Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Renee
Knake
Jefferson
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
Legal
Ethics
Roundup, here.
Welcome
to
what
captivates,
haunts,
inspires,
and
surprises
me
every
week
in
the
world
of
legal
ethics.
Hello
from
France!
We
wrapped
up
my
daughter’s
spring
break
in
Paris,
where
I
felt
like
my
head
was
spinning
as
I
tried
to
keep
up
with
the
many
legal
ethics
headlines
back
home.
As
announced
last
week,
the
LER
now
maintains
a Legal
Ethics
&
Democracy
Tracker to
help
all
of
us
keep
up.
It’s
a
great
place
to
find
the
latest
news
if
you
don’t
want
to
wait
until
the
LER
arrives
in
your
email
inbox
on
Monday
mornings.
Eiffel
Tower,
Paris
(photo
by
Renee
Jefferson)
One
professional
item
to
share
– Law360 selected
me to
join
its 2025
Editorial
Advisory
Board
on
Legal
Ethics.
I’m
one
of
two
academics
– Theo
Liebmann (Hofstra)
is
the
other.
We
join Amy
Richardson (HWG
LLP), Dan
Kozusk (Willkie), James
B.
Kobak,
Jr. (Hughes
Hubbard), James
Q.
Walker (Perkins
Coie), Paul
Matthew
Koning (Koning
Rubarts), Rachel
Nguyen (Morgan
Lewis), Sari
Montgomery (Robinson
Stewart), Steven
Badger (Barnes
&
Thornburg),
and Trisha
Rich (Holland
&
Knight).
Now
for
the
headlines.
It’s
official
–
the
LER
will
be
delivering
you
a
‘Top
Fifteen’
instead
of
our
usual
‘Top
Ten’
for
the
foreseeable
future
given
the
recent
surge
in
breaking
news
about
the
ethics
of
lawyers
and
judges.
And
technically
this
week’s
list
is
closer
to
thirty
headlines,
especially
because
#15
includes
a
dozen
op-eds
on
legal
ethics
and
democracy.
You
might
want
to
grab
a
cup
of
coffee
before
you
read
to
the
end!
Highlights
from
Last
Week –
Top
Fifteen
Headlines
#1
“Trump
Expands
Retribution
Against
Law
Firms
in
New
Executive
Order.” From
the Wall
Street
Journal:
“President
Trump signed
an
executive
order
targeting
the Jenner
&
Block law
firm.
He
cited
the
firm’s
ties
to
prosecutor Robert
Mueller and
investigating
Russian
interference
in
the
2016
election..
…
Tuesday’s
order
also
explicitly
targets
pro
bono
work
the
firm
has
taken
on
to
challenge
the
administration’s
policies,
saying
it
abused
its
pro
bono
practice
to
engage
in
activities
that
undermine
justice
and
the
interests
of
the
United
States.
Jenner
has
touted
its
extensive
pro
bono
work
in
the
past,
and
this
year
has
backed
lawsuits
challenging
the
administration’s
policies,
including
on
behalf
of
transgender
individuals
and
asylum
seekers.”
Read
more here and here (gift
link).
Read
the
full
EO here.
Jenner
won
a
temporary
restraining
order
on
Friday,
March
28. From Bloomberg
Law:
“A
DC
federal
judge
on
Friday
temporarily
barred
the
Trump
administration
from
enforcing
an
executive
order
targeting
law
firm
Jenner
&
Block.
The ruling halts
most
of
President
Donald
Trump’s
March
25
order,
which
directed
agencies
to
restrict
firm
employees
from
accessing
US
buildings
and
terminate
government
contracts
with
Jenner
clients.
The
firm
did
not
seek
a
temporary
restraining
order
against
another
section
of
the
order
that
strips
lawyers’
security
clearances.”
Read
more here.
The
firm
has
created
a website
“Jenner
Stands
Firm” to
follow
their
legal
challenge
to
the
EO.
From
the
website:
On
March
28
2025,
Jenner
&
Block
filed
a
lawsuit
to
stop
an
unconstitutional
executive
order
that
has
already
been
declared
unlawful
by
a
federal
court.
We
expect
to
prevail
quickly.
For
more
than
100
years,
Jenner
has
stood
firm
and
tirelessly
advocated
for
our
clients
against
all
adversaries,
including
against
unlawful
government
action.
We
once
again
go
to
court
to
do
just
that.
To
do
otherwise
would
mean
compromising
our
ability
to
zealously
advocate
for
all
of
our
clients
and
capitulating
to
unconstitutional
government
coercion,
which
is
simply
not
in
our
DNA.
#2
“Trump
Executive
Order
Targets
WilmerHale,
Citing
Robert
Mueller
Ties.” From
the Washington
Post:
“President
Donald
Trump
on
Thursday
signed
another
executive
order
aimed
at
what
he
labeled
‘rogue
law
firms,’
this
time
calling
on
federal
agencies
to
end
all
contracts
with Wilmer
Cutler
Pickering
Hale
and
Dorr
LLP,
known
as
WilmerHale.
The
directive
calls
on
the
government
to
avoid
hiring
the
firm’s
employees,
restricting
its
employees’
access
to
government
buildings
and
suspending
security
clearances
for
its
lawyers.”
Read
more here (gift
link).
Read
the
full
EO here.
WilmerHale
won
a
temporary
restraining
order
on
Friday,
March
28. From
a
WilmerHale
spokesperson:
“We
appreciate
the
court’s
swift
action
to
preserve
our
clients’
right
to
counsel
and
acknowledgement
of
the
unconstitutional
nature
of
the
executive
order
and
its
chilling
effect
on
the
legal
system.
The
court’s
decision
to
block
key
provisions
of
the
order
vindicates
our
and
our
clients’
foundational
First
Amendment
rights.”
Read
the
full
opinion
granting
the
TRO
from US
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Judge
Richard
Leon here
and
the
hearing
transcript
here.
Key
provisions
from
Judge
Leon’s
opinion
are
highlighted
below:
“This
prohibition
includes
retaliatory
actions
based
on
perceived
viewpoint.
The
retaliatory
nature
of
the
Executive
Order
at
issue
here
is
clear
from
its
face
–
not
only
from
Section
1,
but
also
from
the
Fact
Sheet
published
the
same
day.
…There
is
no
doubt
this
retaliatory
action
chills
speech
and
legal
advocacy,
or
that
it
qualifies
as
a
constitutional
harm.”“While
economic
loss
does
not
always
warrant
a
TRO,
this
is
not
a
typical
situation.
This
plaintiff
faces
more
than
economic
harm
–
it
faces
crippling
losses,
and
its
very
survival
is
at
stake.”“The
injuries
to
plaintiff
here
would
be
severe,
and
would
spill
over
to
clients
and
the
justice
system
at
large.
The
public
interest
demands
protecting
against
harms
of
this
magnitude.”
#3
Executive
Order
Threatening
Skadden
Avoided
With
$100M
Settlement. From CBS
News:
“President
Trump
announced
Friday
that
the
law
firm Skadden,
Arps,
Slate,
Meagher
and
Flom agreed
to
provide
more
than
$100
million
in
pro
bono
work
for
initiatives
backed
by
his
administration.
The
agreement
makes
Skadden
Arps
the
second
major
firm
to
reach
a
deal
with
Mr.
Trump
amid
a
recent
blitz
of
executive
orders
targeting
law
firms
that
have
employed
his
purported
political
opponents.
The
orders
issued
by
the
president
have
focused
on
the
firms
Perkins
Coie,
Jenner
&
Block,
and
Wilmer
Cutler
Pickering
Hale
and
Dorr.
…
The
president
said
in
a statement posted
to
Truth
Social
that
in
addition
to
providing
$100
million
in
pro
bono
work,
the
firm
will
not
engage
in
‘illegal
DEI
discrimination
and
preferences’
and
work
with
an
outside
counsel
to
advise
it
on
employment
practices.”
Read
more here.
#4
The
Ethics
of
Big
Law
Approaches
to
Executive
Orders
—
Settle
or
Sue. From
the New
York
Times:
“The
nation’s
legal
profession
is
being
split
between
those
that
want
to
fight
back
against
President
Trump’s
attacks
on
the
industry
and
those
that
prefer
to
engage
in
the
art
of
the
deal.
Two
big
firms
sued
the
Trump
administration
on
Friday,
seeking
to
stop
executive
orders
that
could
impair
their
ability
to
represent
clients.
The
lawsuits
filed
by
Jenner
&
Block
and
WilmerHale
highlight
how
some
elite
firms
are
willing
to
fight
Mr.
Trump’s
campaign
targeting
those
he
doesn’t
like,
while
others,
like
Paul
Weiss
and
Skadden,
have
cut
deals
to
appease
the
president.
In
recent
weeks,
Mr.
Trump
has
issued
similarly
styled
executive
orders
against
firms
that
he
perceives
as
enemies
and
threats
to
national
security.
The
orders
could
create
an
existential
crisis
for
firms
because
they
would
strip
lawyers
of
security
clearances,
bar
them
from
entering
federal
buildings
and
discourage
federal
officials
from
interacting
with
the
firms.
‘I
am
heartened
by
the
fact
that
Jenner
and
Wilmer
are
joining
Perkins
in
pushing
back
on
these
illegal
executive
orders.
It
shows
that
capitulation
is
not
the
only
route,’
said Matthew
Diller,
a
law
professor
and
former
dean
of Fordham
University
School
of
Law.
‘In
the
long
run,
it
will
strengthen
their
reputations
in
the
market
as
forceful
advocates
who
stand
up
for
principle,
a
quality
that
many
clients
will
value.’”
Read
more here (gift
link).
#5
“Trump
Targets
Big
Law,
and
Big
Law
Appears
Intimidated.” From National
Public
Radio:
“For
weeks,
President
Trump
has
been
issuing
executive
orders
and
memos
that
levy
or
threaten
sanctions
on
major
law
firms.
The
moves
suspend
security
clearances,
cancel
government
contracts,
bar
employees
from
federal
buildings
—
and
other
actions
that
threaten
their
ability
to
represent
their
clients.
…
We
hear
from Rachel
Cohen,
who
publicly
threatened
to
resign
from
her
law
firm
in
protest.”
Listen here.
#6
“Top
Republicans
Rebuff
Trump’s
Demands
to
Impeach
Judges;
GOP
Lawmakers
Pursue
Other
Ways
to
Rein
in
the
Judiciary.” From
the Wall
Street
Journal:
“President
Trump’s
call
to
impeach
judges
who
have
ruled
against
him
is
going
nowhere
in
the
GOP-controlled
Congress,
even
as
Elon
Musk
and
other
MAGA
voices
continue
to
rage
against
court
orders
slowing
initiatives
on
immigration
and
other
contentious
issues.
While
some
Republican
lawmakers
have
heartily
backed
impeachments,
others
see
them
as
a
wrongheaded
distraction
from
their
party’s
legislative
agenda
and
are
pursuing
alternative
ways
to
rein
in
the
judiciary.
Removing
a
judge
requires
a
majority
vote
in
the
House,
followed
by
a
two-thirds
vote
in
the
Senate—the
former
an
uncertainty,
the
latter
a
near
impossibility.
… Chief
Justice
John
Roberts last
week
cautioned
that
impeachment
‘is
not
an
appropriate
response
to
disagreement
concerning
a
judicial
decision.’”
Read
more here (gift
link).
#7
“17
Attorneys
Seek
Disqualification
of
LA
Judge
Citing
Bias,
Abuse.” From
the Daily
Journal:
“The
attorneys
say Superior
Court
Judge
Mary
Ann
Murphy has
demonstrated
a
pattern
of
hostility,
bias,
and
racially
charged
comments
from
the
bench.
Declarations
detail
courtroom
behavior
described
as
‘abusive,’
‘unhinged,’
and
‘shockingly
prejudicial.’”
Read
more here.
#8
“Minnesota
Federal
Bankruptcy
Judge
to
Resign
Amid
Misconduct
Allegations.” From Aliza
Shatzman (Legal
Accountability
Project)
in Above
the
Law:
“This
is
the
biggest
judicial
accountability
story
since Joshua
Kindred resigned
in
scandal
last
year,
but
the
federal
courts
would
prefer
you
not
know
about
it.”
Read
more here.
#9
“How
BigLaw
Is
Tweaking
Diversity
Messaging
Amid
Pushback.” From Law360: “As
the
Trump
administration
intensifies
its
scrutiny
of
diversity
programs,
some
of
the
nation’s
leading
law
firms
are
quietly
adjusting
how
they
publicly
present
their
diversity
commitments,
including
softening
language,
scrubbing”
websites.
Read
more here.
#10
Remembering
the
Ethics
of
Justice
Sandra
Day
O’Connor. Last
week
was
SDO’s
birthday,
and Scott
Bales offers
a
remembrance
of
her
that
includes
the
ethics
she
applied
to
her
work
on
the
bench.
She
would’ve
turned
95.
From
Bales’
essay
in The
Arizona
Republic:
“Justice
O’Connor saw
that
preserving
the
Constitution
and
our
democracy
ultimately
depend
on
public
understanding
and
engagement.
Only
by
participating
as
citizens
can
we
work
together
to
address
our
nation’s
problems,
‘putting
country
and
the
common
good
above
party
and
self-interest,
and
holding
our
key
government
institutions
accountable.’”
Read
more here.
For
additional
tidbits
about
SDO
as
the
first
female
Supreme
Court
justice,
revisit LER
Bonus
Content
No.
7.
For
coverage
of
her
funeral,
revisit LER
Bonus
Content
No.
8.
#11
“Council
of
Europe
Adopts
International
Convention
on
Protecting
Lawyers.” From
the Council
of
Europe
Website:
“The
Council
of
Europe
has
adopted
the
first-ever
international
treaty
aiming
to
protect
the
profession
of
lawyer.
This
is
to
respond
to
increasing
reports
of
attacks
on
the
practice
of
the
profession,
whether
in
the
form
of
harassment,
threats
or
attacks,
or
interference
with
the
exercise
of
professional
duties
(for
example,
obstacles
to
access
to
clients).
…
The Convention will
be
opened
for
signature
on
13
May,
on
the
occasion
of
the
Council
of
Europe
Foreign
Affairs
ministers’
meeting
in
Luxembourg.
At
least
eight
countries,
including
six
member
states
of
the
Council
of
Europe,
must
ratify
it
for
it
to
enter
into
force.”
Read
more here.
#12
“DOJ
Launches
‘Immediate
Review’
of
Law
Firms
After
Trump
Memo.” From
the Bloomberg
Law:
“The Justice
Department is
going
after
lawyers
for
‘frivolous’
litigation
against
the
government
with
a
rarely
used
procedural
tool
aimed
at
punishing
extreme
behavior
by
attorneys.
DOJ
‘began
an
immediate
review
of
law
firms
who
have
participated
in
inappropriate
activity
and
weaponized
lawfare,’
after
President
Donald
Trump directed the
move
in
a
March
21
memo,
a
department
spokesperson
said
Monday.
Trump
instructed Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi to
pursue
sanctions
under
a
federal
civil
procedure
rule—Rule
11—designed
to
deter
lawyers
and
their
clients
from
abusing
the
court
process.
Although
judges
are
reluctant
to
hand
down
sanctions
under
the
rule,
it
provides
another
line
of
attack
for
the
Trump
administration
in
its
broadside
against
lawyers
and
firms
that
the
president
perceives
as
his
enemies.”
Read
more here.
#13
“Federal
Judiciary
Creates
New
Task
Force
With
Threats
on
the
Rise” From
the New
York
Times:
“A
task
force
of
federal
judges
will
consider
how
to
respond
to
‘current
risks’
for
the
judiciary,
following
a
spate
of
threats
against
judges
who
have
ruled
against
the
Trump
administration.”
Read
more here (gift
link).
#14
Attorneys
General
(21!),
Bar
Associations
(70+!),
Law
Deans
(80!),
HLS
Law
Faculty
(80+!),
and
Others
Add
Statements
to
Growing
List
Speaking
Out
Against
the
Trump
Administration’s
Threats
to
law
firms
and
lawyers. Last
week,
eighty
law
deans
issued
a
statement
(here)
as
did
more
than
seventy
bar
organizations
(here).
The Harvard
Law faculty
issued
a jointly-signed
letter,
with
separate
commentary
from
professors Adrian
Vermuele (here)
and Lawrence
Lessig (here).
A letter organized
by Democracy
Forward,
in
conjunction
with
the Society
for
the
Rule
of
Law
Institute,
called
on
Attorney
General
Bondi
to
oppose
the
use
of
the
federal
government
to
attack
lawyers,
law
firms,
and
legal
organizations.
And
twenty-one
attorneys
general
wrote
a
“open
letter”
addressed
“to
the
legal
community”
about
the
attacks
on
the
legal
profession
and
judiciary
(here).
For
a
complete
list
of
20+
statements
issued
since
February,
visit
the Legal
Ethics
&
Democracy
Tracker.
#15
Lots
of
Op-Eds
from
Law
Professors
and
Commentators
on
the
Executive
Orders. Here’s
a
list
of
what
I
encountered
over
the
past
couple
of
weeks
—
please
let
me
know
if
something
is
missing:
-
“Our
Law
Firm
Won’t
Cave
to
Trump.
Who
Will
Join
Us?” (03.30.25)
By John
W.
Keker, Robert
A.
Van
Nest,
and Elliot
R.
Peters in
the New
York
Times:
“You
can
support
a
lawyer’s
right
to
represent
unpopular
clients
and
causes
against
powerful
forces
—
essentially
the
oath
we
all
took
when
becoming
members
of
the
bar.
Or
you
can
sit
back,
check
your
bank
balance
and
watch
your
freedoms,
along
with
the
legal
system
and
the
tripartite
system
of
government
we
should
not
take
for
granted,
swirl
down
the
drain.
…
Lawyers
and
big
firms:
For
God’s
sake,
stand
up
for
the
legal
profession,
and
for
the
Constitution.
Defend
the
oath
you
took
when
you
became
officers
of
the
court.
If
we
stand
together
and
fight,
we
will
win.”
Read
more here (gift
link).
If
lawyers
and
law
firms
won’t
stand
up
for
the
rule
of
law,
who
will?
-
“How
Donald
Trump
Throttled
Big
Law.” (03.27.25)
By Ruth
Marcus in The
New
Yorker:
“Yet,
whatever
the
deal
means
for
Paul,
Weiss,
its
acquiescence
to
Trump
marks
a
sad
day
for
the
legal
profession—or
what
once
was
a
profession,
and
is
now
just
another
business.
It
marks
an
even
sadder
day
for
the
rule
of
law,
which
can
only
be
vindicated
when
there
are
lawyers
fearless
enough
to
stand
up
for
it,
no
matter
the
price.”
Read
more here (gift
link). -
“Standing
Up
to
Trump
Is
Good
for
Big
Law’s
Business.
No,
Really.” (03.27.25)
By Ray
Brescia (Albany)
in Bloomberg
Law:
“Critics
inside
and
out
of
the
legal
profession
have
derided
Paul
Weiss’
decision
to
reach
an
agreement
so
President
Donald
Trump
would
revoke
an
executive
order
punishing
the
firm
for
its
past
political
actions
and
hobbling
its
ability
to
represent
clients.
Some
begrudgingly
have
accepted
the
firm’s
justification—that
the
potential
to
lose
business
was
far
too
great.
But
no
one
should
welcome
a situation in
which
lawyers
can
be
cowed
by
the
US
government.
In
fact,
a
client
should
seek
out
lawyers
who
will
fight
for
their
interests
and
rights
without
fear
that
doing
so
could
anger
the
government.”
Read
more here. -
“Partisan
Warfare
is
Pushing
the
American
Legal
System
Toward
Collapse.” (03.27.25)
By Jay
Edelson (Edelson
PC)
in The
Hill:
“As
a
center-left
lawyer
who
has
spent
his
career
fighting
powerful
interests
on
behalf
of
everyday
people,
I
find
the
current
moment
deeply
alarming.
Ironically,
despite
my
skepticism
of
Big
Law,
the
first
line
of
defense
is
going
to
be
these
large
firms,
on
whom
we
now
must
rely
to
protect
both
themselves
and,
by
extension,
the
legal
system
as
a
whole
from
many
of
the
powerful
interests
it
has
historically
served.
Yet
conservatives
rightly
note
these
developments
didn’t
emerge
spontaneously.
Many
of
my
friends
on
the
left
seem
unaware
of
the
backdrop
that
Trump’s
supporters
and
allies
point
to
in
justifying
or
contextualizing
his
administration’s
actions.
Conservative
judges
have
faced
relentless
personal
attacks
that
go
beyond
legitimate
criticism.”
Read
more here. -
“The
Pathetic,
Cowardly
Collapse
of
Big
Law;
Trump’s
Actions
are
an
Attempt
to
Tilt
the
Scales
Justice
by
Using
the
Raw
Power
of
Government
Coercion
—
and
They’re
Working.” (03.26.25)
By Paul
Rosenzweig (former
Deputy
Assistant
Secretary
for
Policy
in
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security)
in The
Atlantic:
“Taken
as
a
whole,
this
attack
on
law
firms
is
nothing
short
of
an
assault
on
the
very
idea
of
an
independent
legal
profession.
For
years,
the
profession
has
had
a
set
of
overarching
principles
that
are
thought
to
guide
its
members’
conduct.
Among
them:
Clients
should
be
able
to
hire
whom
they
wish
without
worrying
about
government
retribution,
and
lawyers
should
be
free
to
zealously
represent
their
clients
without
the
threat
of
government
retaliation.
To
say
otherwise
is
to
betray
the
fundamental
value
of
fairness
that
undergirds
our
justice
system.
Trump’s
actions
are
an
attempt,
bluntly
speaking,
to
tilt
the
scales
of
justice
by
using
the
raw
power
of
government
coercion.”
Read
more here (gift
link). -
“How
Trump
is
Preemptively
Neutralizing
His
Legal
Opposition.” (03.26.25)
By Richard
Zitrin (Hastings)
in
the San
Francisco
Chronicle:
“The
threat
to
democracy
from
these
acts
is
qualitatively
different
from
any
in
our
lifetimes.”
Read
more here. -
“They
Are
America’s
Most
Powerful
Law
Firms.
Their
Silence
Is
Deafening.” (03.25.25)
By Deborah
Pearlstein (Princeton)
in
the New
York
Times:
“The
choice
by
these
firms
to
accommodate
Mr.
Trump’s
attacks,
either
through
action
or
silence,
is
deeply
wrong.
It
weakens
the
rule-of-law
system
on
which
all
Americans
depend
—
a
system
in
which
the
rules
are
publicly
known
and
set
in
advance,
not
subject
to
the
whims
of
arbitrary
vendettas.
…
The
choice
is
misguided
as
a
business
strategy,
too,
compromising
attorney
ethics,
which
can
expose
them
to
discipline
by
bar
associations
and
courts,
and
giving
clients
ample
reason
to
doubt
that
the
firms
will
act
unflinchingly
in
their
defense.”
Read
more here (gift
link). -
“Trump
Can’t
Stop
Threatening
Lawyers.” (03.24.25)
By Barb
McQuade (Michigan)
in Bloomberg
Law:
“President
Donald
Trump’s
retribution
tour
made
its
latest
stop
late
Friday
with
a
new
threat
to
the
legal
profession.
Trump
issued
a
memorandum
directing
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
and
Secretary
of
Homeland
Security
Kristi
Noem
to
prioritize
the
enforcement
of
regulations
governing
attorney
conduct
and
discipline.
The
memo
further
instructs
Bondi
to
seek
sanctions
against
attorneys
who
engage
in
‘frivolous
litigation’
against
the
US
‘or
in
matters
before
executive
departments
and
agencies
of
the
United
States.’
The
attorney
general
also
is
to
refer
for
disciplinary
action
lawyers
who
violate
rules
of
professional
conduct.”
Read
more here. -
“Paul
Weiss
Cut
a
Deal
With
Trump—That
Doesn’t
Mean
It
Caved.” (03.24.25)
By Stephen
Gillers (NYU)
in Bloomberg
Law:
“There
is
a
suggestion
in
the
current
debate
that
Paul
Weiss
was
obligated
to
be
brave
for
the
rest
of
us,
that
it
was
required
to
fight
Trump
on
behalf
of
the
rule
of
law,
and
that
its
settlement
was
somehow
a
betrayal
of
some
principle
governing
the
conduct
of
private
law
firms.
That
is
not
so.
Paul
Weiss’
first
obligation
is
to
the
courts
that
license
its
lawyers,
then
to
its
clients,
many
of
whom
have
business
or
cases
with
the
federal
government,
then
to
its
staff
of
2,500,
and
finally
to
its
own
survival.
…
The
larger
and
unsettling
truth
here
is
that
no
law
firm
can
stop
Trump.
Even
the
courts,
to
which
lawyers
have
special
access,
are
limited,
as
a
practical
matter
and
doctrinally,
in
what
they
can
do.
While
other
firms
might
have
chosen
(or
hereafter
choose)
differently,
we
shouldn’t
vent
our
anger
and
frustration
at
Trump
by
faulting
Paul
Weiss’s
strategy
to
survive.”
Read
more here. -
“It’s
Trump
vs.
the
Courts,
and
It
Won’t
End
Well
for
Trump.” (03.23.25)
By J.
Michael
Luttig (former
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Fourth
Circuit
Judge)
in
the New
York
Times:
“President
Trump
has
wasted
no
time
in
his
second
term
in
declaring
war
on
the
nation’s
federal
judiciary,
the
country’s
legal
profession
and
the
rule
of
law.
He
has
provoked
a
constitutional
crisis
with
his
stunning
frontal
assault
on
the
third
branch
of
government
and
the
American
system
of
justice.”
Read
more here (gift
link). -
“A
Disgraceful
Capitulation.” (03.21.25)
By Brad
Wendel (Cornell)
at
his Legal
Ethics
Stuff Substack:
“Even
worse,
from
my
perspective
as
a
legal
ethics
scholar,
is
the
upside-down
invocation
of
core
professional
ideals
and
principles
to
justify
surrendering
to
an
authoritarian
leader.
Brad
Karp,
the
chairman
of
Paul
Weiss,
reportedly
sent
an
email
to
firm
employees
stating
that
he
had
merely
reaffirmed
a
set
of
principles
stated
in
1963
by
one
of
the
firm’s
founding
partners.
You
be
the
judge
of
whether
you
think
the
terms
of
the
agreement
between
the
firm
and
Trump
would
be
consistent
with
the
ethical
principles
that
a
law
firm
should
affirm.”
Read
more here. -
“The
Law
Must
Not
Bend
to
Trump’s
Crusade
of
Political
Retribution.”(03.19.25)
By Austin
Sarat (Amhurst)
and Lauren
Stiller
Rikleen (Lawyers
Defending
Democracy)
in The
Hill:
“These
firms
are
putting
profit
over
principle,
worrying
about
their
bottom
line
more
than
the
looming
collapse
of
the
constitutional
order.
Lawyers
should
not
sit
on
the
sidelines
as
firms
and
judges
are
attacked
merely
for
doing
their
jobs.
The
threat
is
clear.
J.
Michael
Luttig,
a
retired
federal
judge,
called
Trump’s
executive
order
directed
against
Perkins
Coie
‘sinister’
—
a
part
of
a
‘full-frontal
assault
on
the
Constitution,
the
rule
of
law,
our
system
of
justice,
and
the
entire
legal
profession.’”
Read
more here. -
“Bluff
Justice.” (03.18.25)
By Jeff
Bleich (former
US
Ambassador
to
Australia)
in Persuasion:
“Americans
are
so
used
to
having
independent
courts
that
it
may
be
hard
to
imagine
what
it
means
when
courts
lose
their
independence.
If
courts
are
not
independent,
there
is
no
free
speech.
Government
critics
or
people
with
unpopular
views
are
not
protected
from
prosecution
or
assault.
Freedom
of
religion
doesn’t
exist
either,
except
for
those
who
worship
the
religion
acceptable
to
their
leader.
Corruption
is
rampant.
Whatever
people
think
they
own
or
have
is
never
truly
theirs—the
government
or
friends
of
the
government
can
and
do
take
whatever
they
want,
whenever
they
want.
Everyone
outside
the
leader’s
personal
protection
lives
in
fear.”
Read
more here. -
“Donald
Trump’s
All-Out
Attack
on
Law
Firms.” (03.17.25)
By Bob
Bauer in Executive
Functions:
“Trump’s
motive
in
these
specific
cases
is
retaliatory,
as
the
court
concluded
in
issuing
the
TRO,
but
it
is
deeply
rooted
in
his
politics—a
politics
of
sorting
out
who
is
with
him,
and
who
is
against
him,
and
of
denying
legitimacy
to
his
foes.
The
determination
of
who
is
corrupt,
unethical,
or
dishonest
is
his
alone
to
make,
on
the
basis
of
which
he
can
impose
severe
sanctions
and
achieve
intimidation
through
his
exercise
of
presidential
power.
In
a
divinely
sanctioned
mission,
he
can
violate
no
law
when
trying
to
‘save
the
country.’
Williams
and
Connolly
counsel
to
Perkins
Coie,
Dane
Butswinkas,
responded
aptly
at
the
hearing:
‘That
is
a
different
Constitution
from
the
one
I
am
familiar
with.’”
Read
more here.
Where’s
the
Rest
of
the
Roundup?
Revisit
the “Welcome
Back
Edition” for
an
explanation
of
the
new
format.
And
keep
an
eye
out
for
next
month’s
“First
Monday
Edition”
with
reading
recommendations,
analysis,
reforms
watch,
jobs,
events,
and
much
more.
Get
Hired
Did
you
miss
the
100+
job
postings
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.
Upcoming
Ethics
Events
&
Other
Announcements
Did
you
miss
an
announcement
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.
Keep
in
Touch
Renee
Knake
Jefferson
holds
the
endowed
Doherty
Chair
in
Legal
Ethics
and
is
a
Professor
of
Law
at
the
University
of
Houston.
Check
out
more
of
her
writing
at
the Legal
Ethics
Roundup.
Find
her
on
X
(formerly
Twitter)
at @reneeknake or
Bluesky
at legalethics.bsky.social.