Standing Up for the Rule of Law
The rule of law can never be entirely separate from the people who make up our government and our society. It is an ideal to which we aspire, and in our striving we sometimes stumble, fall, and must try again. Democracy depends — perhaps above all else — upon our perseverance.
1 July 2025
John Adams proclaimed the American republic “a government of laws, not of men.” But the rule of law can never be entirely separated from the people who make up our government and our society. It is an ideal to which we aspire, and in our striving we sometimes stumble, fall, and must try again.
Currently, the legal profession in the United States is facing a crisis unlike anything it has ever experienced. The American President is engaged in a deliberate campaign to reach beyond the legitimate powers of his office to “bend” (his word) some of this country’s largest and most prestigious law firms to his will through a combination of punishing executive orders, coerced “settlement agreements,” and other forms of intimidation, all intended to either destroy the firms that won’t bend or to render toothless the ones that will.
This onslaught has divided the profession into three camps: four firms that have chosen to stand up to the President’s threats by fighting back; nine firms that have chosen to give in to the President’s bullying; and the rest of the profession which can only hope to stay out of the line of fire while watching this Greek tragedy play out.
For those of you who have followed these events, I am providing links to the powerful orders issued by four federal judges enjoining the President’s unconstitutional executive orders against four firms. The Administration has appealed. I fear for the legal profession, and our republic, if the injunctions are not sustained.
I also am attaching a complaint that was filed on June 23, 2025, with the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Supreme Court of the State of New York against nine law firms that committed themselves to provide free legal services to clients and causes favored by President Donald Trump and his political movement in order to avoid the issuance of punitive executive orders against them. The Complaint alleges that these commitments raise serious concerns requiring investigation by the Committee to determine whether the firms have violated the New York Rules of Ethical Conduct by (1) failing to maintain the independence of the legal profession from government control; (2) allowing a nonlawyer to make legal judgments as to clients and causes they will represent; (3) contributing to the violation of federal laws against bribery and extortion; (4) falsely advertising to prospective clients the effect the agreements will have on their practices; and (5) creating unwaivable conflicts for clients that have interests adverse to those of the federal government.
I signed amicus briefs in two of the four cases that resulted in injunctions against the President’s unconstitutional executive orders, and I was one of the complainants in the ethics case in New York. I did not take these actions lightly. Nor can I discount the risk of retaliation against me personally. But the more I fear, the more urgent I considered the need to act.
Injunction: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Injunction: Jenner & Block LLP
Injunction: Susman Godfrey LLP
Ethics Complaint: Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison LLP et al.