WASHINGTON — A liberal advocacy group, Demand Justice, is initiating a media campaign on Thursday aimed at targeting major law firms that have negotiated agreements with President Donald Trump. These deals, designed to avert being targeted by Trump’s executive orders, are raising eyebrows across the legal community and prompting inquiries into the legality of such orders.
Titled “Big Law Cowards,” the campaign will employ various mediums, including strategic wheatpasting of posters in Washington, D.C., close to the firm’s locations, coupled with a mobile billboard and a comprehensive digital outreach. The primary message conveyed through these mediums is a call for law firms to uphold the ethics and values of their profession rather than capitulate to administrative pressures.
These contentious executive orders have not only polarized opinion but spurred the judicial branch to question other orders aimed at firms that refused such compromises. This issue was highlighted recently in a court hearing where U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell pressed a Justice Department attorney for clarity on actions against firms like Perkins Coie, which have chosen to challenge the administration rather than comply.
The judicial scrutiny follows wide criticism of the Trump administration’s legal strategies and their impact on law firms. Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of Demand Justice, expressed to the media that it is critical for influential legal entities to resist unethical administrative pressure and support the foundational principles of law, reflecting core American values.
“The most powerful law firms not standing against administrative pressures when ordinary people are protesting sends a troubling message,” Buchanan emphasized, underlining the urgency for prominent legal voices to advocate for the public’s interest.
The campaign specifically names nine firms that have entered into agreements with Trump’s administration, which includes notable entities such as A&O Shearman, Kirkland, Latham & Watkins, and several others, with commitments amounting to nearly $1 billion in free legal services. It is also shining a spotlight on individuals within these firms who have chosen to resign in protest, portraying their actions as exemplars of integrity and bravery.
Employees like Rachel Cohen, a former associate at Skadden, have spoken out after resigning, highlighting a continued trend of departures from these firms. Cohen expressed hopes that the partners at her former firm would reconsider their stance and realign with ethical practices, despite systemic resistance to such changes.
Amidst these internal conflicts within law firms and their fallout with the administration, battles in court persist. Prior to a significant hearing involving Perkins Coie, Trump criticized Judge Howell on social media, erroneously stating his own involvement in the legal proceedings against the firm. During the session, it was revealed that the administration had added inflammatory language to a court-mandated message, an act Judge Howell likened to a “temper tantrum.”
In response to questioning whether such presidential actions echo the dark times of McCarthyism, the government’s legal representatives insisted on a proper review process, though specifics remained vague, illuminating the ongoing tension and the controversial nature of the executive orders.
Throughout these judicial contests, attorneys like Dane Butswinkas, representing Perkins Coie, have dismissed the government’s rationale as mere retaliation, stressing that common sense should not be sidelined in judicial reasoning.
This article was automatically written by Open AI. Facts, circumstances, and the storyline may not be accurate. For corrections, retractions, or removals, please contact [email protected].