Legal Firms Respond to Trump’s Executive Order: A Closer Look
In a notable legal development surrounding former President Donald Trump’s executive order that targets Perkins Coie, Freshfields US stands out as the only major law firm among the top 20 to publicly support a legal brief opposing the order. This executive action restricts Perkins Coie’s participation in federal business, prompting a legal challenge.
Background on the Legal Challenge
Perkins Coie has initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeking to overturn the executive order. A significant aspect of the case was the filing of a supportive brief in a federal court in Washington, DC, which garnered the backing of over 500 law firms. However, the majority of these supporters include smaller and medium-sized firms that are primarily focused on litigation.
Traditionally, larger corporate law firms, which often emphasize transactional practices, are wary of potential retaliation from the administration should they oppose it publicly. As such, Freshfields’ involvement is particularly notable.
Current Legal Standing
As legal proceedings continue, Perkins Coie has successfully obtained a restraining order that temporarily blocks the enforcement of Trump’s executive order. This brief aims to solidify that injunction and seeks to have it made permanent.
Challenges in Garnering Support
The brief, prepared by the well-regarded Los Angeles boutique Munger, Tolles & Olson, faced challenges in rallying support from major firms. Prior reporting from the Financial Times highlighted that until recently, no top 20 US law firms, ranked by revenue in The American Lawyer, had committed to unconditional support for Perkins’ cause. At one point, only three out of the top 100 firms had signed on to the brief.
The Broader Legal Landscape
In addition to Freshfields, the Silicon Valley firm Fenwick & West, ranked as the 67th largest in the industry, has also added its name to the brief. Several firms that have previously contended with executive orders—such as WilmerHale, Covington & Burling, and Jenner & Block—are also signatories. WilmerHale and Jenner & Block have successfully challenged the Trump administration through restraining orders.
Contrasting Strategies Among Major Firms
While some firms align with Perkins, others, including notable Wall Street entities like Paul Weiss, Skadden, and Milbank, have opted for settlements concerning anticipatory executive orders. These firms collectively committed over $300 million in legal services to support initiatives favored by the Trump administration.
Reports indicate that leading firms such as Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins considered settlements with the administration as well.
Reactions from the Legal Community
As major firms navigate their relationships with the Trump administration, there has been a backlash among some junior associates and alumni who express disappointment over perceived compromises made by their firms. Former Paul Weiss litigator Beth Wilkinson, now running her own boutique in Washington, DC, expressed her support for Perkins, emphasizing the importance of standing against governmental overreach.
“Today is no different,” she stated, reinforcing the ongoing commitment to uphold both individual and corporate rights in a legal landscape under pressure.
Conclusion
The ongoing legal battle against Trump’s executive order highlights the complexities faced by top law firms in aligning with client interests while asserting their legal principles. As this case evolves, the responses from both supporters and detractors will likely shape the future of legal advocacy in political contexts.