In the days after January 6, 2021, DLA Piper had something to say. The firm was the largest of 19 to sign onto a letter calling the assault on the Capitol “the direct and predictable result of a rally summoned by the president,” and urging then-Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Donald Trump from office.
“The President has proven himself unfit for office, and a reckless and wanton threat to the Constitution that he pledged to preserve, protect, and defend,” the firms wrote.
Strong words. Principled, even.
From ‘Vendor’ To ‘Partner’: How LexisNexis Is Deepening Law Firm Relationships
The company is emphasizing ‘white glove service’ in the AI era. Here’s what the initiative is delivering for clients.
But that was then, and that principled view of the rule of law has given way to the pursuit of cold, hard cash.
Because today, as Bloomberg Law reports, DLA Piper is defending Trump in the Jan. 6 cases — cases arising from the very attack the firm once described as a reckless and wanton threat to the Constitution. Partners Caryn Schechtman and Mike Walsh entered appearances last month as part of the Trump team fighting a lawsuit brought by Capitol police officers injured in the riot, along with a separate suit filed by members of Congress. Both cases allege Trump bears responsibility for his false election-rigging claims and agitating his supporters on the day of the attack… which is, more or less, exactly what DLA Piper itself said in 2021.
The firm, naturally, has a statement, and it is a piece of work.
“DLA Piper’s clients rely on our lawyers to help them navigate many of the world’s most complex legal matters,” it reads. “Providing exceptional legal counsel to clients that span the political spectrum is central to who we are as a global law firm.”
Beyond Recall And Precision: Strategic Oversight Of AI Managed Review
AI can accelerate document review, but metrics alone aren't enough. Learn how Managing Attorney oversight turns AI-driven review into a more adaptive, strategic and defensible process.
Ah, the political spectrum. On one end, the client whose worse fomented an attack on the Capitol. On the other end, the firm’s own 2021 letter demanding that same client be removed from office for those exact actions. Truly, DLA Piper contains multitudes.
The academics were less charitable. Scott Cummings, a UCLA law professor, put the sharpest point on it. DLA Piper’s turn toward Trump is “at best deeply hypocritical,” he said. “At worst, it suggests that these expressions of professional integrity in these critical moments may be not seriously grounded in commitments by the firms but rather a performance that’s consumed by the public.”
“It’s striking that a firm that had been so critical of Trump with regard to Jan. 6 would represent him,” Yale Law professor John Morley told Bloomberg, before getting to the part everyone is thinking. “There’s obviously a close connection between the president’s personal interests and political priorities. Firms that wish to gain sway with administration can potentially gain a lot from advising Trump personally.”
There it is — this isn’t a firm rediscovering its commitment to zealous advocacy for the unpopular client. Trump is the most powerful man in the country, and personally handling his lawsuits is a very direct way of getting on his good side, a good side that has spent the last year and a half handing out and withholding favors to Biglaw based on loyalty. The pro bono deals, the executive orders, the whole ecosystem of capitulation. Defending the man himself is just the premium tier.
Earlier: DLA Piper Partner Backs Trump Central Park 5 Defamation Case
Capitol Police Officers Sue To Block Trump Slush Fund For Rioters
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 Bluesky @Kathryn1