I want to talk directly about something deeply troubling—and increasingly dangerous—that I’ve been watching unfold: the concerted attacks on lawyers, law firms, and judges.
These aren’t isolated incidents. They appear as a coordinated strategy to discredit and intimidate legal actors who dare to challenge the Trump administration. At stake is preservation of the ability of our legal system to function without fear or favor. When lawyers are targeted for representing unpopular clients, and judges face threats for upholding the law, we risk undoing the very prerequisites that make justice possible.
Over the past several weeks, we’ve seen White House executive orders targeting three of the country’s most respected law firms—Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss. I was especially alarmed by Paul Weiss’s decision not to fight back in court, despite precedent suggesting they could prevail (as Perkins Coie did). Instead, reports suggest it reached a quiet agreement that includes tens of millions in pro bono work aligned with the administration’s values, and a review and chilling of its DEI commitments. That kind of capitulation sends a dire message to the entire profession: that upholding principle might come at too high a cost. It undermines our ability to stand up for the rule of law when it matters most.
Equally distressful are efforts that intimidate judges—through public threats, articles of impeachment, and improvident motions to remove them from cases. This is not how our justice system works: we don’t get to swap out referees mid-game because we don’t like the calls. And yet that’s exactly what’s happening.
Judges need to know the public—and the profession—has their backs. If we allow these tactics to go unchecked, we’re conceding ground that once lost, will be difficult to regain. That’s why I hope, if you concur, we must stand together and be heard in defense of our institutions, our profession, and the rule of law itself.
–Andrew
P.S. You can watch the video on YouTube, here.
TRANSCRIPT
Hi, folks.
I wanted to talk about the ongoing attack on lawyers, law firms, and judges. It’s all of a piece, and it really needs to be viewed together. What we’re seeing is a coordinated effort that undermines the ability of lawyers and law firms to, in good faith, bring litigation challenging the actions of the administration—which, of course, is exactly what the legal system allows for.
As long as a case is brought in good faith, that’s the legal standard—and it’s a fairly low bar. Even in cases where courts ultimately side with the government, that doesn’t mean the plaintiffs acted in bad faith. And certainly, in cases where courts side with the plaintiffs, it clearly meets the good faith standard.
In other words, the standard is not “Is it a meritorious case?” Plenty of cases are brought in good faith, and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. That’s the nature of litigation.
So that’s one front—attacks on lawyers and law firms.
The second is an ongoing attack on judges. And that’s essentially, once again, a kind of brushback pitch to the legal system: a warning to judges to think twice before ruling against certain interests. That’s not even getting into the fact that judges who do rule against those interests are being subjected to threats by fringe individuals—people who, to use Pam Bondi’s phrase, accuse judges of “siding with the terrorists” just because they rule in favor of certain plaintiffs.
Let’s talk about what’s going on more specifically.
So far, there have been three executive orders, and I think many people—myself included—expect there will be more. These orders have been directed at three very reputable law firms:
1. Covington & Burling
2. Perkins Coie
3. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
The Covington executive order was issued simply because they had the temerity to represent Jack Smith. But that’s part of our legal tradition—lawyers represent both favorable and unfavorable parties. On the defense side especially, it’s widely accepted that being a defense attorney is a noble profession, whether you’re representing someone admirable or someone alleged to have done something terrible. Everyone is entitled to a defense.
So here, there is absolutely nothing wrong with representing Jack Smith—even if someone believed he had done something wrong (which I don’t believe he has). But even in that case, there’s no justification for targeting a law firm—or issuing a presidential executive order—just because of who they represent.
Covington responded, essentially, by saying: It’s our privilege to represent Jack Smith. That’s a paraphrase, but it captures the spirit of their statement.
The second firm targeted was Perkins Coie. The executive order listed a number of allegations, but at its core, it attacked the firm for representing Democratic institutions and figures, including Hillary Clinton. There were also allegations related to the conduct of one of its former partners.
Perkins Coie brought a lawsuit in D.C. federal court, and Judge Beryl Howell presided over the case. She struck down all the challenged provisions in the executive order, finding them to be violations of the First Amendment—in other words, unconstitutional. That’s where things stood.
But then, another executive order was issued—this time targeting Paul, Weiss—despite Judge Howell’s ruling. Once again, it was based on the conduct of a former partner, echoing the situation with Perkins Coie. The order revoked the firm’s security clearances, subjected them to heightened scrutiny, and restricted their access to government buildings.
As the firm stated, it effectively labeled Paul, Weiss as a disfavored firm—one on the wrong side of Donald Trump. Many of us expected Paul, Weiss would challenge the order in court, just as Perkins Coie had. They now had strong precedent from Judge Howell’s decision declaring the previous executive order unconstitutional.
Now, to be fair, the administration did appeal Judge Howell’s ruling—which is their right. That appeal is pending, and we’ll see what happens. I think her decision is well-supported, but again, the appellate court will decide.
Still, in most cases, the appropriate course of action would be to wait for a ruling from the D.C. Circuit before issuing another executive order targeting a separate firm. Otherwise, you risk subjecting yet another law firm to an unconstitutional policy.
But that’s not what happened. Instead, an executive order was issued against Paul, Weiss, and—they didn’t go to court.
There were numerous reports in the press speculating why. Allegedly, internal divisions within the firm—especially in the corporate department—played a role. Some were reportedly concerned about how a legal battle might affect their client relationships. But that could be argued the other way: some clients may leave Paul, Weiss precisely because of how the firm responded.
Ultimately, by all accounts, Paul, Weiss caved. They did not pursue litigation, despite having every reason to believe they would prevail in court, just like Perkins Coie did.
We don’t have the full details of the agreement—they haven’t been publicly released—but according to reports, there are two key components:
1. Paul, Weiss agreed to commit $40 million in pro bono work to causes aligned with the Trump administration. That’s a big deal. Law firms typically choose their pro bono work based on their own values. They might support Republican causes, Democratic causes, pro-choice, or pro-life efforts—that’s their right as private entities.
But in this case, it appears the executive branch is coercing a private firm into aligning with specific political values in exchange for relief. We’ll have to wait and see how that $40 million in work is actually allocated, but the appearance is troubling. It signals a form of government pressure on private entities—a concern that conservatives themselves voiced when similar issues were raised during the Biden administration.
2. Paul, Weiss agreed to an audit of its employment and hiring practices. That raises significant concerns related to DEI—Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The term “DEI” has become politicized, used almost like an epithet, but in essence, it’s about fairness and representation.
Paul, Weiss has long been committed to diversity, and many of its excellent attorneys reflect that. The firm has proudly included people of all backgrounds—not just white men—and that’s part of what has made it strong.
Now, the concern is that this agreement signals a retreat from those principles. One part of the reported agreement is that the firm will not base hiring decisions on political affiliation. That might be a policy they support anyway—but it’s important to emphasize: private firms are not required to adhere to such a policy. They’re allowed to take political positions, as long as they aren’t illegally discriminating.
This kind of government intrusion flies in the face of traditional Republican orthodoxy, which has historically opposed big government overreach into the private sector. What we’re seeing here looks much more authoritarian than consistent with conservative principles.
There’s still dispute between Paul, Weiss and the Trump administration over what exactly was agreed to—especially regarding DEI and whether the firm is scaling back those commitments. The public hasn’t seen the full agreement, so we don’t know for sure.
But what shocked many—myself included—was that a firm as reputable and powerful as Paul, Weiss, with so many brilliant attorneys, chose not to fight an executive order that mirrored one already found unconstitutional. That sends a message: that fear of financial fallout and client loss outweighed principle.
To borrow from Ben Franklin, “We must all hang together, or we shall surely hang separately.” This was a moment where many expected these firms to stand together—and that’s not what happened.
As a result, we’re likely to see more executive orders targeting law firms.
And in addition to this pressure on firms, there have also been attacks on individual lawyers—including those actively suing the administration. In fact, just this morning—or possibly late last night—another executive order was issued.
It directs all agencies, including the Department of Justice, to enforce sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel for bringing “frivolous” or “unreasonable” litigation. The message is clear: before you sue the administration, you should know you might end up on a kind of enemies list.
Now, the language in the order could be interpreted as simply ensuring that frivolous cases are sanctioned—which, of course, is fair. But what counts as “frivolous” is often in the eye of the beholder, and ultimately, that’s for the courts to decide—not Pam Bondi, and not the President of the United States.
It’s important that this kind of litigation continues. It’s very hard to view the latest executive order as anything other than a thinly veiled threat—a message to lawyers and firms: Think twice before bringing a lawsuit. Not only will you have to litigate the case, but you may also find yourself having to litigate your own conduct.
Yes, lawyers should always stay within the bounds of good faith—but this new scrutiny forces them to be extra careful, knowing that every move could be flyspecked. It will have a chilling, deterrent effect. And I think many people—including myself—believe that’s the intent behind it.
This is the second major tactic at play: putting law firms and lawyers under heightened scrutiny simply for standing behind plaintiffs. Of course, if there’s misconduct or bad faith, then yes, that’s fair game. But such cases represent a very small percentage of litigation.
And you don’t see these kinds of executive orders being issued for other types of litigation. For example, what about when the government itself makes bad faith arguments? Courts have pointed out discrepancies, particularly regarding DOGE and who runs it. The government has publicly claimed that Elon Musk runs DOGE, while in court filings, they’ve denied it. That raises Rule 11 concerns—questions of good faith—on the part of the government.
So, viewed in context, these actions seem less about preventing frivolous litigation and more like an effort to dampen lawyers’ ability to challenge the administration.
And then there’s the third prong of the attack: on judges.
I’m far from the first—and I won’t be the last—to point out that there have been calls to impeach judges simply because they ruled against the government. That is, of course, not an impeachable offense.
Even Chief Justice Roberts weighed in, which shows how seriously he views this. He chose this moment to speak out for a reason.
We’ve seen Judge Paul Engelmayer in the Southern District face threats. Judge Boasberg, who ruled on the Alien Enemies Act, is also facing threats. And Pam Bondi amplified this rhetoric by claiming that his rulings support terrorists. That’s simply not true.
Just because a judge rules that the government cannot rely on an 18th-century law to justify a particular action does not mean the judge is supporting the people the government is targeting. That kind of language—coming from a former attorney general—is shocking and represents a direct attack on our judiciary.
So, on one hand, we have calls for impeachment. On the other, we’re seeing unusual legal maneuvers to try to remove judges from cases.
Take Judge Boasberg again: the administration has asked the D.C. Circuit to remove him. They’ve also recently filed a motion to recuse Judge Beryl Howell—the very judge who ruled against them in the Perkins Coie case—claiming she’s biased.
What they don’t mention is that Judge Howell recently denied a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in another case brought by plaintiffs against the Trump administration. She found there wasn’t enough to justify those requests. That’s an important counterpoint—it undercuts any claim that she’s inherently biased.
Now contrast this with Jack Smith. Despite the many criticisms directed at Judge Aileen Cannon, he never filed a motion to recuse her. That shows an understanding of the very high standard required for judicial recusal. You can’t simply claim, “I don’t like the judge’s rulings” or “I think she’s biased.” That’s not enough. Recusal is usually reserved for instances where bias is clearly demonstrated outside the courtroom.
So it’s telling that Jack Smith, despite being relentlessly attacked, never moved to disqualify Judge Cannon—while the Trump administration is pushing aggressively to remove judges who rule against them. It’s a no-holds-barred approach.
And let’s not forget the role of money. Elon Musk has openly stated he will fund congressional candidates who support the impeachment of judges. That’s a clear example of how money can infect and affect our democratic processes.
Finally, there’s the bully pulpit—the use of political power and rhetoric to attack judges, paint them as partisan, and accuse them of “supporting terrorism” simply for ruling against the administration. I’ve already discussed Pam Bondi’s statements, and I won’t repeat them here. I’ve written about it in a Substack post that meant a great deal to me—because of my time at the Department of Justice for over 20 years, and my work as a defense attorney for over 10 years.
That experience taught me something fundamental: in criminal trials, judges constantly make rulings—some favoring the government, some favoring the defense. But I have never believed, when I was a prosecutor, that a ruling against me meant the judge supported the alleged crime. It simply meant the judge didn’t find my argument persuasive in that context.
So to claim that a judge is supporting terrorism simply because they ruled against the government is outrageous, and those who make those claims know better.
That, in sum, is what we’re seeing:
• An attack on lawyers who represent plaintiffs
• An attack on law firms who stand behind them
• And an attack on judges who dare to rule against the administration
So what can we do?
First, lawyers and law firms need to stand together. They need to keep taking these cases and upholding the rule of law.
Second, even though judges have lifetime tenure, it’s important that the public speak out in support of them. It matters that judges know they’re not alone—that the public has their back.
And finally, clients have power too. They can vote with their business. They can choose to work with firms that are willing to be independent, to stand up, and to honor the best values of the legal profession.
There are many ways to push back against what’s happening—if you, like me, see it as a serious problem.
Also, just a quick note: I haven’t posted the past couple of days because I’ve been working on another Substack—this one about Inni, my dog, who’s still doing really well. I’ll be sharing that one soon.
But I’m glad I could spend this time with you over the weekend to talk about a very serious issue. Stay tuned—this is an evolving story with many layers.
Take care, stay safe, and stay engaged.
