Law Firms Battle Trump Admin Over Executive Orders: One Firm Makes a Deal

On Friday, two legal offices initiated court cases aiming to halt White House directives that were aimed at penalizing them due to connections with attorneys who were under scrutiny for their involvement in probes related to Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential vote. Meanwhile, another practice chose to negotiate terms to preempt any potential actions from the Trump-led government.

Jenner & Block and WilmerHale separately initiated legal actions in a Washington, D.C., federal court, each claiming that the administration was at fault. engaged in unconstitutional retaliation That breaches the First Amendment.

The legal actions come after numerous executive orders were issued targeting several well-known law firms. These directives led to the revocation of security clearances, restricted access to federal facilities, and instructed agencies to terminate government contracts with these firms and their clientele.

At the same time in the Oval Office, President Trump declared that he had struck a deal with renowned law firm Skadden. According to this arrangement, Skadden agreed to contribute $100 million worth of pro bono services towards initiatives endorsed by his administration. These include aiding veterans as well as combating antisemitism. Additionally, they committed to adopting merit-based recruitment policies and refraining from "illegally discriminatory" diversity efforts. They also pledged never to refuse service based on political status or historical lack of access to large national law firms for certain marginalized communities, as per Trump’s statement.

This was basically an agreement," Trump stated. "We value their decision to come to the negotiating table.

Jeremy London, an executive partner at Skadden, stated that the firm has "proactively engaged with the president and his team to collaboratively work towards reaching this agreement."

"We strongly feel that this result is beneficial for our clients, our team members, and our organization," he stated.

So far, Trump has focused on five major companies, with his latest target being WilmerHale, the previous employer of Robert Mueller, who headed the investigation into Russian meddling.

Mueller was employed at Hale and Dorr from 1993 to 1995 prior to its merger that formed WilmerHale. He then returned in 2014 as a partner, leading up to his designation as special counsel in 2017, amidst Trump’s initial presidential term, to look into potential irregularities. relationships between Russia and the president And his campaign was the focus of that investigation, which enraged Trump. He referred to it as a witch hunt.

"Mueller's probe exemplifies the misuse of governmental power," the executive order stated.

A lieutenant of Mueller named Andrew Weissmann was once a Jenner partner and headed the team probing Paul Manafort, who took over Trump’s presidential campaign in mid-2016. Weissmann spent five years at Jenner from 2006 to 2011 before coming back for a one-year stint in 2020. When signing the executive order, Trump specifically criticized Weissmann, calling him a "bad guy."

Trump’s order against Jenner cited Weissmann by name, as well as the firm’s pro bono work backing lawsuits challenging the administration’s policies, including on behalf of transgender individuals and asylum seekers.

Democrats and their law firms turned the legal process into a tool for attempting to penalize and imprison their adversaries," stated White House spokesperson Harrison Fields. "The president's executive orders are legitimate instructions aimed at guaranteeing the implementation of the presidential agenda and ensuring that law firms adhere to the law.

Jenner's complaint argued that the directive "represents an unconstitutional overreach against attorneys, their clients, and the judicial process. Its aim is to obstruct people and enterprises from being represented fervently by their preferred counsel. Additionally, it seeks to pressure law firms and individual lawyers into silencing criticism of the administration and halting representation that opposes governmental interests."

Jenner stated they were left with no option but to file a lawsuit. "Choosing another path would undermine our capacity to vigorously represent all of our clients and yield to unlawful governmental pressure, something that goes against who we are," the statement read. The legal action initiated by Jenner asserted that Trump’s directive was resulting in mounting and irreversible damage to their reputation and financial standing.

The company mentioned that several of its biggest clients hold government contracts, and numerous ones have been asking for regular updates to assess if they should keep working with the firm. According to legal documents, over forty percent of the company’s earnings during the last half-decade originated from clientele benefiting from government contracts. The firm also stated that one client informed them they were unable to send their attorney to a meeting at the Justice Department due to the directive.

The WilmerHale lawsuit stated that the executive order openly aims to penalize the firm due to the clients they have represented. The filing characterizes the directive as "unparalleled and unlawful."

Recently, the company had campaigned against an impending executive order and aimed to use its connections within the Trump administration, such as assistance with screening key personnel and readying them for confirmation hearings. However, the directive was crafted the previous week, and according to administration officials, President Trump has harbored resentment toward Mueller for quite some time.

Law firms have adopted various strategies to challenge these directives. Perkins Coie, for instance, filed a lawsuit. obtained a short-term protective order An executive order targeting Paul Weiss was revoked following an agreement between the firm and the White House. In contrast, Covington & Burling, which faced a narrower directive, has mostly remained out of public view.

The two lawsuits submitted on Friday were first handed over to Judge Beryl Howell, nominated by President Barack Obama, who previously blocked the Perkins Coie action with her order. Subsequently, these cases were transferred elsewhere when she pointed out their reliance on distinct executive orders. In this reshuffle, the Jenner case has been allocated to Judge John Bates, whereas the Wilmer case will come under Judge Richard Leon; both Judges Bates and Leon received appointments from President George W. Bush during his tenure as president.

The White House has compiled a roster featuring over a dozen companies they may potentially target, and many of these businesses have been frantically trying to dodge becoming the next focus. President Trump has instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to initiate an extensive examination into the behavior of attorneys involved in lawsuits against the administration from the last eight years. This review aims to ascertain if further law firms deserve to face comparable directives.

Numerous big law firms were instrumental in resisting Trump's policies throughout his initial term. However, they have since largely silent As the president has initiated a barrage of attacks against the legal sector, various attempts to rally public backing for the affected companies have faltered.

Several prominent legal heavyweights have joined forces to defend the law firms contesting these directives. Cooley is advocating for Jenner, whereas Paul Clement from Clement & Murphy—a previous Solicitor General during President George W. Bush’s administration—has consented to handle WilmerHale’s matter. The representation of Perkins Coie has been taken up by Williams & Connolly. However, although Quinn Emanuel chose not to represent Perkins Coie directly, they facilitated an arrangement linking Paul Weiss with representatives at the White House.

Send your message to Erin Mulvaney. erin.mulvaney@wsj.com and C. Ryan Barber as ryan.barber@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications Williams & Connolly is handling the representation for Perkins Coie. A previous version of this article had an incorrect spelling of the former entity’s name. (Correction made on March 28)