Lawyer resigns in protest as law firm capitulates to Trump, fails to uphold rule of law
Lawyer resigns in protest as law firm capitulates to Trump, fails to uphold rule of law
The reality is these firms are scared after what happened to Perkins Coie (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/).
They were effectively banned from court houses and federal facilities. What use is a law firm that cannot appear in court? Even if they fight it, the revenue lost until something like this is overturned could destroy the firm.
Partners at big law firms have chosen to protect their businesses as is their responsibility. Associates would be also correct to quit.
Some big law firms have made clear that if associates do not want to be involved on a Trump related matter they will be removed from it and will not be forced to. These partners know this is not good for their firms and will cripple future recruitment, but it's this or be out of business due to retaliation.
Until citizens can pressure those in government to uphold the rule of law and create/enforce consequences for unlawful actions, this sort of thing will unfortunately continue.
"Effectively banning" an entire law firm from court houses and federal buildings for political reasons is a huge overreach of executive authority and doesn't even sound constitutional! They used lies and biased statements to justify it. My argument to you is: What use is a law firm that gives up that easy and refuses to fight for the rule of law?
It may be, but none of that matters when the so-called "checks and balances" are not being applied expeditiously.
I'm not here to defend their behavior. It's important for anyone that chooses to think critically to try and understand motives. It's easy to armchair quarterback and harder to put yourself in their position and truly evaluate the choice in front of them.
What options are available to them to "fight for the rule of law"? The executive branch, responsible for enforcing laws, is the offending party. The judicial branch moves too slowly to mitigate the significant damages that would be incurred while that fight is taking place. And the legislative branch has implicitly endorsed this behavior by not serving as a check against overreach.
Even if the law firm wins the case, their clientele will have moved on and they will likely have laid off a significant portion of their workforce.
These partners have dedicated their lives to their firms. 3,000+ billable hours each year for their entire careers. I sincerely hope you never have to choose between not only your livelihood, but that of your entire workforce, and your principles because I guarantee you, it won't be an easy decision.
There is no relief in sight unless the populace demonstrates that this is all unacceptable. Why would they choose otherwise?
Partners at big law firms have chosen to protect their businesses as is their responsibility.
NO.
Their responsibility is to the law first. Above their responsibility to the business. That's literally the dictionary definition of what being a professional means.
The law doesn't preclude them from representing a client unless they believe their services are being used to further a crime or harass others. The Supreme Court has provided broad coverage to the powers of a President acting in an official capacity.
It is up to each attorney individually to decide where their personal ethics do not align with their professional obligations but this is not an issue per the bar association's professional rules of conduct. However, feel free to read through them and provide counter arguments based on their actual professional code.
The idea that business owners’ responsibility is to protect the business and not the people is like saying that a gambler’s responsibility is to protect the casino. This kind of asinine thinking is what got us in this mess of late stage capitalism and selfishness in the first place.
Until citizens can pressure those in government to uphold the rule of law and create/enforce consequences for unlawful actions, this sort of thing will unfortunately continue.
Yeah, the only way this is happening from now on in the US is for some very much not legal things to happen.
But hey, didn't someone recently say something about whoever saves their country commits no crime?
In response to this, her former boss would say "Listen here sweet cheeks, they make the laws and we exploit the loopholes. Nothing else matters."
Is there a "don't and say we did" opportunity here?
Reading some of the comments here I'd imagine it's a thought that went through their head.