Lawfare Daily: Trump's Attack on Law Firms

[Intro]

Bob Van Nest: To me, the idea that you're gonna make such a deal, even if it's relatively cost free and get any benefit out of it, is shocking. I mean, Trump just will ask for more and more and more. I, I can't see that any of these so-called agreements will actually end up benefiting the firms other than they don't have to file a lawsuit, which they will then win.

Quinta Jurecic: It's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Quinta Jurecic, senior editor at Lawfare with John Keker and Bob Van Nest of the law firm, Keker, Van Nest, & Peters.

John Keker: The way a dictatorship gets formed is for independent voices to not be independent and kowtow to the powerful executive. And if that happens to lawyers and the rule of law, we're doomed.

Quinta Jurecic: We're talking about the Trump administration's efforts to extort law firms by threatening retribution unless they do the president's bidding.

[Main podcast]

Over the last month or so, the president has begun targeting law firms by releasing these executive orders purporting to address dangers posed by the firms that limit their business with the federal government and potentially even bar lawyers with those firms from entering government buildings.

By my count, I believe about ten big law firms so far have reached agreements, sort of capitulating to the administration to try to avoid orders like that. And four have chosen to file lawsuits, challenging executive orders targeting them.

And I'm talking to you now because the two of you, along with another partner at your firm, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in March arguing that firms should fight this kind of bullying and push back. Why in your view, is it so important that firms not capitulate?

John Keker: Well, I, I'll start. I'm—this is John Keker.

It’s important because these executive orders are completely unconstitutional, are almost a joke. The four times that they've been tested by the four firms that stood up, the district court judges said that they were a joke and have issued temporary restraining orders.

And the problem with agreeing with this president's bullying like this is, is multifold. One is you're creating a conflict of interest by, for everybody in your firm in dealing with the government. So if you show up in a criminal case, you have two masters. One is that Donald Trump owns you and his prosecutors own you. And then the other is you're trying to represent a client, that's completely against the rules and the way we've always operated.

The second is that now Donald Trump is immune from prosecution, but these, these firms are offering something of value for an official act, which is called bribery. And, and you really sort of shouldn't, if your lawyers shouldn't be committing these overt crimes so publicly.

And the third is that if you make a deal with, with Donald Trump, he's gonna know how weak you are. He's gonna know that you're gonna roll over, and he'll be coming back for more. You'll never get him off your back.

Quinta Jurecic: Bob, anything you'd like to add to that?

Bob Van Nest: Yeah, this is Bob Van Nest. I, I, I want to add to all those good points another key point, which is that these orders are intended basically to intimidate law firms like ours from representing people that Trump opposes. So, for example, our firm—and many of the firms on the list that you went down, Quinta—do a lot of asylum work, immigration work, environmental work. We are doing pro bono work for clients the Trump administration is opposing.

And the first time that we went public with our letter, it was in response to a Trump general executive order not directed at any one firm, but directed at all firms that represent immigrants, asylum seekers, and others, intending really overtly to intimidate firms and discourage them from taking on this work.

I think the Trump administration realizes that it's a lot easier to win if there's no one on the other side. And I think one of the most egregious problems with what the large firms are doing is emboldening him to go forward and take more firms out of action. I'm not sure these firms that have signed deals with Trump, how active they're gonna be able to be in the pro bono world that we live in, right?

I mean, they were all big providers of pro bono services, many of 'em to asylum seekers, immigrants, environmental causes, and the like. He's trying to take those people out. And that, that's what I think really generated the first letter that we wrote was in response to that first executive order after Perkins Coie that was attacking us and other lawyers like us that do these things.

I'll just note that yesterday, Judge AliKhan in the Susman case said quote, I think the framers of our constitution would see this—she's referring to the, the executive orders—as a shocking abuse of power, unquote. I couldn't agree more. That was really well put. That was yesterday in court in Washington, D.C.

Quinta Jurecic: Yeah, absolutely. And I should note for listeners, so we're recording this on April 16; this, that hearing was on April 15. And I was listening to that and I completely agree. It was very striking. I mean, Judge AliKhan said outright that she admired Susman Godfrey for standing up and admired the other firms.

I, I haven't been able to listen to all of the hearings, but in the hearing before Judge Bates—I believe that, I believe that was the WilmerHale case—Judge Bates refer to the executive order in the language toward WilmerHale as reprehensible which is pretty strong language from a judge who is usually pretty even keeled. And so I, I have been really struck by how offended the judges actually in these cases seem to be.

One argument that I thought was interesting—Judge AliKhan touched on this in her ruling from the bench, and Don Verrilli, who was representing Susman Godfrey, made this point during the hearing—that in a sense you can understand these executive orders, not only as an attack on law firms but as an attack on the judiciary in that it limits sort of the ability of the court to serve as a space where there's equal representation, where arguments are hashed out, you know, that the, the judge can get the benefit of, you know, good representation on both sides. I'm curious what you both think of that argument.

John Keker: I think it's, it's right on. One of the things that, in addition to these executive orders against law firms that the president has been doing is saying really nasty things about judges in a way that's almost unheard of. Calling Jeff Boasberg, who's the chief judge of the District of Columbia, a I can't even remember what he called it.

Bob Van Nest: Left wing radical.

John Keker: Left wing radical, radical, blah, blah, blah. I mean, it is, he, he is, he's attacking judges. It's all out of the dictator’s handbook, which has been repeated over and over and over again.

You first of all, get the oligarchs to cozy up to you and intimidate them and, and, and get them to do whatever you say. Well, he's done that. Then you go after any independent voice, which includes the press, which includes lawyers, which includes universities, which includes other intellectuals, and certainly includes judges. You get rid of them all, and you get to be king.

And that's not something that we can stand or should ever tolerate in the United States of America. And that's where this guy is headed.

Quinta Jurecic: So I wanna correct myself before we move further. The, the case before Judge Bates was the Jenner & Block case, not, not WilmerHale. That was before Judge Leon. It's hard to keep track in part because it, the, the same characters keep showing up. I believe there's only one lawyer from the Justice Department who's actually been litigating all of these.

John Keker: Half a lawyer, half a lawyer 'cause he can't answer any questions.

Bob Van Nest: He's on his way to being fired probably, right? I mean, unfortunately the other, the other group here that's been brought to heel is Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice. They're making some outrageous misstatements, false statements, or simply refusing to answer, which again, is part of the playbook. I, I think that, that it's, it's remarkable the degree to which DOJ lawyers, who for many years have been considered independent from the president and operating on behalf of the country are now simply part of the game that Trump is playing.

And the other thing that's remarkable is these executive orders are crude. They, they're crude. They're, they're thinly veiled messages of pure just retaliation, which is why I think a lot of the judges have been shocked at, at the fact that there isn't really even any effort to hide the, the notion that what I am doing as president is trying to punish people that were adverse to me and my electoral activities, for example. That's been the key so far, at least. Even with Susman, I think it was their representation of Dominion against Fox and the fact that they secured a settlement that implied the claims that Trump won the election were absolutely false. I think that was the genesis for that one.

And these things are, they don't even make an effort to provide some lawful logical backup, which is why the DOJ lawyers stand there with their hands in their pockets looking down at their shoes with nothing to say.

Quinta Jurecic: So given that the litigation has been so successful—each firm that has filed a case has received a TRO sometimes within, you know, 24 hours of filing—why do you think it is that firms have still been reluctant to fight?

Bob Van Nest: You know, I don't know the answer. John and I aren't privy to the internal deliberations.

I think that it must be fear that even if you win—which is clear, these four firms that are fighting are going to win, fear that you'll be punished regardless. And I'm not saying that that fear is unfounded. I think what they've done is terrible and it is encouraging more lawlessness by Trump. But the only possible explanation I can think of is that they, they believe that if they, if they don't agree, even if they win, they'll be punished in some way.

And, and perhaps, perhaps that's true. I don't think that excuses what they're doing for a minute, but I can't think of any other reasonable explanation than, than the idea that, that they won't survive and they won't thrive even if they prevail. Because I do think it's very clear, given what the four judges have said so far, that the, the four fighting firms—Wilmer, Jenner, Perkins, and Susman—they're gonna prevail. They're gonna prevail on summary judgment, and these orders are gonna be declared unconstitutional.

So there must be something more to the, to the concern than, than that because it's a clear path that these guys have created for folks.

John Keker: I think in addition, these firms are worried and scared about what their clients will think. So this, this ripple effect, they're scared. They think their clients will be scared pretty soon. You know, we just have this long line of, of, of people that are fearful and that, as Bob says, win or lose, you can't win against the government that hates you, and that's what they're worried about for their clients.

Bob Van Nest: Having said that, having said that, does anyone really think that these agreements are gonna benefit these guys? I mean, the, the, the part of it, putting aside the disgust, to me, the idea that you're gonna make such a deal, even if it's relatively cost free and get any benefit out of it, is shocking. I mean, Trump just will ask for more and more and more. I, I can't see that any of these so-called agreements will actually end up benefiting the firms other than they don't have to file a lawsuit, which they will then win. To me that the biggest head scratcher is why you would do a deal with a person like this that doesn't respect agreements anyway.  

Quinta Jurecic: I wanted to ask, you know, from your perspective as, as partners at a firm, if you could maybe elucidate some of the dynamics within big law firms that might be pushing firms to capitulate—not to excuse that behavior, of course, but, but just to try to understand it.

And one thing that has come up in my conversations with folks about why these, these capitulations are happening is that the degree of exposure that firms might feel can vary a lot based on what kind of work they do.

So, you know, firms with a big corporate practice are gonna be really differently positioned here than firms that do a lot of litigation. Can you talk a little bit about that and how that might affect the dynamics here?

John Keker: I think that's exactly the, the problem. The corporate partners, the ones who represent private equity, and hedge funds, and banks, and, and all these entities that want to make deals with the government, are pushing for peace. And the litigators who are much more used to adversarial proceedings are pushing for fighting these executive orders.

And I think that's what happened at, I, I've heard from some people in these big firms that that's exactly what happened, that their litigators who were very, very distressed. I know there's a lot of young lawyers who were very, very distressed. I've heard from a lot of people that, that many people in these firms wish that they were not working for a firm that could cave in so easily to the government and wish that they would fight. But the corporate influence is what has driven this, and, and I think that, it started with Paul Weiss.

Quinta Jurecic: And what is it about a corporate practice that might push you in that direction? Again, I think for, for lawyers who are listening to this, that might sound very obvious to them, but for folks who are listening who aren't familiar with kind of the business of law, what is it about that kind of work that might make you vulnerable or less inclined to fight?

John Keker: Corporate lawyers will be trying to figure out how to serve their clients by making peace. They don't wanna litigate; they don't want litigation; they don't want fighting. What they want to do is make deals. For, for the, the executive order to threaten that anybody that is a client of this firm that gets an executive order is going to lose all their government contracts and contacts— people don't want that.

And I think that's what the corporate lawyers are, are so worried about—and I, I must say, I mean, I get it. I understand it. We all understand it, but we are appalled and I hope these folks feel humiliated and disgraced because I think that's what they've done to themselves.

Bob Van Nest: The other aspect of it too is I think the corporate practices depend on the government to approve deals, right? A lot of the corporate practice is not litigation, it's negotiating with the government to get a deal approved. And I think there's probably a big concern, not only among the firms, but among their clients that if they're not in favor with the government, it's gonna be much harder—particularly with a president like Trump that doesn't care about the merits, it's just transactional—it's gonna be a lot harder to get deals approved. Even if they're legit and on the merits a good thing, Trump will say, well, these guys aren't playing ball. I'm not gonna prove the deal.

So I think there's, there's a, a great fear, not just that, that they'll lose clients, but they'll not really be able to be effective at what they do. We, we can be effective once we get into the courtroom. So if you keep us, if you keep us out of the courtroom, of course no one's gonna hear us. But, but for the deal makers, they've gotta not only get in the courtroom, but they've got the government with the power not to approve the deal. I think that has to be driving some.

I learned, I think yesterday that a couple of partners have left one of the firms, one of the fighting firms because, for whatever reason, but I think it's because they're worried that even if they win their deals aren't gonna get approved.

So I I really, you have to applaud the firms that are fighting. I mean, those four really deserve our respect and our admiration because they're fighting even though, even though they have the same bottom line concerns. They have deal folks. All four of those firms are involved in, in not just litigation but other areas of practice. So I, I really hats off to the guys that are fighting. They've done, they've done us all a big service and we appreciate it.

Quinta Jurecic: And there's been interesting reporting about, you know, tensions between people more on the corporate side versus more on the litigation side, I believe within both Paul Weiss—which as you say, was sort of the first firm to reach a deal—and then also Jenner and Block, which chose to file litigation, that the, the litigation folks within Paul Weiss were frustrated that a deal was reached. The corporate folks within Jenner were frustrated that a deal was, was not reached.

I mean, I'm curious in your perspective as well about, you know, what those kind of internal fights might look like within firms. Right now there's been reporting also as we've mentioned here about younger associates expressing real frustration.

There were some open letters that went out, some resignations, not only from, you know, folks who are in more senior partner roles with these firms, but also from associates who are just starting their careers and are saying, you know, this isn't really what I, what I signed up for. So it seems like there's a lot of different tensions pulling in a lot of different directions within these firms from the reporting that I've seen.

Bob Van Nest: We're a small firm, 140 lawyers, as you know Quinta. And we have our partnership is very united and collegial, so we don't have that sort of situation here. Everybody here was on board with the positions we've taken and the stances. But I do know that at the firms that have cut deals, we are hearing from mainly the younger lawyers, young partners and associates are the most concerned.

I, I think that the more senior people may reach out in time, but we haven't had that same experience here fortunately because we're a relatively smaller partnership with people are all paddling in the same direction, and so it's been good. But we have heard from a lot of younger lawyers, I think, that are questioning whether they wanna stay at the firms that cut deals.

I think for a younger lawyer, what I've said is it's not your, you didn't make the decisions. You should make the decision that's best for your career because you weren't involved in the decision making here. But I know that many of the younger people are very upset and disturbed by what's going on and, and think it might have a longer term effect on them. So we'll see how all this shakes out.

John Keker: And the same for law schools. The law students are paying attention to, and they now have a chart that shows who has caved in and who hasn't caved in and so on. So I think the, this is going to affect recruiting and the way people look at the legal profession and the firms.

Bob Van Nest: You know, it's always been true that, that in the United States, to the victor go the spoils. We, we, we've all recognized over time that when a Democrat is the president, the democratic leaning firms get the work. When a Republican is president, the republican. We, we live with that. We we're, we're used to that. But this is far beyond that, right? This, this goes far beyond that. It's way outside any norm that any of us have been used to. It's—as John said and the judges too—completely unconstitutional to be retaliating against people for representations they took.

So the, the, the people coming outta school always had to think about, sure, Republicans, Democrats, who's in power, but that was always a changing thing, right? They've never had to consider firms that did what some of these firms have done to their reputations by acquiescing in this thing and capitulating to Trump. That's a very new and, and scary, I think, phenomenon for many people.

John Keker: I, I couldn't agree more, that there's so much talk in the United States about liberty and freedom, including many of our friends who were Republicans. Everybody wants liberty and freedom.

And to have liberty and freedom, there has to be an ability to be independent and have independent ideas and your own thoughts and not be kowtowing or under the thumb of the government, which is a sign of an authoritarian government. Trump wants the latter. He wants everybody under his thumb and it is completely unacceptable to anybody who values the the America, the United States republic.

Quinta Jurecic: You mentioned a bit earlier that you know the firms that have chosen to fight—there are real risks here for them. You know, they're, they're winning these, these temporary restraining orders very easily. They seem likely to prevail on summary judgment, but they may still be in trouble after that.

Can you explain that a little bit? I think again, to someone who's less familiar with this ecosystem, it might not be clear why a firm could be in danger if they prevail in the court. Let's say, you know, Perkins Coie wins on summary judgment and that holds up on appeal—do you still see danger for them as a firm there? Or, or any of the firms that we're talking about?

Bob Van Nest: Sure. I, I, I think they that's why I say I think they're very brave and, and courageous to do what they've done. But for example, Wilmer's a, a very large multifaceted firm. They do deals, they have a big corporate practice. They are depending on getting approval from DOJ and FTC and FCC and various government agencies to get deals through.

So the idea that Trump will be deciding things on the merits going forward is clearly not the case. He's put loyalists in position at all these agencies, and so these firms to the extent, just one facet to the extent that they have corporate partners who are depending on deals, they're at risk. They're certainly not going to get government work, but maybe that was a foregone conclusion anyway.

Their, their clients could be retaliated against, notwithstanding the judge is saying, you can't do that. How are we gonna enforce that? I, I think there's a risk for them that the clients decide, even though they won, they got a TRO, then a preliminary injunction, then a permanent injunction, they're clearly out of favor. I'm hitting the road.

So I don't think we should take lightly the, the, the courageous efforts of these firms and hopefully others to speak out and fight back, because I, I don't think it's costless, even if you win. They face risks going forward. So again, hats off to them. Thank you for standing up for the rule of law. Somebody's gotta do it, and they have done it and they're, they're certainly not in a risk-free position, even if they prevail.

Quinta Jurecic: One aspect of this, as you say, is the question of how clients are behaving. I was reading some of the reporting from the New York Times on why Paul Weiss decided to strike a deal, and part of the reporting was that clients had started to leave because they were nervous that the firm would be targeted and that actually other firms had swooped in and tried to pull clients away from Paul Weiss, seeing this as kind of an opportunity to, you know, get those clients.

What role do clients have in this kind of dynamic? It seemed to me that, that part of this is that, you know, big corporate clients are sort of, you know, following the money, trying to avoid vulnerability for their own part. But that in doing so, you know, behaving like you might expect a corporation to do are really allowing this kind of harassment of law firms to persist.

John Keker: I mean, there's also the possibility of the, the, the opposite. I know of one billionaire who called me up and said they were disgusted with the firm that they were working with because they had caved in and wanted a recommendation for a different firm.

And, and so I think that that is a role for clients. Clients have to decide where, yes, the, the immediate, getting a a, a deal approved is an important thing. But the, the world is gonna go on firms lose clients, gain clients, lose lawyers, gain lawyers all the time. It's part of the game. It's part of what's been going on for a long time. And if a client disapproves of a lawyer standing up to these, these unconstitutional executive orders and decides that they're gonna take their business elsewhere, so be it, I think.

But, but their—actually courage and integrity used to be important in, in the legal world and in the government, and someday it's going to be important again. I don't care how long Donald Trump lasts, it's not important now, but the people who care about integrity and courage at some point are gonna prevail.

Bob Van Nest: I'll say also that it's ironic to have your firm, which is known for advocacy, fold like this. Our experience with our clients has been overwhelming positive feedback. Thank you guys for doing this. We appreciate it. Somebody's gotta do it and we appreciate you doing—I mean, we're, we're adverse to the government all the time. White collar cases, FTC cases, antitrust cases.

So, so we're used to fighting with the government and that's one of the things that we are known for is aggressive litigation. So—and, and that was true previously of some of these other firms too. So it's kind of ironic to have a firm that has a strong litigation reputation to capitulate like this.

And I, I just really wonder what message that sends to the litigation clients, right? The corporate clients are one thing, but your litigation clients are depending on you to stand up to the government and fight the government when, when the government comes to, to attack their businesses or their business models. We've had a lot of cases here in the last five, ten years where the government effort was really a broad-based assault on the business model of the, of the client.

So our feedback's been 100% positive, but, but we're a litigation firm, advocacy and being adverse to the government as part of our brand. And, and was part of the brand for some of these firms that have cut deals too. So, I, I, think it's, it reflects very poorly on you as an advocate. If you're not even willing to stand up for yourself, how would you be willing to stand up for a client?

Quinta Jurecic: Right before we started recording, the New York Times actually published a story about how the president seems to be pushing for, for more from these firms that had reached deals than they had necessarily bargained for, which he has been able to do because, you know, in a lot of cases apparently it's not even clear if there are written agreements or if this is really just a handshake deal.

But there's suggestions from the White House that the president might try to use these pro bono services that these firms have committed to for negotiating tariffs, moving forward on various government policy proposals, rather than the sort of pro bono commitments that it seemed like these firms thought that they might be working on—you know, matters regarding services to veterans, that kind of thing.

And the thing that really jumped out at me in that reporting is that there was a line suggesting that, oh, you know, these, these firms felt that they had been protected in agreeing, you know, we're gonna work on pro bono matters that we might've supported anyway, and that they will be able to push back and ensure that. But how much leverage do they have at this point, given that they've already shown themselves to be able to negotiate?

So I'm, I'm curious for your sense, you know—is this a situation where the administration might cross a line past which some of these firms that have reached deals might say, we, we really can't go that far, or would you expect them to say kind of, you know, in for a dime and for a dollar?

John Keker: They have zero leverage. They have given up their pride, and if you'll excuse me, cojones to the, to the, to the president and he can ask for more. He's already told fossil fuel coal miners that he is going to use some of these pro bono hours to help them get more fossil fuels, more coal burning plants and so on, which is, is kind of ironic in this in this era where we used to worry about climate change and now we have somebody pushing coal.

But they have zero leverage and it's going to take kind of a revolution within the firm, I think. And, and, and they may get it. I mean, they, the young lawyers may say, we ain't doing it, we're not gonna do what pro bono work you, you are asking us to do. One of the firms I know has sent out emails to all the associates and younger partners saying, you don't have to do anything, any pro bono work that we ask you to do because they're anticipating the president's gonna use this in a completely ridiculous way to say, this is the pro bono work I want.

One of the things that's particularly galling to me is that he says he cares about veterans and at the, at the same time, he is slashing and destroying the Veterans Administration medical system. And it's just, it, it is just nauseating for this draft dodging president with bone spurs to be attacking veterans in that way hypocritically.

Bob Van Nest: There's another aspect of it that's really disturbing and we've, we've gotten a couple of calls from firms that have done deals or about firms that have done deals where they wanna move pro bono work over to us. In other words, part of this whole program is to not only to get services, I suppose, for Trump, but to discourage and intimidate firms from providing cost-free litigation support to immigrants, people seeking asylum, environmental groups.

What I'm, what I'm equally worried about—I could care less what the firms are forced to do, they, they, they made their bed, they'll sleep in it. But I, I do think it's very likely to have a, a very dampening effect on the amount of good pro bono, real pro bono work that firms do.

We, we sort of take for granted that the large firms were among the folks who provided a lot of free service, pro bono service. We we're, we're in the network too, our little firm, we're in the network providing it too.

The big firms provided a lot and I'm, I'm equally worried that they will feel that they can no longer provide the kind of good, necessary, critical pro bono service to the environmental organizations, the immigration organizations, asylum seekers that they did for fear of, of pissing off the government.

I mean, the whole point of some of these orders, one of the points was to discourage that. And I think unfortunately, given the number of firms that have said yes, okay, we'll go along whatever they're asked to do, they won't be asked to do the kind of work they were doing. And they may feel that doing that kind of work is no longer viable for them.

So I think we're gonna see a dramatic reduction in the availability of good pro bono of the kind that we were experiencing for years in this country, because people are afraid to do it. That would be a real shame, but I think it's probably going to happen given the number of firms and the identity of the firms.

They'll, they'll be a, there'll be a reduction in the willingness of, of the, those firms to do the kind of pro bono that needs to be done and that, that the organizations are constantly trying to expand.

Quinta Jurecic: Yeah, and I've seen reporting that would-be plaintiffs who are looking for representation right now are finding, finding it harder to secure pro bono representation than they did in, in past administrations, even under the, the first Trump administration.

I think it, it might be helpful for listeners to understand, you know why it is that, you know—let's say you can't get a big firm to take on your case pro bono, that you can't just, you know, go down the road and hire, you know, a another lawyer in a two or three person shop. Like, what is the, what is the, the difference in terms of what a big firm can bring to a case? Like, why isn't this something that can be picked up by, you know, much smaller firms?

John Keker: Some of these big firms bring in more than a billion dollars a year in revenues. They can afford much more than a small solo practitioner or a small firm to allocate 10% of their billable hours to free work. And so they're a great resource in that, in, in that regard.

And in, in addition, there's a lot of cases that require a, a tremendous amount of legal work and they can, they're much better off much, it's much easier for them to assign a number of lawyers, a few partners and a few associates to such a case and, and go after, you know, especially if they're suing the government. The government has unlimited resources. Well, so do they and, and you can get a fair fight. That's been done.

And usually for years, big firms go to law schools and they trumpet how they're, they're, they say, yes, we represent corporations, we represent all kinds of capitalists, but we also represent poor people, dispossessed people, civil rights cases, voting cases. And they attract law students who think that they can change the world in a favorable way, but at a comfortable salary. So that's something that they can offer and that's how they get recruits. And now they're not gonna be able to do that, I don't think.

Bob Van Nest: John and I are, and, and many of our partners are board members at various legal services organizations and veterans group, big groups in John's case, and I know firsthand that these groups, some of which get federal funding from Legal Services Corp, or state funding through IOLTA, they depend heavily on relationships with the large firms.

Their, their work is often great as a training ground for younger lawyers. They get hearings, they have client contact, but it's a two-way street. The organizations have limited budgets and they depend heavily. on the sort of thing John's talking about with younger lawyers who are super smart young attorneys providing services as part of their organization.

They leverage the money they get through pro bono partnerships with the firms, and I'm waiting to see, very concerned in the case of, of groups I'm affiliated with, whether we're gonna continue to enjoy that from firms, including firms here in the Bay Area that have signed on to these bad deals. I think there's going to be reluctance on the part of the pro bono managers in these firms necessarily, or, or reluctance from the management committee, you know, the executive committee to continue these relationships.

Certainly that's something that Trump is directly trying to impact and discourage, right? He's, he's trying to discourage the kind of work that has been done traditionally by these firms, and it's, it's, it's not a small thing. They have a lots and lots of lawyers, lots of young lawyers that are providing these services for free, and the organizations really do depend on that.

Quinta Jurecic: One thing that's really struck me over the course of these last few months as this story has spun is that this seems to really highlight a tension between, on the one hand, the the ethical responsibilities of lawyers and the moneymaking incentives of big firms.

You know, I was thinking about this in comparison to say stock traders, you know, thinking about the tariffs for example. Those are not people who have, you know, a sort of ethical commitment to society as a whole, just because that's not what they're doing, their job is only to make money. Whereas lawyers, you know, the legal profession has a, a greater responsibility, to society, to uphold the rule of law. And yet of course, law firms are also businesses and this really seems to be putting a lot of pressure on that tension.

Is this a sustainable situation? What would you expect this, this ends up looking like over the months and years to come?

John Keker: Well, I, I would hope it would go back to the way it always has been, which is those of us who were lawyers and those of us who are presidents swear an oath that they're, and those of us who are military officers, you're going to support the Constitution of the United States. You are not going to try to destroy and turn into a dictatorship, the government of the United States.

And I'm hoping that very soon, as soon as possible, we can go back to that norm, to that ethic, and defeat and get and, and have gone this president who is with his minions, all of his little sycophants that run around running these departments and are mostly incapable I hope they're, they're gone.

Bob Van Nest: I'm hopeful, Quinta, that once we start getting some rulings, things might improve, right? It, it—we can't wait four years for things to get better, that that's not a viable option.

So I'm, I'm optimistic in the sense that I think all four firms and all four judges have moved quickly to get to finality in their cases, they're waiving discovery, they're going right to summary judgment. I'm confident these district judges will, will follow through and find these orders highly unconstitutional. And there's there, therefore there's a clear path to follow for those that will.

We all swore to uphold the Constitution. It, it's not an optional thing, it's part of being a lawyer, right? You, you, it's a privilege to practice law, and part of that privilege is with that privilege is responsibility and we all swore to do it. Not all of us are, are following through on that, but I think establishing a viable path to, to scrapping these is critical and ask, asking the judges, which they have been doing to act decisively and quickly is really important.

And as far as I can see in the four cases that are pending, judges are doing just that. They're acting decisively on these TROs. And they're acting quickly to schedule preliminary or you know, preliminary and permanent injunctions through summary judgment.

I'm very encouraged by that and I think I'll go out on a limb—I think the courts of, on this issue, the courts of appeal, even the Supreme Court, are gonna find it hard to overturn these rulings. I think they'll be affirmed and there'll be a path for those that will follow it to stick up for the law and the rule of law and knock these things out.

Quinta Jurecic: Is there anything else that, that you would like to see in terms of how firms are, are choosing to stand up that might help kind of blaze that path?

Bob Van Nest: Yeah, yeah. I, there is, there is, I, I would, I was shocked. We've all been, been shocked to see how few of the AmLaw 20 or the AmLaw 50 or the AmLaw 100 are taking even the minimal step of signing an amicus brief.

This amicus brief is powerful, but it's pretty vanilla. It's essentially saying you've got to stand up for the rule of law, and judges and lawyers have to be independent. It's not radical. It's, it's, it's it's basic bedrock. The, the brief that we signed onto was well and elegantly written, but very simple. And it, that doesn't say much more than that.

So, yeah, I'd like to see a wall of the AmLaw 100, signing on to the principle that you can't run around intimidating law firms or judges and attempting to skew the system. I mean, I think that's important. It should be done. It hasn't been done. Instead, the AmLaw 100 are running scared and or cutting deals. And that's the opposite of what we need. So yeah, you asked me what else needs to be done that absolutely should be done and should be done soon.

Quinta Jurecic: And these amicus briefs, are they filed in in all four of the cases? I know there's, there's hundreds of, of firms that have signed onto them at this point.

Bob Van Nest: They, they, they will be. They, they have been filed in the Perkins case; 507 law firms signed that. But again, not a lot of AmLaw 100 were, were, were on board. And they, they will be filed, I believe, in all three of the other cases at some point.

John Keker: Yes, and there's also there, there other friends of the court brief. In addition to these 500 law firms, there are former national security officials have filed an amicus brief. Some ethics professors. I think just yesterday, professors of ethics were writing about the conflict of interest, the bribery. And so the courts will be, I think, inundated by friend of the court briefs from people who care about this issue.

Bob Van Nest: Also states. The states—many, a dozen, two dozen states—filed an amicus brief. The bar associations have filed amicus briefs. Former judges have filed amicus briefs. Former bar presidents have filed. So there's a whole bunch, including a couple of dozen states that that, that filed in the Perkins case recently, and I think most of these will be filed in all four cases. And, and put it this way, they're all out there and, and available for the judges to rely on whether they're filed in their cases or not.

Quinta Jurecic: So I think it's fair to say, you know, we have seen, as you said, we've seen some of the big firms standing up. We've seen various actors, firms, states, bar associations standing up, but perhaps not as much as we would like.

I am curious to, to kind of bring us to a close. Let's say, you know, we continue down the, the road that that we're on from some firms capitulate, some firms fight. What kind of a landscape would you expect to see in the field, you know, a few years from now? Is this, does this have the capacity to kind of reshape what we think of when we think about big law firms and the, the role of these firms, the sort of economic role, the pro bono role that they play?

Because it seemed to me, you know, a lot of the things we're talking about here are putting real pressure on kind of the, the way that the legal field is currently organized.

John Keker: The way a dictatorship gets formed is for independent voices to not be independent and kowtow to the powerful executive. And if that happens to lawyers and the rule of law, we're doomed. It will affect judges, it will affect lawyers. If everybody knuckles under to a powerful executive branch, we're going to end up in a dictatorship. And that is something that I, I believe, and I hope in my heart, 99.9% of Americans don't want. And so let's keep it from happening.

Bob Van Nest: I think it's already had a a, a very deleterious effect on the willingness of firms to take on various representation. I think that's a, a long-term impairment that we're gonna face. And of course, the more firms that capitulate, the worse that'll be.

As you say, there's lots of firms like ours that willing to take on more of this, but there's a limit to that and I think it's already had an impact that we can't undo, where the firms that have agreed to these deals are going to be less willing to do the kind of work that the country needs to have done. I hope that doesn't continue, but I, I fear that it will because these deals will continue. They've already made their, made their bed, as I said.

I think that's a, I think that's going to reshape things and I think it'll be to the great detriment of the justice system and underrepresented people, underrepresented organizations in our country who need a voice, and I, I fear that these deals are undermining their ability to have a voice in the system that's critical to maintaining our balance.

Quinta Jurecic: All right. On that somewhat somber note, we're gonna leave it there. John, Bob, thank you so much for joining us.

Bob Van Nest: Thank you so much for having us. It's an important discussion.

Quinta Jurecic: The Lawfare Podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. You can get ad-free versions of this and other lawfare podcasts by becoming a Lawfare material supporter at our website, lawfaremedia.org/support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters.

Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts and look out for our other podcasts, including Rational Security, Allies, The Aftermath, and Escalation, our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine, and check out our written work at lawfaremedia.org.

The podcast is edited by Jen Patja and our audio engineer this episode was Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi music. As always, thanks for listening.