Trump targets Big Law, and Big Law appears intimidated

Summary

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.

Transcript

[Juana Summers]

For weeks now, President Donald Trump has been issuing memos and executive orders targeting big law firms. Here's how he laid it out on Fox News.

[Rachel Cohen]

We have a lot of law firms.

[Juana Summers]

That 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. Trump's moves suspended firms security clearances, prohibited government contractors from retaining the firms, and even barred their employees from federal buildings. He also issued an executive memo threatening sanctions on any law fir that pursue, quote, frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States. Here's how Professor Timothy Zick at William and Mary Law School describes it all.

[Rachel Cohen]

This is an effort to target and retaliate against law firms that were doing.

[Juana Summers]

Lawful work advocacy on behalf of their clients. Each of the firms had fallen afoul of Trump in one way or another. Perkins Coy, for example, represented Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign and had a hand in the creation of the infamous Trump Russia dossier with another firm, Paul Weiss. The complaints included the rehiring of an attorney who had left to help prosecute a case against Trump. In court, the Trump administration has argued that the president has the authority to take action against companies if he believes they can't be trusted with national secrets. University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein says it appears clear the president has a different goal. I think if you look at the purpose of the executive orders, it's to.

[Rachel Cohen]

Intimidate professionals, to intimidate the legal profession from engaging in professional activities that go.

[Juana Summers]

Against Donald Trump and the current administration. Perkins Coie fought the order targeting it and won a temporary stay. A federal judge said the order likely violates the firm's First, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. One of the firms targeted, Paul Weiss, cut a deal with the White House in order to have an executive order rescinded. Other law firms have stayed silent, and that doesn't sit well with Rachel Cohen.

[Rachel Cohen]

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.

[Juana Summers]

She was, until last week, a lawyer at another big firm, Skadden Arps. On Friday, she submitted her resignation in a staff wide email, which she later read on TikTok.

[Rachel Cohen]

We do not have time. It is now or never. And if it is never, I will not continue to work here.

[Juana Summers]

Consider this. Rachel Cohen says Trump's pressuring of big private law firms is part of a broader effort to reshape the American justice system in his favor, and that so far, big law isn't standing up for itself. From npr, I'm Juana Summers. This message comes from Carvana. Sell your car the convenient way, enter your license plate or vin, answer a few questions, and get a real offer in seconds. Go to Carvana.com today it's Consider this from NPR. Rachel Cohen had been speaking out about Trump's executive orders before her resignation on social media and in an open letter. So the first thing I asked her was, what was the tipping point?

[Rachel Cohen]

The breaking point was a combination of two things. The first was feeling confident that I had done everything in my power other than resigning. But what was ultimately the triggering event was Paul Weiss's decision to capitulate to the Trump administration to get him to rescind an executive order that he had issued against them. I think it's important to note that the Paul Weiss executive order was issued after a judge had already issued a temporary restraining order for a very, very similar executive order levied against the law firm Perkins Coie. In a normal, functioning American legal dynamic, you would never issue a near identical executive order to one that had just been functionally enjoined. And a law firm certainly would not then refuse to fight that executive order.

[Juana Summers]

I just want to take a second to spell out some of the details of the Paul Weiss case for people who may not be as familiar with it as you are. President Trump levied executive order to strip the firm of security clearances and government contracts, in part because it rehired a lawyer who'd left the firm to prosecute a case against Trump. And then Paul Weiss agreed to concessions to get the executive order rescinded that included $40 million in pro bono work in cases aligning with the administration's agenda. Spell out for me why that is so troubling to you.

[Rachel Cohen]

There's two pieces of the the settlement that troubled me, and you've identified them. The first is this agreement to provide the $40 million in pro bono legal services. And so you have associates at a firm that has always held itself out to be kind of at the cutting edge of important pro bono work and justice work. In addition to their billable obligations, you have these associates that are now being told that their firm is going to provide millions of dollars worth of free legal support to the Trump administration to advance its aims. So that's the first thing. But the second thing that troubled me is that they committed to a total evaluation by an outside evaluator to be agreed between Paul Weiss and the Trump administration of their hiring practices. I have many friends in the industry that expressed fear of doxxing or being pushed out as associates who are non white within this industry. If Paul Weiss is giving him this, and it makes me certain that other firms are going to give him this, I think I have to trust that they are and be proactive here.

[Juana Summers]

Yeah. Now, Paul Weiss took in over $2.6 billion in revenue last year, according to Law360, and its chairman said in an internal email, even given that figure, I'm quoting, it was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the administration. Hearing that. What does that say about the state of the legal profession at this moment?

[Rachel Cohen]

I think if I 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.

[Juana Summers]

In your view, what do you think President Trump is trying to do in picking this fight with Big Law?

[Rachel Cohen]

I think that picking a fight with Big Law is one prong of his multi pronged attack on the judiciary system. He's intimidating judges, he is ignoring judges orders and deporting people over them. And I think that his goal here is to kneecap effective pro bono representation and public interest representation challenging him. The Trump administration's telling us, I don't care how the courts decide, but also it's even easier for me if there aren't lawyers willing to go there in the first place.

[Juana Summers]

When we talk about Big Law, we're really talking about a group of a whole lot of different firms who not only have to compete for big cases, but who would also have to defend themselves individually and what would be costly and time consuming battles. I know that there are some open letters and there's talk of amicus briefs, but apart from rhetoric, is there anything that you see that law firms can do collectively here?

[Rachel Cohen]

I think that the first step collectively is going to be rhetoric. It's going to be putting out a statement saying, we're committed to continued representation, whether it is representation that the Trump administration views as supportive of it or adverse to it. But then the next step of collective action has to be putting their money where their mouth is. I'm not focused on that piece at this moment because right now I can't even get their mouth there.

[Juana Summers]

That was attorney Rachel Cohen. Rachel, thank you.

[Rachel Cohen]

Thank you so much.

[Juana Summers]

This episode was produced by Mia Venkat and Connor Donovan. It was edited by Patrick Jaran Watananan. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigun. You also heard reporting from NPR justice correspondent Ryan Lucas. At the top of this episode, it's Consider this from npr. I'm Juana Summers. Public Media counts on your support to ensure that the reporting and programs you depend on thrive. Make a recurring donation today to get special access to more than 20 NPR podcasts. Perks like sponsor free listening, bonus episodes, early access and more. So start supporting what you love [e-mail] Man, I mean, that might have been the only time I've really faced myself. I'm Jesse Thorne on Bullseye. George Lopez on the time that he swung a bat at a pinata of George Lopez. You know, like, I wasn't supposed to hit it that many times that hard. Getting very real with George Lopez on bullseye from maximumfun.org and NPR want to.

[Rachel Cohen]

Hear this podcast without sponsor breaks. Amazon prime members can listen to Consider this sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get consider this [e-mail] that's plus.NPR.org.