Loading...
A Silent Majority? Some Lawyers Refuse to Stay Quiet
While many of the nation’s top law firms have chosen a cautious silence in response to a series of controversial executive orders issued by U.S. President Donald Trump, a growing number of individual attorneys within those firms are taking a stand—against both the administration and their own leadership.
In an unprecedented show of internal resistance, more than 330 partners from America’s largest law firms have joined forces through an online coalition aimed at organizing amicus briefs, initiating internal firm discussions, and coordinating legal strategies to challenge the administration’s aggressive posture toward the legal industry.
The executive orders in question have targeted specific firms over their clients, DEI policies, or involvement in litigation against the federal government. These orders have restricted firm access to government officials, threatened to cancel federal contracts with their clients, and initiated investigations into firm diversity initiatives.
Biglaw Lawyers Resign in Protest Over “Deals with the Devil”
The internal turmoil has already sparked resignations at top firms.
Joseph Baio, a senior partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, resigned after the firm entered into a deal with the Trump administration to avoid punitive action. The New York Times reported that the firm had sought to appease the administration rather than challenge the legality of the order it was facing.
Andrew Silberstein, a former associate at Willkie Farr, also resigned in protest, telling Reuters that the firm’s decision to reach a deal with Trump directly conflicted with his professional and personal ethics.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Doug Emhoff, Second Gentleman and a former partner at Willkie Farr, reportedly expressed deep disagreement with the firm’s decision to cooperate with the Trump administration. According to sources familiar with the matter, he urged the firm’s leadership to take a stand and reject political interference in legal affairs.
Organizing from Within: A Growing Online Resistance
The resistance effort was spearheaded by Neel Chatterjee, a prominent partner at Goodwin Procter, who announced the initiative on LinkedIn. In his post, Chatterjee expressed disappointment that neither his current firm nor his former firm had joined a recent legal brief supporting Perkins Coie, a firm directly targeted by one of Trump’s executive orders.
“It was a hard day,” Chatterjee wrote, referring to the missed opportunity to publicly oppose political interference in the legal profession. He has since confirmed to Reuters that the group is considering filing its own amicus briefs to support ongoing lawsuits challenging the executive orders.
Major Firms Decline to Sign Protest Brief
While over 500 law firms joined a court brief condemning Trump’s actions against Perkins Coie and similar firms, most of the top-grossing firms in the Am Law 100 were notably absent.
That silence doesn’t reflect universal agreement within the firms, says Haley Morrison, a partner at Epstein Becker Green and member of the online resistance group. “There are many partners who wished for a different result,” she said, indicating widespread internal dissent even among firms that chose not to act publicly.
Who’s Been Targeted? The Trump Executive Order Fallout
Trump’s executive orders have so far targeted at least five law firms, including:
- Perkins Coie
- WilmerHale
- Jenner & Block
- Paul Weiss
- Skadden Arps
Three of these—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—have fought back with lawsuits, claiming the orders violate the First Amendment and separation of powers. Federal judges have already issued temporary injunctions in favor of the firms.
Others, like Paul Weiss, struck deals with the administration, which reportedly involved dropping certain clients, altering internal firm policies, and providing pro bono legal work aligned with Trump’s political agenda. According to Trump, more firms are “lining up” to make similar deals, a claim that has further inflamed critics in the legal community.
Skadden, Milbank, and Willkie: Silent Complicity or Strategic Calculation?
Three other major firms—Skadden Arps, Milbank, and Willkie Farr—agreed to similar deals without even being targeted by executive orders, raising alarm over whether some of the legal elite are capitulating preemptively in hopes of staying in the administration’s good graces.
Since Skadden entered its agreement, at least two associates have resigned, including Rachel Cohen, who criticized the deals during informal Congressional testimony organized by Democratic lawmakers.
Former attorneys from Skadden and Paul Weiss have also sent open letters condemning their ex-employers for what they described as an abdication of professional ethics and a betrayal of the legal system’s role as a check on executive overreach.
Congressional Democrats Sound the Alarm
Democratic lawmakers are now ramping up oversight. In a joint letter to the four firms that struck deals with Trump, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) warned of “the troubling prospect” that these firms were unlawfully coerced into supporting partisan causes with millions of dollars in legal services and public endorsements.
The letter raised the specter of abuse of executive power, with the administration allegedly using its authority to force firms into silence or complicity by threatening their business interests.
What Comes Next?
The rebellion within Biglaw is growing, but the legal community remains divided. As the Trump administration signals plans to expand its crackdown on the legal sector, the question facing America’s elite firms is whether they will continue to seek peace through compromise or fight back to preserve the profession’s independence.
For now, a small but vocal group of attorneys is reminding their firms—and the public—that the rule of law is not up for negotiation
