Some of the country's elite law firms are discovering that their activities as part of the "resistance" during Trump 1.0 and the harassment of Trump and his allies during the interregnum were not all fun and games. Thursday, President Trump signed an executive order stripping powerhouse Democrat and progressive law firm Perkins Coie of all government contracts and supported facilities, like sensitive compartmented information facilities, and suspending the security clearances held by its attorneys; see Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP – The White House. The reasons given were Perkins Coie's acting as George Soros stormtroopers to knock down voter ID laws, its use of racial and ethnic quotas to hire attorneys, and its role in developing and disseminating the fraudulent Steele Dossier during the 2016 presidential campaign, but mostly for the Steele Dossier.
This follows a similar action taken against another law firm that acts as the legal arm of the Democrat Party, Covington & Burling; see Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts – The White House. This order suspended the security clearances of attorneys who assisted former special counsel Jack Smith and terminated government contracts with the law practice.
For law firms used to being the hunters and not the hunted, this is causing some concern.
The White House moves have sent a chill through the world of Big Law, at a time when litigation has emerged as one of the few checks on the president.
In private conversations, partners at some of the nation’s leading firms have expressed outrage at the president’s actions. What they haven’t been willing to do is say so publicly. Back-channel efforts to persuade major law firms to sign public statements criticizing Trump’s actions thus far have foundered, in part because of retaliation fears, people familiar with the matter said.
In particular, the orders have hit home with one of he most prominent purveyors of lawfare against Trump, his family, friends, and associates who writes at, oddly enough, Lawfaremedia.
Trump’s retaliation against law firms is having its predictable chilling effect. Punishing law firms for representing clients the president dislikes infringes on the 6th Amendment right to counsel of one’s choice and the 1st Amendment right to free association.…
— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) March 9, 2025
This is nonsense. President Trump spelled out the reason these two law firms were targeted. While the Covington & Burling order did have a personal angle, Perkins Coie is a certified bad actor. As far as I'm concerned, it deserved to be shut down and its partners imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay over its involvement in the Russia Hoax. That said, nothing in those orders prevents anyone from engaging either firm to defend, nor does it prevent anyone from associating with them.
The real complaint is that both firms, under Obama and Biden, had taken on the air of quasi-governmental law shops. Some of their lawyers held high-level security clearances without any need. Apparently, the US government maintained SCIFs at Perkins Coie offices, allowing easy access to highly classified intelligence. Some of their lawyers and staff held permanent passes permitting unescorted entry to some federal agencies. The orders do nothing to prevent either law firm from representing clients needing access to top secret information; they are just required to play by the same rules as every other law office in the country. Attorneys can get clearances on a case-by-case basis, they have to access top secret information in government SCIFs, and their attorneys can't meander through federal buildings without an escort and appointment.
McQuade's sniveling really rings false when one considers the concerted campaign by Democrats to disbar and socially disappear lawyers who worked for President Trump after the 2020 selection of Joe Biden to contest election results in Georgia and Arizona.
Maybe Dems shouldn't have started this fight: pic.twitter.com/WUpQozBR6B
— OneFlewOver_USA (@OneFlewOver_USA) March 10, 2025
If law firms want to be neutral parties, they must stop being political guns-for-hire. As former RedStater Bill Shipley noted, he took on January 6 defendants pro bono because major law firms would not touch these cases even though they would defend known terrorists.
Why did I do this?
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) January 20, 2025
After watching for several months from 6000 miles away, I was offended by the fact that former federal prosecutors in Big Law weren't stepping forward to help.
There was no shortage of defense attorneys for GITMO terrorists.
But they stayed in their…
But if they want to be combatants, they have no reason to complain when they become targets.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member