Trump Targets Big Law: Intimidation and Its Impact on the Legal Profession

In the March 24, 2025 episode of NPR's "Consider This", journalists Juana Summers and Rachel Cohen delve into President Donald Trump's aggressive maneuvers targeting major law firms. Titled "Trump targets Big Law, and Big Law appears intimidated," the episode explores the implications of Trump's executive orders and memos aimed at restraining influential legal institutions that have previously opposed or challenged his administration.

Overview of Trump's Executive Orders Against Big Law

The episode opens with Juana Summers outlining President Trump's recent actions against prominent law firms. According to Summers, Trump has issued memos and executive orders labeling these firms as "very dishonest people" (00:09). These actions include:

• Suspending Firms' Security Clearances: Preventing targeted law firms from accessing sensitive government information.
• Prohibiting Government Contracts: Barring these firms from retaining or securing government contracts.
• Restricting Access to Federal Buildings: Preventing employees of these firms from entering federal premises.
• Threatening Sanctions: Issuing a memo threatening sanctions against any law firm that engages in "frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation" against the United States (00:26).

Legal and Professional Repercussions

Rachel Cohen provides further insight into the motivations behind Trump's actions, citing Professor Timothy Zick from William and Mary Law School. Zick describes the efforts as retaliatory measures against law firms that have engaged in "lawful work advocacy on behalf of their clients" (00:42). Specific grievances include:

• Perkins Coie: Represented Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign and contributed to the creation of the Trump-Russia dossier alongside Paul Weiss.
• Rehiring Controversies: Some firms rehired attorneys who had previously left to prosecute cases against Trump.

The Trump administration justifies these actions by asserting the president's authority to take action against companies deemed untrustworthy with national secrets. However, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Claire Finkelstein critiques this stance, suggesting Trump's broader objective is to intimidate the legal profession and suppress activities opposing his administration (01:32).

Responses from Big Law Firms

The legal community's response to Trump's orders has been mixed:

• Perkins Coie: Successfully fought the executive order, securing a temporary stay from a federal judge who cited violations of the firm's First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights.
• Paul Weiss: Opted to negotiate with the White House to have the executive order rescinded, agreeing to concessions such as providing $40 million in pro bono work aligned with the administration's agenda.
• Other Firms: Many have chosen to remain silent, a stance that Rachel Cohen finds concerning. She expresses hope that this silence stems from fear and powerlessness rather than agreement or profit motives (01:41, 02:06).

Personal Impact and Resignation of Rachel Cohen

Rachel Cohen, formerly an attorney at Skadden Arps, shares her personal experience with the administration's pressures. She resigned from her position, citing a lack of time and the untenable nature of continuing under the current circumstances. Cohen publicly announced her resignation via an internal email and later shared her decision on TikTok (02:15, 02:25). She emphasizes the critical choice faced by legal professionals: remain under oppressive conditions or leave their firms (02:25).

Analysis by Experts on the Implications for the Legal Profession

Cohen discusses the broader implications of Trump's actions on the legal landscape. Highlighting the case of Paul Weiss, she points out that the firm's agreement to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services undermines their longstanding commitment to justice and public interest work (04:14, 04:45). Additionally, the requirement for an external evaluation of hiring practices raises fears of discrimination and retaliation against non-white associates (04:45, 05:53).

Cohen further critiques the high fees charged by Big Law firms, questioning their ability to defend against executive orders if they lack confidence in winning legal battles. She states, "If you hear that and I'm a client, I'm questioning why I'm paying $3,000 an hour for a law firm that doesn't think it can win a legal battle over an executive order that has functionally already been enjoined" (06:14, 06:26).

Rachel Cohen's Perspective on Trump's Motives

Cohen posits that Trump's targeting of Big Law is part of a multifaceted attack on the judiciary system. She suggests that his actions aim to:

• Intimidate Judges: Undermining the independence and authority of the judiciary.
• Suppress Pro Bono Work: Discouraging effective legal representation that challenges the administration.
• Reshape the Justice System: Making it easier for the administration to bypass judicial decisions by reducing the availability of willing legal opposition (06:30, 07:03).

Collective Response from Law Firms

When discussing potential collective actions by law firms, Cohen emphasizes the need for a unified stance:

• Rhetoric: Law firms should publicly affirm their commitment to continued representation, regardless of administrative pressures.
• Financial Commitment: Beyond statements, firms should back their commitments with tangible financial support, although Cohen notes the current climate makes this challenging (07:24, 07:51).

Conclusion

In this episode of "Consider This", Juana Summers and Rachel Cohen shed light on the escalating tensions between the Trump administration and major law firms. Through incisive analysis and firsthand accounts, they reveal how executive actions are fostering a climate of fear and compliance among Big Law, potentially reshaping the legal landscape in ways that could have profound implications for the American justice system.

Notable Quotes

• Juana Summers on Trump's Accusations: "We're going to be going after because they were very dishonest people. They were very, very dishonest. I could go point after point after point." (00:09)

• Rachel Cohen on Intimidation Tactics: "Intimidate professionals, to intimidate the legal profession from engaging in professional activities that go against Donald Trump and the current administration." (01:32)

• Rachel Cohen on Silence Among Firms: "I am forced to hope that our lack of response to the Trump administration's attacks on our peers is rooted in feelings of fear and powerlessness as opposed to tacit agreement or desire to maximize profit." (02:06)

• Rachel Cohen on the Tipping Point for Resignation: "The breaking point was a combination of two things... the triggering event was Paul Weiss's decision to capitulate to the Trump administration." (03:24)

• Rachel Cohen on the State of Legal Representation: "If you hear that and I'm a client, I'm questioning why I'm paying $3,000 an hour for a law firm that doesn't think it can win a legal battle over an executive order that has functionally already been enjoined." (06:14, 06:26)

This summary was crafted based on the transcript and podcast details provided. For the full episode, visit NPR's Consider This.