How MD law firms are responding to Trump’s orders targeting the legal profession

Most Maryland law firm leaders don’t want to talk publicly about President Donald Trump‘s executive orders targeting firms that represent or employ his perceived enemies.

But the few who will comment all agree — some using more cautious language than others: Trump’s orders are an assault on the freedom of speech, the rule of law and the separation of powers.

“I’ve been trying to think of a different word, but it’s bullying,” said Caroline Hecker, managing partner at Rosenberg Martin Greenberg in Baltimore.

Last month, Trump signed executive orders targeting Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, while threatening others. The orders seek to revoke security clearances, government contracts, and lawyers’ access to government buildings. Some interpreted them as attempting to keep lawyers out of courthouses.

Paul Weiss reached a deal with Trump, promising $40 million in pro bono work for Trump’s priorities and offering other concessions. Skadden, Milbank and Willkie Farr & Gallagher reached similar deals in order to prevent an executive order. Some criticized the firms as “capitulating.”

“It’s disappointing to see some firms sort of rolling over on it,” Hecker said. “It really has the potential to be very chilling to the legal profession if firms are going to cave to these demands and these orders.”

The three other firms sued.

Perkins Coie described the order as “an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice” in its lawsuit, which it brought “reluctantly.”

“Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients,” the complaint states.

“Perkins Coie’s ability to represent the interests of its clients — and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all — are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied.”

U.S. District Court judges in Washington, D.C., have issued temporary restraining orders against the government in all three cases.

The orders, deals and lawsuits have consumed the legal industry in recent weeks.

The deans of dozens of law schools, for example, signed a letter condemning the president’s actions (both of Baltimore’s law schools were represented, but almost none of the top-ranked ones were). A student group at Georgetown University Law Center canceled a recruiting event with Skadden; other Georgetown Law students created a spreadsheet tracking how hundreds of firms are responding to “fascist attacks,” with color-coded tags saying “Caved to Administration,” “Complying in Advance,” and “Stood Up Against Administration’s Attacks.”

In Perkins Coie’s lawsuit against the administration, more than 500 law firms filed an amicus brief condemning the “undisguised retaliation.” The amicus brief itself drew media attention for the number of signatories and their wide-ranging views.

Maryland firms that signed the brief included Baltimore-based Brown, Goldstein & Levy; Gallagher Evelius & Jones; Kramon & Graham; Rosenberg Martin Greenberg; and Bethesda-based Lerch, Early & Brewer. Absent from the brief were Venable, Zuckerman Spaeder and DLA Piper.

“I wanted our firm to be on the right side of history,” Hecker said. “You have to stand up to the bullies.”

The Daily Record sought comment from 19 Maryland-based law firms — including the largest 15 Baltimore-area firms, according to the Baltimore Business Journal — and the Maryland State Bar Association.

The majority declined to comment or did not respond. Those that did respond condemned the executive orders.

Jessie Weber, managing partner at Brown, Goldstein & Levy, called the orders an “unprecedented attack on the legal profession.”

“It’s really surprising and troubling to see these big firms cave,” Weber said of Paul Weiss, Skadden and other firms that reached deals with the administration rather than challenging them. “It’s mind-boggling, at this moment, that lawyers are having difficulty finding their voice.”

Jeff Schwaber, managing partner of Stein Sperling in Rockville, said the orders undermine “bedrock principles” of the Constitution.

“If the executive branch can put its thumb on the scale and create pressure to only take cases that represent the right viewpoint or are consistent with a particular ideology, then the bedrock of our profession becomes compromised,” he said.

“As a law firm leader, I do not envy the enormous pressure placed on law firms that are targeted by these executive orders or potentially targeted by them, and I certainly applaud and admire the firms that have challenged these orders,” he said. “The orders create a slippery slope and I would expect (they) will not survive judicial scrutiny. But having said that, I pass no judgment on the firms who chose a different path, because it’s not for me to weigh in on that.”

The following firms did not respond to requests for comment:

• Baker Donelson
• DLA Piper
• Franklin & Prokopik
• Gordon Feinblatt
• Joseph Greenwald & Laake
• Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
• Semmes Bowen & Semmes
• Venable
• Whiteford, Taylor & Preston

These firms declined to comment:

• Miles & Stockbridge
• Pessin Katz
• Saul Ewing
• Shulman Rogers
• Silverman Thompson

MSBA and Goodell DeVries declined interviews but offered written statements.

MSBA expressed “deep concern and opposition” to the orders, saying they undermine the right to counsel and impede access to justice.

“Actions driven by partisan politics erode trust in the judiciary, compromise executive integrity, and threaten the balance of power within our three equal branches of Government — all of which are essential to protecting Constitutional freedoms,” MSBA President Raphael Santini stated.

Goodell DeVries “condemns” the orders, Managing Partner Nikki Nesbitt stated in an email.

“No law firm should be improperly punished and intimidated for representing their clients,” she wrote. “We stand up for the firms that have already been targeted and band with those challenging the ongoing threats to the vital function lawyers and law firms serve.”

Tom Dame, managing partner of Gallagher Evelius & Jones, said his firm joined the Perkins Coie amicus brief “to oppose the punishment of law firms based on the clients they represent.”

“Our participation is not a political statement,” Dame wrote in an email. “Rather, it is a statement of support for the American legal system, the rule of law, and the right of clients to be represented by counsel of their choice.”

This story has been updated with a comment from Gallagher Evelius & Jones.