The conflict is undoubtedly escalating between former President Donald Trump and prominent law firms, highlighting the constitutional implications of his administration’s most recent actions. My previous article on this platform dealt with the constitutional implications of the relevant executive order issued by President Trump. The article details how Trump has utilized executive orders to revoke federal contracts, suspend security clearances, and restrict access to government buildings for firms that have represented his political opponents or participated in legal actions against him. Firms such as WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Jenner & Block have faced these measures. Critics argue that Trump’s actions constitute retaliation against legal professionals for exercising their right to free speech and due process. The ongoing situation raises fundamental questions about the balance between executive power and the protection of constitutional rights, which was already covered in the previous article. This piece serves to provide an update on the news and developments on the matter, dealing with the amicus brief issued by law firms and how some firms are trying to ease the dispute with the government.

The amicus brief filed in early April 2025, in support of Perkins Coie LLP represents a collective effort by 518 law firms to challenge the executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. These orders imposed severe sanctions on Perkins Coie and other law firms, including the suspension of security clearances and restrictions on access to federal facilities. The support of over 500 U.S. law firms united to file the amicus brief is an immense signal of how worrying these firms find the executive order, which accuses Perkins Coie of undermining democratic principles. The amicus curiae, led by Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP partner Donald B. Verrilli Jr., argues that these actions pose a grave threat to the constitutional principles that underpin the American legal system.

The amicus brief, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Case No. 1:25-cv-00716), condemned the executive actions as unconstitutional and a threat to the rule of law. The brief argued that the orders constitute retaliation against legal professionals for representing clients and causes opposed by the administration, thereby chilling the exercise of constitutional rights and undermining judicial independence The amicus brief condemned these actions as unconstitutional, arguing they represented a “grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself”. The brief emphasized that such measures could create a chilling effect on legal representation, particularly for clients and causes opposed by the government. The legal community’s response underscores the importance of defending the independence of the legal profession and upholding constitutional rights.

The brief emphasizes that the executive orders constitute a direct attack on the independence of the legal profession and the right to legal representation. By targeting law firms for representing clients and causes opposed by the administration, the orders create a chilling effect that undermines the rule of law. The amici curiae assert that such retaliatory measures violate the First and Fifth Amendments, which protect free speech, due process, and the right to petition the government, whose implications and potential breach I have already explained here.

The legal community remains divided, creating even more political debate, with some firms resisting the administration’s directives through litigation, while others seek to avoid conflict by complying with its demands. As expected, for some firms, there is a chilling effect due to the fear of consequences. Some firms, including Paul, Weiss, Skadden, Arps, and Milbank, have opted to settle with the administration by committing substantial pro bono legal services to causes aligned with Trump’s agenda, such as defending law enforcement agencies in civil litigation and supporting ideologically sympathetic organizations. The pro bono requirements imposed on law firms targeted by Trump’s executive orders have become one of the most controversial aspects of his legal strategy. As reported by multiple outlets, these requirements function as coercive settlements, compelling firms to provide significant amounts of free legal services in exchange for the lifting or avoidance of punitive federal actions.

The executive order determined that “To address these concerns (allegedly unethical conduct of law firms), I hereby direct the Attorney General to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.” These punitive measures have included the cancellation of government contracts, revocation of security clearances, and denial of access to federal facilities. Constitutionally, these arrangements raise significant concerns under the First and Fifth Amendments.

The First Amendment protects against compelled speech and forced association. By pressuring firms to engage in legal work for specific political or ideological causes, the government may be infringing on the firms’ rights to speak freely and to associate—or refrain from associating—with particular viewpoints. Furthermore, under the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections, these requirements may lack adequate procedural safeguards and could constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property or liberty interests, particularly where federal contracts or professional access are conditioned on political compliance.

An additional constitutional issue is raised by the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. This principle prohibits the government from conditioning the receipt of a benefit, such as a government contract or access to facilities, on the waiver of a constitutional right. If law firms are required to forfeit their right to act independently in the legal system in order to maintain access to federal benefits, the executive orders may violate this doctrine. Critics argue that these pro bono demands are not only coercive but also represent a misuse of executive authority that undermines the independence of the legal profession. Ethically, the compelled representation of certain clients or causes contravenes long-established professional norms, which emphasize that legal representation must be voluntary and independent.

An example of such pro bono demand and potential misuse of power is the executive order of the President, titled “Addressing Remedial Action by Paul Weiss,” which rescinded a previous order, targeting the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. The initial order had imposed sanctions on the firm, including the suspension of security clearances and the termination of federal contracts, due to concerns over the firm’s involvement in legal actions against the administration. The rescission followed a meeting between President Trump and Brad Karp, the firm’s chairman, during which Paul Weiss agreed to implement several policy changes. These changes included adopting a policy of political neutrality in client selection and attorney hiring, committing to merit-based hiring and promotion practices, and dedicating the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services to support causes such as assisting veterans and other issues of the administration’s agenda. This example also serves as proof of the chilling effect of the executive order and raises further concerns over the freedom of speech and freedom to represent clients without political bias. In the executive order, President Trump expressed that these commitments by Paul Weiss should serve as a model for the legal profession, emphasizing the importance of dedicating efforts to bring justice to local communities, support businesses, strengthen families, and unify the nation. The order concluded by revoking the earlier executive order and stating that it does not create any enforceable rights or benefits against the United States or its entities.

The legal community has responded unevenly. While some firms have chosen to settle, likely to protect clients and business interests, others have mounted legal challenges. These challenges have led to several federal courts issuing temporary restraining orders (explained in a following article), halting the enforcement of the executive directives, citing constitutional violations. As litigation continues, the courts are expected to further address whether these pro bono requirements are a legitimate exercise of executive authority or an unconstitutional attempt to punish and control the legal profession. This case is of serious significance as it addresses the balance between executive power and constitutional rights. The outcome will implicate the legal community, determining whether the government can impose punitive measures on law firms for exercising their professional duties. The amicus brief underscores the legal community’s commitment to defending the principles of justice and the separation of powers, highlighting the necessity of an independent judiciary and legal profession in maintaining the integrity of the nation’s legal system.

Dorina BOSITS is a law student at the Széchenyi István University of Győr, Hungary, and an international finance and accounting graduate of the University of Applied Sciences of Wiener Neustadt, Austria. She is currently enrolled for an exchange semester at the Karl Franzes University of Graz, Austria. The main area of her research includes freedom of speech, digitalization, space law, data protection, and financial law. She is a student at the Law School of MCC and a member of ELSA Győr.