“We Should be Ashamed” — Big Law’s Silence on Trump’s Attack on Covington & Burling

Instead of a collective “Hell No!” to Trump's threats on one of its own, Big Law is cowering.

Photo: Serge Lahoud from Pexels

I KNOW IT’S IMPOSSIBLE to pick what’s most alarming about Trump’s directives thus far. But as a longtime journalist covering the legal profession, permit me to focus on Big Law for just a moment.

Last week, Trump revoked the security clearances of lawyers at Covington & Burling involved in the pro bono representation of former special counsel Jack Smith. Trump’s directive also terminates the firm’s government contracts, even though it has none. But that didn’t matter because Trump was making a bigger point: putting Big Law on notice that he will crush any law firm that represents a client he regards as a nemesis.

In case those legal brains missed the message, Trump said it out loud. “And you’ll be doing this with other firms as time goes by, right?” he asked one of his aides as he signed the directive.

You don’t have to be an ethics expert to smell the rot. The immediate consequence is that Smith’s lawyers will be deprived of access to critical information, potentially crippling Smith’s ability to mount an effective defense. Trump’s directive was pure vindictiveness, not normal legal sparring. (For context, remember that Biden gave security clearances to Trump’s lawyers for his defense.)

Not a good look for Big Law:

So how are the most powerful, richest law firms in the land responding to this attack on one of their own and the profession at large?

They’re ducking. Running for the hills. Praying that they will not end up in Covington’s shoes. While a few professional organizations have issued strong statements condemning Trump’s action (e.g., the New York City Bar, The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and The New York Council of Defense Lawyers), Big Law has said squat, nary a peep of public support for Covington. Worse, some firms are cowering, refusing requests from their own lawyers to represent DOJ lawyers, FBI agents, and other officials facing retaliation by the Trump administration.

It’s not a good look, and Big Law knows it.

“We should be ashamed of ourselves,” a partner at a major firm tells me. “We’ve always been courageous in the past but not now,” adding, “I personally feel ashamed.”

Grab them by the balls:

Trump has Big Law where he wants it: by the balls, scared shitless.

“Trump is signaling that Covington is an enemy of the state,” says a partner of a top firm. “His message is that he will destroy you, your firm, and your clients. It’s very effective, which is why no one has stood up to him.”

Indeed, the Trump administration is using its powers to gut lawyers on all fronts. Despite assuring senators “there will never be an enemies list” at her confirmation, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi launched the ominously named “Weaponization Working Group” to root out so-called “abuses of the criminal justice process” as soon as she took office.

“For us, it’s nuclear.”

No one knows how far Trump will go in his retaliation quest, and major law firms, particularly those with substantial corporate practices, are feeling the heat. “Our clients will leave us if we can't close their deals,” sums up one partner at a firm with a big transactional practice, citing the perils of running afoul of regulatory agencies that are now in Trump’s iron grip. “For us, it’s nuclear.”

It’s a quandary, and I don’t envy law firm leaders in the current political environment. But before we start feeling sorry for Big Law, let’s get one thing straight: They are choosing profits over principle. Fact is, Big Law partners are making more money than ever, and keeping that machine rolling is first priority. (In 2024, according to The American Lawyer, the profit per equity partner at 20 of the most lucrative firms, start at a low of $4,355,000 for Fried Frank to $8,507,000 for Wachtell Lipton)

If Big Law doesn’t speak up, who will?

To be clear, I don’t begrudge lawyers for making oodles of money. I know that’s the game, especially at the highest echelons of Big Law. But doesn’t reaping that extraordinary bounty also come with responsibility to defend the integrity of the profession, particularly when your basic ability to represent clients without fear of government reprisal comes under attack?

I also wonder what happens next – when this administration punishes other firms for disloyalty, such as the eight or so firms that are challenging Trump. Will Big Law continue its pretense of see-no-evil, hear-no-evil as Trump starts going down the list? And yes, that should remind you of the McCarthy era.

IN AN IDEAL WORLD, the elites of Big Law would band together and tell Trump to shove it. But that takes guts, which has never been the group’s forte. So keeping silent, avoiding troublesome clients, and staying in Trump’s good graces sum up Big Law’s waned response at the moment.

At a certain point, though, that cautious (and cowardly) business strategy slips into another territory: complicity. Let’s hope that’s not where Big Law is heading.

Email: chen.vivia@gmail.com

---

Related post: Sullivan & Cromwell Goes Maga