large corporations and now some of the country's largest law firms are also following suit.

According to records, law firms including Hogan Lovells, McGuireWoods, Holland and Knight, and Cozen O’Connor donated thousands of dollars to Republican party committees after distancing from the political party following the Capitol riots.

The review indicates that "more than two-dozen major law firms have donated nearly $500,000 to members of the so-called Sedition Caucus, referring to the 147 Republican officeholders who voted to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory, or to party committees that take large donations and spend those funds solely to reelect Republican politicians."

Campaign finance experts have weighed in on the donations explaining how they are "a reflection of a broken and money-rotted political system, in which companies and law firms with business before the government use campaign donations to buy access to policymakers."

Robert Maguire, CREW's research director, also offered his perspective on the law firms' donations.

“Law firms, especially these big high-powered firms in and around D.C., play a critical role in the fundraising system here,” Maguire said. “It seems from the outside that these firms feel like they can’t stop giving, in the same way some of the companies themselves feel like they can’t stop giving, because it’s what gives them a seat at the table. And if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”

In a statement to Rolling Stone, Ivan Zapien, head of government relations and public affairs for Hogan Lovells, addressed the claims and the law firm's decision to resume with donations.

“While we paused PAC donations earlier this year, as a bi-partisan firm, we have resumed PAC donations to party committees on both sides of the aisle to represent the collective needs of our clients,” Zapien said in his statement.

note: "Big Law"

https://www.alternet.org/2021/06/trumps-lawyers/

aldous pennyfarthing kos

BREAKING NEWS: Saruman's orcs are having a hard time finding jobs in the new post-Mordor economy. Several Uruk-hai have applied for au pair positions in the Shire and been flatly refused. Who knows why? Might have something to do with their brazen attempt to sack Gondor, but it could be anything, really.

Won't someone think of the orcs? They need to eat, too!

By all rights, having worked for the Trump administration should essentially bar you from any kind of work—with the possible exception of squeegeeing the ex-pr*sident's kingly moobs once a fortnight ... or whenever he orders a 12-piece Chicken McNugget with extra sauces. And while that's certainly more than a one-person job, unfortunately it's not going to help the dozens of traitors who stuck with this doofus through thousands of lies, two impeachments, dozens of outrages, and one full-blown insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States.

According to a recent Bloomberg story, lawyers who served in the Trump administration are facing higher hurdles than members of past administrations when it comes to securing employment.

Bloomberg:

Trump lawyers have been more difficult to place than those who served in previous administrations, particularly if they were closely connected to his most controversial policies or if they lacked the experience past alumni had, said Lauren Drake, a partner at search firm Macrae.

Several companies and law firms distanced themselves from Trump after the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Corporate law firm Crowell & Moring called for Trump's removal from office and urged others to make the same demand. Law firms Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Seyfarth Shaw dropped Trump and his businesses as clients.

"I don't think anyone coming out of the George W. Bush administration was told, 'We can't hire this person,'" [former Trump administration Homeland Security attorney Ken] Cuccinelli said. "I'm sure Jan. 6 made it that much worse than it ever would have been."

Gee, ya think? Jan. 6 made it much worse? You'd think lawyers for the Trump administration would have about as much chance of being hired elsewhere as Capt. Hazelwood did of getting another oil tanker gig, but that's an unfair comparison ... because the Exxon Valdez spill was a fucking accident.

Cuccinelli, the deputy secretary of Homeland Security from late 2019 to early 2021, has personally discovered just how radioactive Trump was and is. After being considered for one particular corporate job, and being turned down, Cuccinelli told Bloomberg, "They just decided they didn't want Trump people. It was just flat out—you can call it Trump discrimination."

Sure, you can call it Trump discrimination. You could also call it common decency. The latter rings more true to me.

Of course, there are competing theories as to why major law firms are showing such a reluctance to soil their pantaloons in public.

Reed D. Rubinstein, who worked for the Trump Education Department, said the lack of interest in Trump's henchmen has to do with "the extent to which Big Law has been captured by the political left."

"To protect the middle and working class, we directly challenged the control, legitimacy, and power of the credentialed managerial class and their corporate institutions," Rubinstein told Bloomberg. "So it's not a surprise to me that they are hostile to Trump administration alumni."

Sure, Reed. Whatever helps you sleep, my man.

Of course, this dynamic could change as Republicans proceed in their campaign to flush Jan. 6 down the memory hole. But for now, I'll relish this limited—and perhaps temporary—comeuppance.

As far as I'm concerned, most Trump lackeys should be shunned from polite society altogether. Or impolite society, for that matter. Send them to Snake Island. They'd fit in better there anyway.

Some of the country's biggest law firms have recently penned “client alert” memoranda, suggesting to their clients that they closely monitor the ongoing Attorneys General investigations occurring in states nationwide on the potentially fraudulent behavior of ExxonMobil.

DeSmog tracked down alerts written by three different firms:Crowell & Moring, Pillsbury Winthrop ShawPittman, as well as King & Spalding. All of them have maintained fossil fuel industry clients as well as tobacco industry clients, a DeSmog review has revealed.

A previous DeSmog investigation pointed out that Exxon has hired Ted Wells, who represented Philip Morris in Big Tobacco's racketeering lawsuit filed against it by the U.S. Department of Justice, to its legal defense team for the ongoing state AGs' probe.

The AGs' investigation centers around what Exxon knew about climate change and its potential impacts over the past several decades. That's juxtaposed with what the oil giant did about it: funding climate denial to the tune of at least $31 million between 1998-2015.

Two of the alerts came out in recent weeks, published in the aftermath of a press conference in New York City in which many new states announced they would join New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's Exxon investigation, launching the “AGs United for Clean Power” coalition.

All of the attorneys whose names are listed on the client alerts denied requests for on-the-record comment when contacted by DeSmog.

Crowell & Moring

Crowell's three-page alert came out just five days after Schneiderman's office subpoenaed ExxonMobil.

The memo, titled “The Widening Circles of the Exxon Mobil Climate Disclosure Investigation and Its Implications for Energy Companies,” took note of both the Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate News investigations that put “Exxon Knew” as a meme on the map. It pointed to them as evidence that the investigation has already gotten off to a head start, given the breadth and depth of the journalism.

“The Exxon Mobil investigation could prove even more complex, and the results more far-reaching, because of the long history of the company's own research into climate-related issues and its own public disclosures (including SEC filings) on the topic,” reads the alert.

“[I]n addition to the information likely to be yielded by the scope of the [New York AG] subpoenas, the Exxon Mobil public record has already been enhanced by two widely reported independent private investigations by news organizations, including a joint Los Angeles Times/Columbia University School of Journalism study, which describes in detail Exxon's climate research in the Arctic and the company's corresponding statements to, and omissions from, the investing public about the perceived business threat from climate change.”

Former Crowell attorney Victor Schwartz — now with Shook, Hardy & Bacon and a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council's board of scholars — formerly represented tobacco giant Philip Morris on behalf of the firm. Crowell has maintained Shell, Chevron, Koch Industries subsidiary Georgia-Pacific, Duke Energy, Alpha Natural Resources, Peabody Energy, General Electric, American Petroleum Institute, Arch Coal, Schlumberger and others as legal clients.

A Koch-funded front group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has already received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands. And the American Petroleum Institute serves as one of the subjects of an InsideClimate News investigative piece, having studied the impacts of industry-created carbon dioxide in the atmosphere beginning back in the late-1970's only to proceed with funding climate denial in the following decades.

King & Spalding

On April 18, King & Spalding published its four-page client alert.

One of King's clients is Chevron, which it represented in the still-ongoing pollution case in Ecuador. It also has represented Shell Oil, ConocoPhillips, Georgia-Pacific, Halliburton, General Electric, Anadarko Petroleum, Peabody Energy, Occidental Petroleum, Marathon Oil, Motiva Enterprises, BP and Big Tobacco companies.

King & Spalding opened up the alert by stating that the “growing focus by state AGs on climate change could present significant challenges for energy companies going forward.”

“These new investigations are a striking reminder of the increasingly aggressive role that state AGs play in the government investigations arena,” King went on to write. “In recent years, state AGs have become increasingly involved in high-profile policy issues like climate change that are part of ongoing national debates. In some situations, these investigations look more like prospective policymaking than retrospective enforcement action.”

In the alert, King & Spalding also touted its “strategic partnership” with former Wisconsin Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, launched in October 2015, and its past attorney-client relationship with Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company (which has since merged into R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company).

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

Pilsbury, like the others, told its clients that although Exxon has come first in this investigation, there's a chance they could fall next in line. Not only that, the firm recommended deferring the legal costs of such an investigation to their insurance companies.

“Although the details of future enforcement activity are not clear, it is reasonable to expect increasing government scrutiny of climate change-related disclosures,” wrote the firm to its clients.

“Our White Collar and Insurance Recovery and Advisory attorneys routinely evaluate CIDs and subpoenas and help clients not only to develop strategies to respond, but to maximize the potential that our clients’ insurance companies pay for that response. In most cases, we are able to review and evaluate specific situations for relatively low cost or fixed fee arrangements, which enable us to assist our clients to proactively improve our clients’ position and minimize their risk.”

The firm's client list has included the likes of Chevron, British American Tobacco, Schlumberger, as well as Duke Energy.

Contemplating Similar Fate?

A recent report published by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), based on documents put up on the website SmokeAndFumes.org, moved back the time clock of what the fossil fuel industry knew and when it knew it with regards to carbon dioxide pollution and global warming. The report concluded that knowledge dated back at least to the 1950's, which coincided with the industry proceeding to create a disinformation campaign to confuse the public about the impacts of emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

CIEL president Carroll Muffett described DeSmog's findings as important on a number of levels.

“These notices to clients demonstrate that, even as Exxon and its allies attempt to minimize and dismiss the AG investigations in the media, the fossil fuel industry recognizes their significance for individual companies and for the industry as a whole,” Muffett told DeSmog.

“That oil companies are turning to the same firms that represented tobacco is telling: once it began, tobacco litigation continued for decades and ultimately ensnared the entire industry. Fossil fuel producers are now clearly–and legitimately–contemplating a similar fate,” Muffett said.

~CPP

http://littlesis.org/maps/872-lawyers-suing-the-epa-over-clean-power-plan

Lawyers from coal-dependent states, led by West Virginia, are challenging President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Joining their effort is an army of industry-funded law firms that specialize in fighting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Together, they will argue that the EPA does not have any authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to issue the carbon regulations; they will also contest the legality of the “fence line” used to set state emission targets. Yet, buried in coverage of the litigation is the fact that the coalition suing the EPA is connected to some of the largest electric utility companies in the country – and many have purposefully kept themselves at arms’ length so that their customers never know they are funding lawyers who are working to stop one of President Obama’s main pillars to fight climate change. Policymakers, regulators, and customers should know what electricity companies are secretly working together with coal companies to sue the EPA.

Above is a network map built using the LittleSis free database. It details connections between powerful people and organizations; the data is derived from government filings, news articles, and other reputable sources. This map illustrates the links between the handful of lawyers involved in the litigation against the Clean Power Plan and the companies paying their firms.

The National Mining Association (NMA), shown in the middle of the LittleSis network map, filed a stay with the EPA to stop the plan from going into effect earlier this month. This is in addition to a stay filed on August 5 by the coal-dependent states that has recently resulted in the attorneys general filing an emergency petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asking for federal judges to postpone the rule’s deadlines.

NMA was represented by**Troutman Sanders** in *Michigan et al. vs. EPA*, which was the case decided in June regarding the mercury and air toxics standard (MATS). NMA is also a member in the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), run by attorneys at Hunton & Williams. Clicking on NMA in the network map will highlight the connections and reveal the manner in which the trade association is linked to the companies and/or lawyers.

After the Clean Power Plan was released, The New York Times reported that Peter Glaser, an attorney at Troutman Sanders, has been holding meetings with Roger Martella Jr. ofSidley Austin to devise the legal strategy to throw out EPA’s regulation via the courts. Additionally, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), another trade association that is also a member of the Utility Air Regulatory Group and includes Southern Company as a member, said, “It’s illegal and we will not stop opposing it until it is withdrawn completely.” ACCCE is shown above NMA in the network map and is linked to other companies besides Southern.

The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a group of power and coal companies run out ofBracewell & Giuliani that also pays Hunton & Williams, said the that final plan still intrudes into state affairs and that it contains issues that could expose it to significant legal challenges.

And when the EPA was formally published in the Federal Register, Paul Monies of The Oklahoman reported Baker & Hostetler LLP is representing Oklahoma Attorney General Pruitt in the lawsuit. Attorney David Rivkin said, "They're really trying to hurt coal on every possible regulatory means."

Here are some of the companies that fund law firms known to be working against the Clean Power Plan:

Bracewell & Giuliani’s :{Electric Reliability Coordinating Council:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700"):}::

• Ameren

• Arch Coal

• DTE Energy

• Duke Energy

• Energy Future Holdings

• Southern Company

Hunton & Williams’ :{Utility Air Regulatory Group:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700"):}::

• American Electric Power

• Edison Electric Institute

• Duke Energy

• Energy Future Holdings

• Southern Company

Troutman Sanders:

• Alpha Natural Resources

• Arch Coal

• Cloud Peak Energy

• Energy Future Holdings

• National Mining Association

• Peabody Energy

• Southern Company

Sidley Austin:

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in *American Electric Power v. Connecticut*that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions under federal common law, because the Clean Air Act delegates the management of carbon dioxide emissions to the EPA. Peter Keisler, a partner at Sidley Austin, argued on behalf of the petitioners:

• American Electric Power

• Cinergy Company

• Southern Company

• Xcel Energy

Earlier this year, Keisler, along with Roger Martella Jr. also argued on behalf of the Pacific Legal Foundation in a case led by Murray Energy seeking to preemptively throw out the Clean Power Plan. The original plaintiffs before the court were Murray Energy and West Virginia. Peabody Energy, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, Pacific Legal Foundation, National Mining Association, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, and 13 additional states joined the plaintiffs’ cause. In June, the federal appeals court in Washington DC dismissed that lawsuit as premature.

This LittleSis network map will be updated as polluters fund more attorneys in the fight against the Clean Power Plan. Others with new information are encouraged to build off of this map and connect more companies to the law firms. Not only is it important for people to see these connections, but many will remember that in 2009, Duke Energy was pressured to leave ACCCE after it was caught playing both sides of the Waxman-Markey debate: it publically supported the bill but also was a paying member of ACCCE, which was working to kill the legislation. Duke Energy also quit the National Association of Manufacturers for similar reasons. If utility companies voice support for the Clean Power Plan, it’s crucial to put pressure on them to leave front groups or trade associations working to fight the EPA.

:{Pacific Legal Foundation Background

Ronald Zumbrun and Ramond Momboise, former advisors to California Gov. Ronald Reagan, founded the Pacific Legal Foundation. The founding results from Lewis F. Powell’s secret memo to a friend at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System.” Powell wanted the business community to create non-for-profit law firms; thus, thePacific Legal Foundation was created. It’s website says it exists to fight “tyranny” engendered by “overzealous bureaucracies and government red tape” and that it is a foe of “government regulators and environmental extremists.” Powell would go on to become a Supreme Court justice.

Patric Morrisey Background

Patrick Morrisey is the Attorney General in West Virginia. Besides leading the states to sue the EPA earlier this year, he recently joined with 15 other states to ask the EPA for an immediate stay of its Clean Power Plan pending the outcome of an impending legal challenge to the rule. From 2004 to 2010, Morrisey was a partner at Sidley Austin LLP. In his campaign to become Attorney General American Electric Power, Alpha Natural Resources, Arch Coal, and Consol Energy, just to name a few, donated to his campaign.

Baker & Hosteler Background

In Michigan v. EPA in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 5-4 vote struck down the EPA's carefully crafted rules to limit the emission of mercury and other toxic pollutants from oil and coal power plants, David B. Rivkin Jr. of Baker & Hostetler represented the Cato Institute, which in turn has received millions from energy interests including the David H. Koch Foundation and ExxonMobil. Rivkin worked in the Reagan Justice Department and was the associate general counsel at the Department of Energy under George H. W. Bush. More recently, he has been part of the legal effort to strike down Obamacare and also has defeated lawsuits aimed at holding former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally liable for alleged torture in Iraq.

Rivkin also argued the cause for petitioner State of Texas in Texas v. EPA, which was decided in July 2013. The U.S. Court of Appeals slapped down Texas’ attempt to block the EPA from controlling the state’s system for issuing permits to power plants.

wiki

Rank Name Revenue Office Reach Headquarters

1 Increase Baker & McKenzie $2,419.0m[1] International United States USA (Chicago, IL)

2 Increase Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom $2,320.0m[2] International United States USA (New York, NY)

3Increase Norton Rose Fulbright $2,090.0m[3] International United Kingdom UK

3 Increase Linklaters $1,940.0m[4] International United Kingdom UK (London)

5 Steady Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer $1,930.0m[4] International United Kingdom UK (London)

5 Increase Allen & Overy $1,930.0m[4] International United Kingdom UK (London)

6 Decrease Clifford Chance $1,874.5m International United Kingdom UK (London)

7 Decrease Latham & Watkins $1,821.0m International United States USA (Los Angeles, CA)

8 Steady Jones Day $1,520.0m International United States USA (Cleveland, OH)

9 Increase Kirkland & Ellis $1,428.0m International United States USA (Chicago)

10 Decrease Sidley Austin $1,357.0m International United States USA (Chicago)

11 Decrease White & Case $1,307.0m International United States USA (New York)

12 Increase Weil, Gotshal & Manges $1,233.0m International United States USA (New York)

13 Increase Greenberg Traurig $1,173.0m International United States USA (Miami, FL)

14 Decrease Mayer Brown $1,118.0m International United States USA (Chicago)

15 Increase Morgan, Lewis & Bockius $1,068.5m International United States USA (Philadelphia, PA)

16 Increase K&L Gates $1,034.5m International United States USA (Pittsburgh, PA)

17 Decrease DLA Piper USA[5] $1,014.5m National... United States USA (Chicago)

18 Increase Gibson Dunn $995.0m International United States USA (Los Angeles)

18 Increase Sullivan & Cromwell $995.0m International United States USA (New York)

20 Increase Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton $965.0m International United States USA (New York)

21 Increase Reed Smith $942.0m International United States USA (Pittsburgh)

22 Increase WilmerHale $1,073.0m [6] International United States USA (Boston, MA and Washington, DC)

23 Decrease Dewey & LeBoeuf $941.0m International United States USA (New York)

24 Decrease DLA Piper International[5] $910.0m International United Kingdom UK (London)

25 Increase Ashurst $889.5m International United Kingdom UK

26 Decrease Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker $889.0m International United States USA (Los Angeles)

27 Increase Morrison & Foerster $884.0m International United States USA (San Francisco)

28 Decrease Simpson Thacher & Bartlett $870.5m International United States USA (New York)

29 Steady Hogan & Hartson[7] $864.5m National United States USA (Washington, DC)

30 Increase Bingham McCutchen $860.0m International United States USA (Boston)

31 Decrease Lovells[7] $849.0m International United Kingdom UK (London)

32 Increase Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe $847.5m International United States USA (San Francisco)

33 Increase Davis Polk & Wardwell $846.0m International United States USA (New York)

34 Decrease McDermott Will & Emery $829.0m International United States USA (Chicago)

35 Decrease O'Melveny & Myers $826.5m International United States USA (Los Angeles)

36 Decrease Shearman & Sterling $801.0m International United States USA (New York)

37 Increase Ropes & Gray $789.5m International United States USA (Boston)

38 Increase Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan $723.4m International United States USA

39 Increase Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld $719.0m International United States USA (Washington, DC)

40 Decrease Dechert $713.0m International United States USA (Philadelphia)

41 Increase Winston & Strawn $705.0m International United States USA (Chicago)

42 Decrease Herbert Smith $704.5m International United Kingdom UK (London)

43 Increase King & Spalding $677.5m International United States USA (Atlanta, GA)

44 Decrease Debevoise & Plimpton $668.0m International United States USA (New York)

45 Steady Foley & Lardner $667.0m International United States USA (Milwaukee, WI)

46 Increase Paul Weiss $665.5m International United States USA (New York)

47 Increase Goodwin Procter $658.0m International United States USA (Boston)

48 Increase Proskauer Rose $643.0m International United States USA (New York)

50 Decrease Slaughter and May $628.5m International United Kingdom UK (London)

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC – “In February the firm inked a $275 million settlement with the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC over its RMBS deals, one of the top-five class action accords for soured MBS transactions.”
Gibbs & Bruns LLP – “In January, a New York state judge finalized an $8.5 billion cash settlement the firm struck with Bank of America to end claims tied to 530 troubled residential mortgage-backed securities trusts packaged and sold by BofA subsidiary Countrywide Financial Corp.”
Grant & Eisenhofer PA – “In September 2013, the firm, serving as co-counsel to a Michigan pension fund in a derivative suit, reached an agreement with Oracle Corp.’s billionaire founder and chief executive Larry Ellison, who agreed to fork over roughly $440 million he and his associates made from a transaction in which Oracle bought another company Ellison owned.”
Labaton Sucharow LLP
The Lanier Law Firm PLLC
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP – “The firm won the largest judgment following a securities class action trial, when in October 2013 an Illinois federal judge imposed a nearly $2.5 billion order against Household International Inc. and three former executives.”
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP
Susman Godfrey LLP