Retired Judges STEP IN as Trump’s PRESSURES COURTS

The Trump administration issued executive orders specifically naming and targeting law firms that represented individuals or causes it opposed, such as firms associated with Robert Mueller or Democratic candidates. These orders imposed sanctions like stripping security clearances and prohibiting access to government buildings. This was a direct attempt to weaponize executive power against the legal profession, aiming to deter firms from taking on cases adverse to the administration.

The sort of primary executive orders... targeted specific law firms by name. It said it was targeting them because those law firms had represented individuals or causes or cases that the president opposed. They imposed a variety of sanctions... strip people who work in your firm of security clearances... prohibit you or anybody in your firm from going into government buildings, including courthouses.

Faced with these attacks, some prominent law firms, notably Paul Weiss, quickly struck deals with the administration, offering thousands of hours of free pro bono legal services to government-favored causes. This move was driven by fears of losing high-earning clients and partners. This decision created a 'collective action problem,' where individual firms' short-term economic interests superseded their professional obligation to defend constitutional rights and the rule of law, setting a dangerous precedent for the entire profession.

Very early on several law firms who were targeted by these orders said we're going to strike a deal with the administration... the deal most of them struck was we will give you hundreds of hours, thousands of hours worth of free pro bono legal services... to causes that you, the government, the administration cares about. What Paul Weiss's action did... was signal to the entire... major firms in the United States... that this is this is what we're going to do. It's a classic collective action problem.

The administration's tactics and the firms' responses resulted in a dramatic reduction of big law firm participation in cases challenging government actions, especially in areas like civil rights, immigration, and election integrity. This 'chilling effect' significantly hampered access to justice for vulnerable populations and those seeking to uphold democratic principles, demonstrating how executive pressure can effectively deter legal opposition even if its underlying actions are unconstitutional.

The desired effect that the administration was trying to achieve, which is to deter law firms and other independent actors from challenging their extraordinary assertions of power, is being remarkably effective. We're seeing a dimmunition in big law firm participation in those cases across the board in a really dramatic fashion.

A bipartisan coalition of retired federal judges, through the 'Keep Our Republic' initiative, has issued a set of principles for lawyers, inspired by the historical Sullivan Principles, to encourage firms to uphold professional responsibilities, defend client rights, and avoid conflicts of interest. This initiative aims to provide a clear ethical framework and empower clients and law students to demand that firms prioritize the rule of law over political or financial pressure, counteracting the collective action problem.

Keep our republic is a very bipartisan NGO... they have this extraordinary coalition now... of retired federal judges, dozens... [who] have put out sort of a series of letters in remarkable ways defending the independence of courts. The judges decided... there are some basic ideas, ideas that are already in the rules of professional responsibility... that we think firms should be able to embrace, clearly embrace.