Reading time: five minutes

Between global tariff rises, changing immigration policy and the Harvard lawsuit, it's hard to keep up with current affairs across the pond.

But as an aspiring solicitor, what's caught my eye the most have been the president's recent executive orders against major US law firms – and the way some of them are fighting back. In this article, I'll provide an overview of the situation at hand, alongside an insight into its potential implications both locally and internationally.

The situation so far: what's happening and why?

Starting in February, the Trump administration issued numerous executive orders and presidential memorandums against some of America’s largest law firms.

But what does this mean?

An executive order is a directive issued by the president that governs the actions of federal (ie, national) government. This is different from legislation: it doesn’t require approval from Congress (the legislative, or law-making, branch of US government), but still takes legal effect upon issue. A presidential memorandum is another type of directive issued by the president that aims to manage the actions of the executive (governmental) branch.

So, what did these executive orders contain?

The aims of the executive orders were to:

• cease goods or services being provided to the firms;
• review and terminate any governmental contracts with the firms;
• limit the ability of firm employees to enter governmental buildings (and be hired by agency officials);
• suspend active security clearances (which are granted to firms to allow them to assist clients by permitting them access to sensitive or restricted information); and
• investigate firms’ diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) programs.

Why these firms specifically?

A common thread unites the firms the Trump administration focused on in the orders and memoranda – previous opposition to his administration or involvement in prosecutions against him.

For instance, Covington, the first to be targeted on 18 February, had assisted and represented Jack Smith – the attorney who led federal investigations into President Trump's involvement in the Capitol events on 6 January 2021 and his handling of government records, neither of which ever saw trial.

Paul Weiss, another firm that was targeted but subsequently struck a deal with the government, had also brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events of 6 January 2021.

Perkins Coie, which is currently suing the Trump administration over the order, was next to be targeted in early March – having represented Hillary Clinton in her 2016 presidential campaign, in which she ran against Trump.

Many of the other firms have similar histories: from representing immigrant-rights groups opposing the Trump administration’s treatment of asylum rights, in the case of Jenner & Block, to assisting Dominion Voting Systems in their lawsuits pertaining to claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged against Trump.

What do the executive orders mean for firms?

Naturally, these orders have placed firms in difficult positions: forced to either concede to the president's demands, or to resist and risk further complications under the current administration – alongside potential loss.

At firm level, the primary impact of the executive orders is a loss of clients. A direct, negative mention from the current administration could incite clients to withdraw their business, if only to avoid affiliation with the firm in question. It could also limit the firm’s future remit of work, should the order stand: without security clearances, the firm’s ability to access information and work on cases would be limited, and their relationships with politically sensitive clients, present and future, would be threatened.

On a larger scale, the administration’s targeting of individual law firms swiftly and successively could threaten the country’s constitutional basis. As Harvard law professor John Coates pointed out in his article for the Financial Times: “Without notice or court review, the president has personally signed orders taking award rights from half a dozen major law firms that worked in the past for his political rivals.  He has directed all governmental dealings to be ended for any company that relies on those law firms – a type of secondary boycott that in ordinary times would be seen as improperly dragging business into the political area”. He also stated: “If the business clients do not step up to defend their own rights to adequate legal representation, they will soon find themselves with stark and costly choices between continuing to do business with the US government, or forgoing their freedom to defend their rights in court with trusted counsel of their choice”.

Where are we now?

Four of the law firms identified by the executive orders – Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey – have sued the Trump administration. As of now, judges have partially blocked the orders. However, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale are calling for judges to permanently and wholly block the orders.

Meanwhile, other firms have signed deals with the Trump administration to remove the sanctions. Many of these firms have pledged to provide pro bono services to causes aligned with the president and revised their DE&I programs to more closely align with the president's priorities. Responses to this have been strong: with some lawyers at these firms resigning in protest at their firm's decision.

How might this affect you?

If you're based in the UK, a lot of this won't affect you directly. Still, ripples can and will be felt across the pond, especially given the large presence of US law firms in the City.

The UK offices of American law firms that have signed deals with the Trump administration will have to balance their compliance with applicable US law alongside the legal market and culture of their overseas offices.

Future changes to the UK legal market may also lie in store as a consequence of these changes. UK clients with strong environmental, social and governance values may become wary of associating with firms perceived as politically targeted, or else might question the stability and standing of these firms.

Fortunately, as of now, it's unlikely that the abandonment of DE&I policies and shift in corporate culture in the US are going to take effect elsewhere, especially given how entrenched these principles are in the UK's legal framework. But what this means is that if an American firm's policies shift in response to political pressure, this could put them at odds with local regulatory expectations. This, of course, may subsequently impact these firms' ability to recruit and attract local talent – especially young lawyers who prioritise diversity and political neutrality.

As an aspiring solicitor, keeping up with these changes in the law firm business industry is part and parcel of enhancing your commercial awareness. Even if you don't plan on working at a US firm, it's worth keeping an eye on how these cases progress to get an idea of what the future of law firms may look like.