New Survey Results Are In: The Legal Profession Is Overwhelmingly Opposed To The Biglaw Deals With Trump

Above the Law recently asked readers what they thought about Biglaw’s response to the existential crisis facing the profession. Donald Trump has gone to war with the rule of law and Biglaw through a series of unconstitutional Executive Orders (or the mere threat of them) designed to break major law firms and have them bend a knee to Trump or extract a tremendous financial penalty.

While some firms (Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey) have responded to these EOs with a court battle, that has not been the universal response. In the face of financial harm, too many firms are willing to proactively seek out Trump’s seal of approval and provide pro bono payola, that is, free legal services on behalf of conservative clients or causes in order to avoid Trumpian retribution. But not everyone has been thrilled with this yellow-bellied capitulation. Many clients see the deals as a weakness and, increasingly, are pulling work away from the firms that have demonstrated they are unwilling to take a legal fight to the Trump administration. Plus, there’s a bit of an exodus of attorneys leaving the firms that caved to Trump, hoping to get the stink of capitulation off their resumes. 

So ATL asked YOU for your take on Biglaw’s response to the EOs threatening the profession. With over 850 responses coming from Biglaw, small law, law students, professors, judges and everyone else in between, we got the real scoop on what folks think about what’s going on. (Full report available here or below.) And the responses were *overwhelmingly* one-sided — like, make it look like the Washington Generals stand a chance in comparison one-sided.

An extraordinary 91% of respondents said law firms who make agreements with the administration are giving in to extortion, which sends a bad message to the entire profession. When broken down to just respondents from Am Law 100 firms, 86% agreed with that statement.

Ninety percent of respondents said firms should follow the lead of Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey and challenge the president’s actions in court; for Biglaw respondents, 84% agreed.

Only 3% of respondents overall (and 4% of Biglaw respondents) said the firms ending their diversity initiatives and complying with government requests are just doing what they have to because it’s best to stay on the right side of the president.

Of the respondents who are in-house counsel, 88% said they’re less likely to engage with a firm that caves to the administration’s threats. Zero — ZERO — percent of in-house respondents said more likely to engage with a firm that reaches an agreement with the administration, and only 1% said the deals with Trump have no impact on their relationship with Biglaw firms.

These numbers make it shockingly clear that striking a deal with Trump is a bad idea. Take a look at some of the comments respondents left in the open response queries on the survey:

• “My firm has been targeted by the admin and has fought back in court. This is the only logical and moral response, and may be the best business decision in the long term.”
• “I’m a partner at [one of the firms that capitulated]. We folded like a cheap suit. It’s a disgraceful and shameful precedent to set, and the knuckleheads who think [my firm] and others like it will have any spine to stand up in the future are foolish. I guess we’d be working hand in hand with the Hitler administration if we had a Berlin office in the 1930s because it’s just a smart business move, amirite? To be fair, it’s not like it is literally our jobs to take tough legal positions, oh wait that’s right it is. Yay for courage!”
• “My firm has been totally silent. Silence at this moment is a form of capitulation.”
• “I completely understand why the firm capitulated. There were unimpeachable business reasons to do so. However, we didn’t get out of much. Trump could literally hit the firm with more demands/EOs/Investigations anytime he wants to. We may have gotten out of this one, which we absolutely HAD to do somehow, but by not fighting him on it in court, we emboldened him for future actions that may be intolerable. As I see it, we can be sensible cowards now, kick the can of flaming poop down the road, and push back later, when we face some other extinction-level event, or we could have taken a principled position now, and not so greatly undermine the rule of law.”
• “Sure, the bottom line is important, but so is legacy and longevity. Don’t be on the wrong side of history here, folks.”
• “My firm has expressed disapproval of the president’s mafia tactics and law firms’ capitulation. Our is a profession that is intended to uphold the law and to protect the public.”
• “Active opposition is the only honorable course. Staying silent to avoid the crosshairs is completely misguided. Did we learn nothing from 1930s Germany?”
• “First, I think the law profession has a unique responsibility to push back on the unprecedented amount of unconstitutional actions. Second, I think that caving to this administration’s demands looks weak and cowardly; and third — and perhaps most importantly — I can’t trust that a law firm that has ‘made a deal’ will zealously advocate for my company’s interests or won’t fire us as a client upon demand from the Administration.”
• “I need strong, principled attorneys on our side. Not spineless bean counters looking to preserve their bottom line above all else.”
• “There are defining moments in history. This moment directly involves the rule of law, which is the foundation of our very democracy. If lawyers won’t stand up for the rule of law and stand against clearly unconstitutional actions, who will? This is especially true of Biglaw firms who have more financial ability to do so.”
• “I don’t want to be associated with firms that give in.”
• “They should be showing what zealous advocacy means by standing up for the rule of law and not bowing to a wannabe despot.”
• “Most important is not giving in and signing ‘deals’ with this administration. Next is taking action in the courts or otherwise to try to stop it. Finally, this is a moment where all lawyers should be locking arms. While firms often are in competition for clients and talent, etc. and also adverse to each other in cases, this is an existential moment for our profession overall and we should all stand with each other and support each other any way we can.”

You can read the full survey results below.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].