Jenner & Block Seeks Permanent Injunction Against Trump’s Executive Order

On April 28, 2025, Jenner & Block LLP, a leading U.S. law firm, is set to ask U.S. District Judge John Bates to permanently strike down a controversial executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The order sought to penalize the firm for its prior affiliation with Andrew Weissmann, a central figure in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference during the 2016 election.

The hearing will take place in Washington, D.C., at 10:30 a.m. ET (1430 GMT), marking a critical chapter in the escalating conflict between Trump’s administration and major law firms perceived to oppose him.

Why Jenner & Block Is Suing the Trump Administration

Jenner & Block filed suit shortly after Trump’s March 25 executive order, arguing that the order:

• Violates the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and association.
• Breaches the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process before the government can restrict rights or impose penalties.

The firm contends that the administration’s actions amount to retaliation for protected legal activities and affiliations, setting a dangerous precedent for political interference in the independent practice of law.

Trump’s order specifically targeted Jenner over its past employment of Weissmann, accusing the firm of ties to what Trump continues to call a “hoax” and “witch hunt” regarding the Russia investigation.

What Trump’s Executive Order Against Jenner & Block Entails

The executive order aimed to:

• Restrict Jenner’s attorneys from accessing federal buildings and meeting with government officials.
• Terminate government contracts involving Jenner’s clients.
• Intimidate firms through threats of federal isolation and financial penalties.

This move was seen as part of Trump’s broader pressure campaign against lawyers and law firms connected to investigations or causes he opposes.

Other Law Firms Also Fighting Trump Executive Orders

Jenner & Block is not alone. At least three other major firms have filed similar lawsuits:

• WilmerHale
• Perkins Coie
• Susman Godfrey

Judges presiding over all four lawsuits have issued temporary injunctions, preventing the White House from enforcing key parts of the executive orders while the cases proceed.

Meanwhile, to avoid being targeted, nine other prominent law firms — including Paul Weiss, Milbank, Simpson Thacher, and Skadden Arps — have pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono services to causes favored by the Trump administration.

(Read about law firms’ pro bono pledge here.)

The Broader Legal and Political Implications

Jenner & Block’s lawsuit goes beyond a mere business dispute. It raises urgent constitutional questions about:

• Government retaliation against private entities based on political affiliations.
• The erosion of the independence of the legal profession, traditionally protected from political pressure.
• The chilling effect on lawyers who represent unpopular or politically controversial clients.

The firm is also part of a larger coalition challenging the Trump administration’s policies affecting transgender rights and federal agency funding, indicating a growing legal resistance to executive overreach.

(Explore more about major corporate law firms suing the Trump administration.)

FAQs About Jenner & Block’s Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration

Q1: Why is Jenner & Block suing the Trump administration?
A: The firm argues that Trump’s executive order violates constitutional protections, punishing it for protected speech and affiliations related to the Russia investigation.

Q2: What was Jenner & Block’s connection to the Russia probe?
A: The firm previously employed Andrew Weissmann, who was a key prosecutor in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.

Q3: What other law firms are involved in lawsuits against the Trump administration?
A: Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey have also filed suits to block executive orders targeting them.

Q4: What constitutional rights are at stake?
A: The First Amendment (free speech and association) and the Fifth Amendment (due process protections) are central to Jenner’s case.

Q5: How have other firms responded to Trump’s pressure?
A: Some firms pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono services to causes supported by the Trump administration in exchange for avoiding executive order targeting.

The post Jenner & Block Moves to Permanently Bar Trump Executive Order in Landmark Free Speech Battle first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Introduction: Legal Integrity Under Fire

The American legal industry is facing a crisis of conscience. As former President Donald Trump’s administration intensifies its retaliatory campaign against major U.S. law firms, resignations, internal protests, and widespread unease have gripped BigLaw. Once-powerful institutions now find themselves caught in the crosshairs of executive overreach—and many attorneys are refusing to stay silent.

Trump’s Legal Offensive: A Campaign of Retaliation

In early 2025, the Trump administration launched a coordinated legal assault targeting high-profile firms with histories of litigation or investigative work related to the former president. Measures include:

• Revocation of federal security clearances
• Cancellation of government contracts
• Mandated disclosure of firm affiliations and past representations
• DOJ and EEOC-led investigations into DEI policies

Among the law firms directly affected are:

• Covington & Burling
• Jenner & Block
• Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
• Perkins Coie
• Susman Godfrey
• WilmerHale

The goal? Punish firms for perceived political opposition and force compliance through legal and economic pressure.

A Split Response: Legal Challenges vs. Concessions

The legal community’s response has been starkly divided. Some firms have chosen to fight back in court, while others have sought to avoid confrontation by entering controversial agreements with the administration.

Firms Fighting Back:

• Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the executive orders, arguing that the actions violate First Amendment protections, due process rights, and principles of attorney-client privilege.
• These lawsuits have drawn support from law professors, bar associations, and civil liberties groups.

Firms Yielding to Pressure:

Others have chosen compliance in exchange for regulatory leniency. Notable examples include:

• Paul, Weiss committed $40 million in pro bono services to administration-aligned causes, prompting the withdrawal of orders targeting the firm.
• Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom pledged $100 million in pro bono work, dismantled internal diversity initiatives, and ceased advocacy work on progressive legal issues.
• Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, the oldest law firm in New York City, similarly committed $100 million in support to causes favored by the administration.

Internal Resistance: Resignations and Ethical Uprisings

These capitulations have not gone unchallenged within the firms themselves. Across BigLaw, attorneys are pushing back—some publicly, others by walking away.

High-Profile Resignations:

• At Skadden, associate Rachel Cohen published an internal memo condemning the firm’s actions before being terminated. Associates Brenna Trout Frey and Thomas Sipp soon followed with their own resignations.
• At Cadwalader, dozens of attorneys have quietly exited in protest, citing discomfort with the firm’s cooperation and the optics of aligning with politically charged causes.

Growing Dissent:

• At several firms, attorneys have initiated internal petitions and debates urging leadership to reconsider concessions.
• Anonymous letters shared with The National Law Journal describe “an atmosphere of fear, confusion, and moral compromise” among associates and partners alike.

Government Pressure: Investigations and Oversight

The administration has also empowered federal agencies to investigate firms it perceives as hostile. These efforts include:

• EEOC Investigations into law firm hiring, promotion, and DEI practices
• DOJ reviews of law firms’ advocacy for voting rights, LGBTQ+ protections, and reproductive freedom
• Scrutiny of pro bono litigation involving civil rights or environmental cases

These steps have triggered concerns that the government is weaponizing its oversight authority to coerce political alignment from the private legal sector.

Backlash from Academia and the Bar

Legal academics and professional associations are pushing back. Highlights include:

• Over 80 law school deans signed an open letter warning that recent actions threaten the independence of the legal profession.
• The American Bar Association condemned the use of executive orders to punish firms for their client choices and policy positions.
• Student organizations from Harvard Law, Yale Law, and Stanford Law have staged protests and called on firms to stand firm against coercion.

Broader Implications: A Profession at a Crossroads

This crisis signals a pivotal shift in the identity and values of the legal profession. Attorneys are increasingly being forced to weigh:

• Professional loyalty vs. ethical integrity
• Client representation vs. political compliance
• Firm culture vs. personal values

As the legal field grapples with these dilemmas, one thing is clear: silence and neutrality are no longer viable options.

Conclusion: The Fight for Legal Integrity Has Begun

The Trump administration’s crackdown on law firms has ignited a legal and ethical reckoning. While some firms choose quiet capitulation, others—and the attorneys within them—are rising to defend the foundational principles of justice, free representation, and the rule of law.

The decisions made in this moment will shape the legal industry for decades to come. Will the profession choose courage—or compromise?

Suggested Image Ideas:

1. A gavel cracking over a U.S. Constitution document (symbolizing legal conflict and executive overreach)
2. An attorney packing a briefcase and leaving a high-rise office (representing resignation)
3. Split image of law firm buildings—half illuminated, half in shadow (symbolizing the profession’s internal divide)

FAQs

Q: Why is the Trump administration targeting law firms?
A: The administration alleges that firms previously investigated or opposed Trump through litigation or advocacy are politically biased. Many see the actions as retaliatory and unconstitutional.

Q: What are the pro bono agreements being made?
A: Several firms have pledged tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono work on causes aligned with the Trump administration, reportedly to avoid legal or regulatory action.

Q: How are attorneys responding?
A: Some have resigned in protest or published public criticisms. Others remain at their firms but are organizing internal resistance or calling for leadership accountability.

Q: What does this mean for law students and junior attorneys?
A: Many are reevaluating where they want to work based on a firm’s response to these pressures, prioritizing values like independence, justice, and civil rights.

Q: Are these executive orders being challenged in court?
A: Yes. Firms like Perkins Coie and WilmerHale are suing the federal government, arguing that the orders violate constitutional rights and professional standards.

The post Big Law in Turmoil: Surge of Resignations as Trump Administration Targets Major Firms first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

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.

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

The post Biglaw Lawyers Rebel Against Trump Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Federal Judge Beryl Howell Denies DOJ Effort to Disqualify Her in High-Stakes Trump Executive Order Lawsuit

In a forceful rebuke to the Justice Department, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on Wednesday denied a motion seeking her disqualification from a lawsuit over former President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at the Democratic-aligned law firm Perkins Coie. The case, now shaping up as a constitutional showdown, centers on allegations that Trump is using federal power to retaliate against his political and legal opponents.

Howell, a senior judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accused the DOJ of launching “ad hominem attacks” to discredit her impartiality. In her ruling, Howell warned that the disqualification attempt represents a dangerous tactic designed to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

“This strategy is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and blame any loss on the decision-maker rather than fallacies in the substantive legal arguments presented,” she wrote in her opinion.

Trump’s Executive Order: A Direct Attack on Law Firms

The lawsuit stems from a March 2025 executive order signed by Trump, which effectively blacklisted Perkins Coie from federal government interactions. The order:

• Barred employees of the firm from entering federal buildings
• Directed agencies to terminate contracts with Perkins Coie clients
• Cited the firm’s previous political work, including representing Democratic campaigns and connections to Fusion GPS

The executive action prompted immediate legal action by Perkins Coie, arguing that the order unlawfully punishes the firm for engaging in protected political and legal activity. The firm’s court filings detailed the economic damage, including the loss of a 35-year relationship with a major government contractor—within just six days of the order’s issuance.

DOJ Claims Bias Over Trump Comments

DOJ officials Chad Mizelle and Richard Lawson filed the March 21 motion to disqualify Howell, citing what they allege is clear judicial bias. They pointed to remarks Howell made during a 2023 speech, where she warned of the “impact of big lies” in connection with January 6 prosecutions. At that event, hosted by the Women’s White Collar Defense Association, Howell expressed concern about public disregard for factual integrity—a sentiment the DOJ says indicates hostility toward Trump.

They also referenced a recent court hearing in which Howell remarked that Trump had a “bee in his bonnet” about Fusion GPS, the political research firm tied to the infamous Steele dossier.

“This court has repeatedly demonstrated partiality against and animus towards the president,” Mizelle and Lawson claimed.

However, Howell dismissed these arguments as lacking merit and reaffirmed her commitment to fairness:

“The parties will have the opportunity to present relevant evidence and legal arguments, which will receive full, fair, and impartial consideration, as does every case before this court.”

Broader Pattern: Trump’s Retaliatory Targeting of Law Firms

Perkins Coie is not alone. Trump’s latest executive orders also singled out Jenner & Block, directing federal agencies to:

• Revoke access to federal facilities for firm employees
• Investigate diversity hiring practices
• Revoke security clearances
• Cancel government contracts with Jenner clients

The targeting of law firms with perceived Democratic ties is unprecedented, marking a dramatic escalation in the weaponization of executive power against legal institutions.

Political Fallout: Stefanik Demands Judicial Investigation

The legal battle also has a political dimension. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), a vocal Trump ally, filed a formal complaint in December 2023 urging an investigation into Howell’s remarks at the 2023 white-collar defense event. Her request, currently pending with the Judicial Council of the D.C. Circuit, claims Howell’s comments reflect unacceptable political bias from the bench.

What’s Next for Perkins Coie v. DOJ?

The case—Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-00716—could become a landmark test of constitutional limits on executive power, particularly regarding retaliation, due process, and the First Amendment. With Howell remaining on the case, the spotlight now shifts to whether Trump’s sweeping executive actions will survive legal scrutiny.

This lawsuit may shape future debates over the independence of the legal profession, judicial impartiality, and political retaliation under color of law.

Related Articles:

• Trump Targets Law Firms Over Democratic Ties—Legal Experts Warn of Dangerous Precedent
• Perkins Coie Countersues DOJ Over Retaliatory Executive Order
• Fusion GPS: The Research Firm at the Center of Trump’s Legal Obsession
• Judicial Ethics Under Fire: Rep. Stefanik’s Push to Investigate Federal Judges

The post Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Bid to Disqualify Her in Trump Executive Order Case Targeting Perkins Coie first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

President Donald Trump has escalated his campaign against what he describes as politically motivated and frivolous legal challenges by ordering a sweeping review of lawsuits filed against the federal government over the past eight years.

In a sharply worded memorandum released late Friday, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to lead an investigation into law firms and attorneys who have filed what he calls “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation”—particularly those that may compromise national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.

Legal System Under Fire: Trump Targets Alleged Abuses in Immigration and National Security Litigation

“Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity,” the memo stated. The directive marks a significant shift in how the federal government may respond to perceived legal overreach, especially as Trump and his allies intensify scrutiny of legal actors involved in politically sensitive cases.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Trump’s directive appears to focus heavily on immigration litigation, particularly cases involving asylum seekers. The memo accuses some immigration attorneys of coaching clients to lie or omit details in order to secure asylum—allegations Trump provided no direct evidence for but has echoed in recent speeches.

Legal Backlash and Judicial Pushback: Trump vs. the Judiciary

The president’s latest salvo comes amid growing tensions between his administration and the judiciary. Trump and several allies have recently called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who blocked the administration’s attempt to deport certain Venezuelan immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a rarely used statute.

Boasberg’s decision drew sharp rebuke from Trump, but it also triggered an unprecedented response from U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who publicly defended the independence of the judiciary. “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements with judicial rulings,” Roberts said in a statement seen as a rebuke to the president’s aggressive posture.

Focus on Law Firms: Paul, Weiss Deal Sparks Controversy

Trump’s memo followed a high-profile agreement with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, one of the nation’s most prominent law firms. Just a day earlier, Trump had announced he would withdraw a pending executive order that threatened to revoke the firm’s federal security clearances and government contracts. In return, Paul Weiss agreed to eliminate diversity and inclusion considerations in hiring practices and pledged $40 million in pro bono legal services aligned with the administration’s priorities.

This move sparked significant debate in the legal community, with critics warning that it could undermine diversity efforts and chill legal advocacy against government policies. Supporters argue that it reflects a growing effort to hold elite firms accountable for alleged partisan bias and misconduct.

A Broader Offensive: Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling Also Under Review

In addition to Paul Weiss, the Trump administration has recently issued directives against Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling, two firms known for their connections to Democratic Party figures and involvement in legal matters related to Russia investigations and Trump’s impeachments. These actions suggest a broader campaign to scrutinize law firms that have played a role in efforts to investigate or litigate against the former president and his allies.

Get An Unfair Advantage In Your Career With BCG Attorney Search-Upload your resume to receive matching jobs at top law firms in your inbox.

Legal analysts say the strategy is part of Trump’s long-running effort to reshape the legal landscape around federal litigation—particularly lawsuits that challenge executive authority on issues such as immigration, environmental regulations, and civil rights.

Political Implications and Legal Risks

Trump’s memorandum also raises questions about the use of executive power to target law firms engaged in litigation against the government. Legal scholars caution that such directives could clash with constitutional protections like the First Amendment right to petition the government and the independence of the judiciary.

“This is clearly part of Trump’s effort to delegitimize institutions that challenge him,” said a former Justice Department official, who added that any enforcement efforts could face legal challenges from civil liberties groups and the American Bar Association.

Still, the directive may resonate with Trump’s political base as he campaigns on themes of law and order, government accountability, and a crackdown on political partisanship within the legal system.

What Comes Next?

With Pam Bondi now tasked with investigating the conduct of attorneys and law firms over eight years—dating back to the beginning of Trump’s first term—legal observers are watching closely to see whether the Justice Department will take disciplinary action or refer cases for criminal prosecution.

Whether this results in a lasting policy shift or a new legal standard for challenging the government remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Trump is making the legal system itself a central battleground in his political and policy agenda.

Showcase your excellence—earn a BCG Attorney Search ‘Top Law Firm’ badge today!

The post Trump Orders Crackdown on “Frivolous Litigation” by Law Firms Targeting U.S. Government first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Hogan Lovells and Perkins Coie have announced market-rate special bonuses for their associates, reversing earlier decisions not to provide the payouts as standard practice. The special bonuses range from $6,000 to $25,000, in addition to already generous year-end bonuses.

Revisions Prompted by Industry Dynamics and Feedback

Initially, both firms had indicated they would not provide special bonuses across the board. Hogan Lovells stated that additional bonuses would be available only for associates who exceeded minimum billable hour requirements. Perkins Coie had similarly refrained from committing to market-rate special bonuses. However, feedback from associates, internal discussions with partners, and the competitive pressure of peer firms led to a change in strategy for both firms.

According to legal industry experts, it’s not uncommon for firms to revise their bonus policies after facing backlash or concerns about talent retention. “It’s a reflection of the industry’s competitive nature,” said a legal observer quoted by Law.com.

Details of the Bonuses

Both firms now plan to align with market expectations:

• Hogan Lovells: Associates qualifying for hours-based bonuses will receive payouts that exceed the announced scale of many top firms. A firm spokesperson emphasized that this decision was made after consulting with associates, partners, and other stakeholders. “Listening is a core part of our culture, and we aim to reward our team competitively,” the spokesperson added.
• Perkins Coie: The firm tied its decision to its strong financial performance and a commitment to offering market-competitive compensation. A spokesperson highlighted that rewarding associates in line with industry standards reflects the firm’s commitment to retaining top talent.

The special bonuses will be paid alongside year-end bonuses, which range from $20,000 for the most junior associates (class of 2023) to $115,000 for the most senior associates.

Competitive Pressures Drive Policy Shifts

In recent years, associate compensation has become a key battleground for top law firms seeking to attract and retain talent. Special bonuses, often paid in response to strong financial performance or increased workloads, have become a standard expectation among associates at leading firms.

Legal industry insiders note that firms are increasingly responsive to associate sentiment, especially in a competitive hiring market. The willingness to adjust bonus policies demonstrates a firm’s commitment to its workforce and its recognition of the value associates bring to its success.

Looking Ahead

The decision by Hogan Lovells and Perkins Coie to match market-rate bonuses signals a broader trend in the legal industry, where competitive compensation packages remain crucial for talent retention and recruitment. As the financial health of firms continues to improve, it’s likely that similar announcements will follow from other major players in the sector.

The post Hogan Lovells and Perkins Coie Reverse Course, Announce Special Bonuses for Associates first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The much-anticipated bonus season is underway, with many law firms aligning their compensation structures to match market expectations. However, not all firms are following the trend of offering both year-end and special bonuses, signaling a shift in the legal industry’s approach to associate compensation.

Divergence in Bonus Strategies

While a majority of firms have adhered to the bonus scale set by industry leader Milbank, which includes both year-end and special bonuses, notable exceptions have emerged. Hogan Lovells and Perkins Coie have chosen not to offer special bonuses this year, illustrating a calculated departure from the norm.

“Firms just don’t feel the pressure anymore to follow,” said Katherine Loanzon, Managing Director at Kinney Recruiting. According to Loanzon, special bonuses are typically discretionary and hinge on a firm’s financial success, as well as its desire to remain competitive in recruiting top talent. However, shifting market dynamics have lessened the urgency for firms to compete aggressively on compensation.

Year-End Bonuses Remain Standard

Perkins Coie and Hogan Lovells have maintained robust year-end bonuses, with payouts ranging from $20,000 to $115,000 based on seniority. However, these firms are not offering the additional special bonuses, which in other firms range from $6,000 to $25,000.

Hogan Lovells has implemented an alternative strategy, rewarding associates who exceed the minimum hours requirement with additional bonuses surpassing the base amounts. “Our bonus structure goes beyond the year-end billable hours bonuses, and we believe it aligns with our overall strategy,” a Hogan Lovells spokesperson told Bloomberg Law.

The Milbank Effect on Associate Compensation

Milbank has solidified its reputation as a trendsetter in associate compensation. Earlier this year, the firm surprised the legal market by announcing special bonuses. However, unlike previous years, peer firms did not immediately rush to match Milbank’s move. Instead, most waited for Cravath Swaine & Moore’s year-end bonus announcement before making their decisions.

“When August passed without a match of the special bonuses, I assumed they were done,” said Kate Reder Sheikh, a recruiter at Major, Lindsey & Africa. “It has been a pleasant surprise to see them alongside annual bonuses.”

Conditional Special Bonuses

Some firms have tied special bonuses to higher billable hour requirements. Fish & Richardson and Katten Muchin Rosenman, for example, mandate a minimum of 2,000 hours for associates to qualify for these bonuses. This conditional approach reflects a more measured response to fluctuating market conditions.

Lessons from Market Shifts

The current bonus landscape contrasts sharply with the frenetic environment of 2021, when firms offered special bonuses and salary increases to address unprecedented demand for legal services. That period of heightened competition was followed by a phase of cost-cutting, including associate layoffs at some firms.

“Once the dust settled, the firms that were always going to be market leaders have pretty much maintained that reputation,” Loanzon noted. Firms that attempted to compete without the same financial stability were hit hardest by the market downturn. “I think a lot of firms are just learning from that,” she added.

Looking Ahead

Industry experts suggest that more firms may join Hogan Lovells and Perkins Coie in declining to offer special bonuses. “Once a few firms set this as an alternative standard, it becomes a lot easier for others to follow suit,” said Reder Sheikh. However, she cautioned that this approach may not sit well with associates. “I don’t think associates will be pleased, though.”

As firms navigate the complexities of retaining talent while managing financial realities, the bonus season continues to reflect broader trends in the legal industry. Whether the current divergence in strategies represents a temporary shift or a long-term change remains to be seen.

The post Bonus Season Highlights Varying Approaches Among Law Firms first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Leading U.S. Law Firm Welcomes Valerie Dahiya as Partner

In a strategic move to strengthen its capital markets team, renowned U.S. law firm Morrison & Foerster announced on Tuesday the addition of Valerie Dahiya, who previously served as the leader of Perkins Coie’s Washington, D.C. office and spearheaded their securities trading and market practice.

Valerie Dahiya: A Distinguished Legal Professional

Before her tenure at Perkins Coie, Dahiya held a significant role at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for over a decade. While at the SEC, she ascended to the branch chief position within the agency’s trading and markets division. Notably, Dahiya played a pivotal role in implementing the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform legislation of 2010, as confirmed by Perkins Coie.

A Valuable Addition to Morrison & Foerster

Morrison & Foerster’s capital markets group expressed their enthusiasm about the new addition. Justin Salon, the group leader, hailed Dahiya’s arrival as “an exceptional addition to our capital markets team and firm.” Her extensive experience and expertise in securities trading and market practice make her a valuable asset to the firm’s expanding portfolio of legal professionals.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Changes in Leadership at Perkins Coie’s Washington Office

Dahiya took over the reins of Perkins Coie’s Washington office in 2022, following the departure of her predecessor, Bruce Spiva. Spiva left the firm to pursue an unsuccessful campaign to become the attorney general of Washington, D.C. The Washington office, a significant outpost for Perkins Coie, now finds its leadership under the capable direction of insurance litigator Vivek Chopra, as indicated on the firm’s official website.

Transformations and Challenges at Perkins Coie

Perkins Coie’s Washington office underwent notable transformations in recent years. In 2021, the office experienced a reduction in size after prominent voting rights lawyer Marc Elias decided to establish his law firm, Elias Law Group. Elias was joined by ten other Perkins Coie partners and three counsel members, marking a significant shift within the office’s legal landscape.

As of now, Perkins Coie has not responded to inquiries regarding these developments.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

The addition of Valerie Dahiya to Morrison & Foerster’s legal team further exemplifies the dynamic nature of the legal industry, with experienced professionals moving between prominent firms, leading to shifts in leadership and the creation of new legal ventures. This strategic hire reflects the ongoing pursuit of excellence in capital markets law.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Morrison & Foerster Bolsters Capital Markets Team with Notable Hire from Perkins Coie first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent development, a group founded by a prominent anti-affirmative action activist has chosen to drop its lawsuit against a U.S. law firm, Perkins Coie, aimed at challenging the firm’s diversity fellowship program. The decision comes after the law firm revised its application criteria, now allowing all law students to apply, regardless of their racial or ethnic backgrounds. This notable change marks a significant step toward enhancing diversity within the law firm’s ranks.

A Shift in Perspective

Edward Blum’s American Alliance for Equal Rights, a well-known organization advocating against affirmative action policies, agreed to dismiss its case against Perkins Coie in a Dallas federal court. The catalyst for this resolution was Perkins Coie’s announcement that it would open its diversity fellowship program to all law students, eliminating the previous restriction that limited participation to members of “historically underrepresented” groups.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Blum expressed his views on the matter: “There are many other law firms with similar racially discriminatory programs. It is hoped that these firms proactively open their programs to all law students before they are sued in federal court.”

Bill Malley, the managing partner of Perkins Coie, stated in response to the case’s resolution, welcoming the decision. He emphasized the firm’s unwavering commitment to creating a more diverse and inclusive workplace.

A Milestone in Diversity

Perkins Coie, a global law firm with a workforce of more than 1,200 lawyers, was one of two firms Blum’s non-profit organization targeted in August. The lawsuits alleged that their diversity fellowship programs unlawfully excluded specific individuals, including white students, based on their racial background.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

These paid fellowship programs were initially created to support the recruitment of people of color, addressing a long-standing challenge major law firms face in diversifying their partnership ranks. According to data from the National Association for Law Placement, people of color accounted for just 11.4% of all partners in major U.S. law firms as of the previous year.

Expanding Inclusivity

Similarly, the law firm Morrison & Foerster removed language from its fellowship program specifications, limiting participation to Black, Hispanic, Native American, or LGBT applicants. This change also prompted Blum’s organization to withdraw its lawsuit against that firm.

This shift toward inclusivity highlights the ongoing efforts of various organizations to eliminate discriminatory practices in fellowship programs and create more opportunities for individuals from all backgrounds.

Legal Background

Edward Blum’s group has taken legal action based on a Civil War-era law designed to protect formerly enslaved Black people, prohibiting racial bias in contracting. This law has been central to several recent lawsuits challenging various diversity initiatives.

In September, Blum’s organization used the same law to challenge the Fearless Fund’s grant program for Black women-led businesses, resulting in a federal appeals court blocking the program pending further litigation.

This development in the Perkins Coie case underscores the evolving landscape of diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and the ongoing legal battles surrounding interpreting Civil War-era laws in the context of contemporary diversity initiatives.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Anti-Affirmative Action Group Withdraws Lawsuit After Law Firm Expands Diversity Fellowship Program first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Conservative Group Drops Lawsuit After Changes to Diversity Criteria

To fend off legal challenges, companies with racial diversity and inclusion programs have been revising their eligibility criteria. This approach recently proved effective when the American Alliance for Equal Rights, led by conservative activist Edward Blum, dropped its discrimination lawsuit against Morrison & Foerster LLP. The law firm removed the term “underrepresented groups” from its diversity program criteria. Similar changes have been made by firms facing legal action, including Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Perkins Coie LLP.

Pfizer Inc. also adopted this strategy when facing a discrimination lawsuit from the activist group Do No Harm. The company revised its Breakthrough Fellowship criteria, allowing applicants to apply “regardless of whether” they belong to specific minority groups. During oral arguments on October 3rd, federal appeals court judges in New York suggested that the lawsuit against Pfizer might become moot due to these language changes.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Navigating Legal Challenges for Corporate DEI Programs

Companies have been seeking ways to protect their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs from lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act. This has become particularly crucial since the U.S. Supreme Court decided to strike down affirmative action in college admissions. Employment attorneys and professors believe this ruling has opened the door to additional litigation, focusing on discrimination against non-marginalized groups, including White men.

Ann McGinley, an employment law professor at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, stated, “It’s a very odd place to be, to be in corporate America and trying to do something that they think is the right thing, and yet being worried about whether that’s legal or not.”

Changing Eligibility Language

Following legal challenges, Morrison & Foerster modified the language of its Keith Wetmore Fellowship for Excellence, Diversity, and Inclusion. The program previously specified that it was for first-year law students “who are members of historically underrepresented groups in the legal industry.” It now seeks students with a “demonstrated commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.”

The lawsuit against the firm was dropped, with the understanding that Morrison & Foerster would not revert to its previous eligibility language and would not require fellowship applicants to disclose their race. This stipulation was made in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Eric T. McCrath, chair of Morrison & Foerster, expressed satisfaction with the decision, stating, “We are pleased by the AAER’s decision not to pursue a meritless case.”

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Strategic Implications for Companies Facing Legal Challenges

Attorney Adam Herzog of Katz Banks Kumin LLP suggested that Morrison Foerster and Perkins Coie were specifically targeted due to their explicit eligibility criteria naming certain groups. Such specific language is uncommon, as eligibility requirements usually refer to broader categories like “historically underrepresented groups.”

Modifying their DEI programs’ language may allow Perkins Coie and Pfizer to have the cases against them dismissed. The American Alliance for Equal Rights had sought a permanent injunction requiring these firms to establish “strictly race-neutral” eligibility requirements for their programs.

Companies facing similar allegations will likely follow suit by making language changes and arguing that the complaint is now moot because there is “no longer an injury that a lawsuit can remedy,” according to Herzog.

Judge Dennis Jacobs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pointed out during oral arguments in the Pfizer case that nothing is now preventing non-minority members of Do No Harm from applying to the fellowship following the company’s wording change. Judge Beth Robinson described arguing for mootness based on language changes as the “logical play” for Pfizer in the litigation.

Nevertheless, this argument has yet to be tested in court, and McGinley expressed skepticism, stating, “I would be very surprised that a court would find that to be moot because they could turn around and change it.”

As of now, representatives for Pfizer have not responded to requests for comment regarding the language changes and the ongoing lawsuit.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Businesses Adapt Diversity Programs to Navigate Legal Challenges first appeared on JDJournal Blog.