General Counsel
Consulting
provided
exceptional
service in helping
my organization
recruit for a hard
to fill position.
They did extensive
work on the front
end to understand
our needs and
our culture and
began referring
highly qualified
candidates almost
immediately.
Melinda Burrows
Deputy General Counsel
- Litigation and
Compliance, Progress
Energy Service Company
LLC
Articles By Harrison Barnes From BCG Attorney Search
Trust & Estate Admin Attorney - Remote California Newport Beach California United States
"Certain beneficiaries and trustees lacking legal counsel that we fund trust loans for, generally for tax relief and property buyout purposes -- need help from an attorney. Your fees are paid by the family trust. Contact us ASAP..."
We are ...
When former President Donald Trump issued a surprise executive order targeting Susman Godfrey LLP — one of America’s premier litigation firms — the legal world held its breath. Would Big Law buckle under political pressure, or would it fight back?
For Susman Godfrey, the decision was swift and unanimous. Within just two hours of reviewing the executive order, the firm’s partners agreed to sue the United States government, setting off a historic legal battle that has sent shockwaves through the legal industry.
This battle is not just about a single firm. It reflects deeper questions about the rule of law, attorney independence, government overreach, and the future of America’s top law firms.
The Executive Order: A Bolt from the Blue
Trump’s executive order — part of a broader campaign against Big Law — alleged that several major firms, including Susman Godfrey, operated discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and posed “national security threats” because they employed lawyers who previously investigated Trump or his allies.
For Susman Godfrey, the accusations were baseless and unacceptable. According to two people familiar with the firm’s decision, no one at the firm even discussed “cutting a deal” with the White House. The path forward was clear: fight.
A Divided Big Law: Fighters vs. Appeasers
In total, Trump’s actions spurred two distinct reactions among the nation’s top law firms:
Fighting Back:
Susman Godfrey
Perkins Coie
Jenner & Block
WilmerHale
These firms chose to challenge Trump in court, arguing that the executive orders violated the Constitution’s protections for free speech, due process, and the right to counsel.
Cutting Deals:
Other major firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and others, struck deals with the Trump administration, collectively promising $940 million in pro bono work to causes favored by the White House.
Legal Victories: Courts Push Back Against Trump
So far, the law firms that chose to fight are winning.
Federal judges have quickly blocked key elements of Trump’s executive orders in each case. The judiciary has signaled strong support for the law firms’ constitutional arguments, particularly their claims that the executive orders were illegal retaliation for protected speech and political advocacy.
At a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell sharply criticized Justice Department arguments defending the executive orders, dismissing many of the government’s positions as “hyper-technical legal arguments that may have no merit.”
Fallout for the Law Firms: Minimal Damage So Far
Despite Trump’s threats, the firms that fought back have not suffered serious business losses:
Perkins Coie has retained major clients like Amazon and Boeing, though it reportedly lost some Honeywell work.
Jenner & Block noted that only a single pro bono client severed ties.
Susman Godfrey and WilmerHale have not reported any significant client departures to date.
In contrast, some firms that struck deals have faced internal turmoil. Several associates at firms like Skadden and Paul Weiss have resigned in protest, publicly criticizing their employers for capitulating to political pressure.
An Atmosphere of Fear and Cynicism
Within Big Law, the executive orders have fueled a climate of fear and division:
Internal Rifts: Splits have emerged between equity partners and younger associates, litigators and dealmakers, and firms that operate democratically versus those with more centralized leadership.
Loss of Talent: Top lawyers, including pro bono leaders and government contracts experts, have left firms that made deals with Trump.
Client Concerns: In-house counsel at major corporations increasingly question whether firms that caved under political pressure can still be trusted to defend their interests against government overreach.
One in-house lawyer told Business Insider, “If you’re going to cave in front of the government, how can I trust you to represent my company in front of regulators?”
The firms that agreed to Trump’s terms face ongoing uncertainty. The exact details of their agreements remain murky, and sources suggest Trump could easily issue new executive orders if he believes firms are not meeting his expectations.
As attorney Nate Eimer, who represents over 800 firms opposing the executive orders, warned:
“The firms that settled put themselves in a very, very difficult position. Trump can bring them back into line at any time.”
The White House has declined to comment on whether secret agreements exist with the firms that made deals.
Conclusion: A Fight for the Future of the Legal Profession
The battle between Big Law and Donald Trump has exposed deep vulnerabilities in the legal profession — but it has also highlighted remarkable resilience. Firms like Susman Godfrey, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale have shown that standing up for principle is not only possible but also critical in defending the independence of the bar.
It remains to be seen whether the firms that chose to fight will ultimately emerge stronger and whether those that compromised will regret their decisions. But one thing is certain: the legal profession will never be the same.
FAQs
Q: Why did Trump target law firms like Susman Godfrey?
A: Trump accused firms of operating discriminatory DEI programs and employing lawyers who had previously investigated him or his allies.
Q: Which firms chose to fight Trump’s executive orders?
A: Susman Godfrey, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale.
Q: Have the fighting firms lost business?
A: Minimal losses have been reported. Most major clients have stayed loyal.
Q: What consequences did Trump’s executive orders threaten?
A: Firms could lose government contracts, security clearances, and access to federal buildings.
Q: What happens if firms that made deals cross Trump later?
A: Trump could issue new executive orders to punish firms he believes are not complying.
