Demanding Ethics Investigations into Law Firms and Attorneys Enabling Trump’s Corruption

At the start of his second term, Trump issued a series of illegal executive orders against various law firms, subjecting them to punishing sanctions in a clear violation of their First Amendment rights, in retaliation for the law firms taking on cases, clients, and employees that Trump disfavored, and to push them into self-censorship. Soon thereafter, and under Trump’s direction, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) began a baseless investigation into twenty top law firms by demanding that the firms turn over extensive and protective information about their clients and internal practices.

The executive orders against law firms were blatantly unconstitutional. This was proven by the four firms targeted by Trump —Perkins Coie LLP; Jenner & Block LLP; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; and Susman Godfrey LLP—that chose to fight back and were swiftly vindicated in court. All four federal judges who ruled on the court challenges brought by the law firms unanimously held that the executive orders violated the First Amendment protections against retaliation for protected expression and viewpoint discrimination. Those executive orders were also variably found to violate the First Amendment freedom of association and the right to petition the government; the Fifth Amendment’s right to procedural due process and equal protection, prohibition against vague laws, and right to counsel; the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel; and the separation of powers embedded in the structure of the Constitution.

A separate lawsuit to block the EEOC investigation eventually ended after the EEOC admitted that its invasive demands for confidential information and client lists had never been anything more than voluntary, and that most law firms never turned any information over to the agency.

Nine law firms, instead of fighting the orders, instead entered into illegal and unethical negotiations with Trump. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP was the first firm to make a deal with Trump to obtain rescission of an executive order. Then other firms began to capitulate without ever being subject to an executive order, hoping to evade such an order. In total, nine firms agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to Trump’s preferred clients and causes. All of these firms also made concessions of their resources, speech, and client selection in order to obtain political favor and evade or change government actions. Paul Weiss, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, and Kirkland & Ellis LLP have taken steps to satisfy the agreements.

Attorneys must retain and guard their freedom to select clients, represent them to the best of their ability, and meet their ethical obligations at every step. Without attorney independence, judges and juries will not have access to the best and most fulsome legal arguments and presentations of evidence. If counsel is afraid of or beholden to opposing parties, clients may not be able to obtain representation or be sure they are getting the best advice. And if our country’s most powerful law firms capitulate to abusive government officials, then the United States loses a necessary mechanism for holding the government accountable to the Constitution, the law, and the people.

Separately, lawyers and law firms were also involved in facilitating the corrupt agreements of Paramount Global and Skydance Media with Trump. Trump, in his personal capacity, brought a meritless lawsuit against Paramount claiming that its subsidiary, CBS, deceptively edited its interview with Vice President Kamala Harris in the lead up to the 2024 presidential election. At the same time, Paramount and Skydance were waiting for merger approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Once Trump entered office, he had his chosen FCC Chairman Brendan Carr withhold approval for the merger to pressure Paramount to settle the unrelated lawsuit. Paramount agreed to pay $16 million toward Trump’s attorney fees and to fund his presidential library or purported charitable causes chosen by Trump. Paramount and Skydance were also reported to have made additional promises outside of the court case to obtain the Trump administration’s consent to their deal.

Like the law firm deals, Paramount and Skydance chose to provide Trump with political and personal benefits in order to extract specific government action and favor in clearing their expensive merger, constituting illegal bribery and extortion under federal law. The law firms and lawyers facilitating these illegal agreements between Paramount, Skydance, and Trump violated ethical requirements by committing illegal conduct themselves and by assisting a client with illegal conduct. Latham & Watkins LLP and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, in addition to making their own deals with Trump, represented Skydance and Paramount respectively, warranting additional investigation by the appropriate state-level legal ethics bodies.

While it is an impeachable abuse of power for Trump to subject any entity to punitive government actions because he disfavors their internal policies, public content, clients, or employees, the targeted entities had the means and ethical obligation to pursue justice in court. No entity may engage in dealings with a corrupt government official to effect certain government acts, even where that official is abusing his power in undertaking or threatening to undertake those acts.

Every state requires attorneys admitted to practice in that jurisdiction to adhere to rules of professional conduct that guide attorneys’ ethical obligations. While each state maintains its own standards, they commonly prohibit attorneys from undertaking illegal conduct, from undertaking cases in which the attorney’s judgment is likely to be adversely affected by the attorneys’ own interests, and from inducing any attorneys (including attorneys who work for them) to violate the ethical standards. Each state has established a method by which complaints may be made against attorneys suspected of violating their obligations under these rules. Some states permit complaints against entire law firms. FSFP has filed numerous ethics complaints in the against law firms and attorneys who entered into illegal agreements with Trump.

Free Speech For People has so far filed complaints with the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Supreme Court of the State of New York against the following law firms and attorneys who were involved in each firm’s decision-making process: Paul Weiss, Skadden, Kirkland, Latham, and Simpson Thacher. Free Speech For People has also filed an ethics complaint in D.C. against Skadden’s executive partner Jeremy London.