Next in Donald Trump’s Authoritarian Crosshairs: Law Firms and Lawyers

When Adolf Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he launched a campaign to ensure the disempowerment of those who stood in the way of his authoritarian agenda.

At the top of the soon-to-be dictator’s list were judges and lawyers who he saw as misaligned with his vision of world domination – a ‘thousand year Reich’ – and he relentlessly targeted, vilified, disempowered and silenced hundreds of judges and lawyers by labelling them as ‘subversive’, as ‘enemies of the state’ – and the populace stood by and watched as their rights were systematically curtailed and a fascist dictatorship grew on the German Fuhrer’s promise to ‘Make Germany Great Again’. 

History Repeats

Now, having attacked ‘unfavourable’ media organisations and judges for years – making some parts of the mainstream media ‘bend the knee’ to have access to the White House – the US president has turned his attention towards law firms and lawyers he believes have acted against his authoritarian interests: cancelling the government contracts of law firms and rescinding security clearances of lawyers, with a view to forcing them to act in accordance with his agenda.

One such law firm is Paul, Weiss, Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP – a prominent US law firm that previously oversaw an investigation by the Manhatton district attorney’s office into Trump’s finances.

A fortnight ago, the US president issued an executive order against the firm cancelling its government contracts – which are the lifeblood of the firm – and threatening to rescind the security clearances of two of its leading lawyers.

The president also threatened to do the same to a number of other law firms, ostensibly over their policies of diversion, equity and inclusion, but in reality over their support for democratic interests including pro bono work supporting human rights.

The executive order sent shockwaves through the legal community, many members of whom see the move as an attack on perceived adversaries and on fundamental democratic ideals of equality and freedom.

Law Firm ‘Bends the Knee’

Fearing the economic impact of the executive order, the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP caved in last week and agreed to rescind its inclusive policies and provide $40 million in free legal work to the Trump administration – effectively ‘doing a 180’ by  realigning towards the US president’s interests- or in other words, ‘bending the knee’ or ‘selling out’ to Trump and his authoritarian agenda.

The powerful, multi-national law firm’s decision to cave in to Trump has ‘shaken’ many members of the legal community,  who can see how it will embolden the president to seek to crush others into submission.

Not All Will Back Down to Trump’s Bullying 

According to Marc Elias, a former partner at law firm Perkins Coie, most members of the legal profession condemn both the bullying tactics of Trump and the prominent law firm’s ‘shameful capitulation’ – vowing not to give in whatever the cost.

Another attorney, Rachel Cohen at Skadden Arps legal firm, immediately put in her two weeks’ notice and drafted an open letter condemning the Trump administration’s attempt to force law firms out of their own opinions, policies, processes, and clients. 

And this is exactly what the US president wants – for firms that are not aligned with his interests to either surrender or go bust, and for lawyers who refuse to bend the knee to quit.

Despite those in the legal world expressing their resentment for the bullying of law firms into submission, some legal leaders support the new measures — even if it is just to save face with the President and retain their funding. 

For example, Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton law firm, stated that he and his partner ‘look forward to a constructive relationship with the President and his Administration.’ This leaves the firm’s employees, citizens, clients, and other law firms wondering if those abiding by the POTUS’ new rules agree with his demands or are simply trying to avoid the possible ire of Trump. 

Trump is Openly Targeting Those Who Stand for Human Rights 

Trump signed an executive order banning nationals from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States, something that is not only discriminatory, but borders on hate crime legislation. To combat the highly apparent violation of human rights, various lawyers came together to fight against the immoral and unjust directive, promising to stand for human rights — regardless of what retaliation would come their way. 

US judge James Robard was openly targeted by the Trump administration for removing the ‘Muslim ban’. However, the united front of attorneys, lawyers, and judges in the legal industry showed that they have significant power. This unity is a reassuring sign that the industry can keep the power-hungry President in check by maintaining the separation of powers in the US government. 

And this isn’t the first time a dictator has tried to dismantle the justice system in a quest for absolute power. In Nazi Germany, Hitler saw the impartial judicial system as a threat to his quest to create an Aryan supremacy. Therefore, he used his dictatorship to force cooperation and coordination between those in the judicial system to fall in line with the Nazi’s objectives and viewpoints — removing the separation of powers and creating another means that the Nazi leader could use to enforce his antisemitic policies. 

The rise of the Third Reich, and the punishment of those in the legal world who refused to bend to a dictator’s reign, should serve as a stark reminder of how dangerous unrestricted state power can be. It’s crucial that we learn from history to avoid repeating the same mistakes, as we are now seeing similar dangers in the ‘modern’ United States.  

Trump’s Directives: The Details 

Trump’s new memo created a plethora of rules that all legal entities must follow to avoid sanctions, revoked clearances, removed federal contracts, and disciplinary actions.

The memo states that ‘lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable.’ Furthermore, any unprofessional conduct can result in disciplinary action and a revocation of essential funds and contracts. 

One of the most concerning aspects of the new memo is that it can be retroactive – the President can use this new memo, which he created himself, to wield power over any legal entity that, in the past, went against his personal belief system. Trump has already used his retroactive power to remove security clearances from lawyers at Covington & Burling in Washington, suspend security clearances for Perkins Coie in Seattle, and suspend security clearances for those at Paul, Weiss in New York. 

How the Judicial System Can Fight Back 

During Trump’s first term as President, the judicial system did everything possible to prevent gross miscarriages of justice and limit administrational policies that violated the Constitution. Out of the nearly 250 cases that attempted to create new policies through federal agencies, the administration lost almost 200 of those—something that Trump is trying to change the second time. 

Now that his second term is in full swing, judges have already begun using their powers again to block executive actions, such as his attempts to mass-fire federal employees and end birthright citizenship. 

Unlike other government employees or public figures, judges are not allowed to comment on political matters in public. This prevents misinformation from spreading, but it can also lead to their being forced into silence while the President’s administration is not only attempting to take their jobs, but possibly threatening their well-being. 

Even with their personal safety at risk, judges are still attempting to defend what is right. They can sanction attorneys, order civil contempt orders, and use marshals to enforce judicial rulings. But how long can the judicial system resist the tyrannical bully and put their own lives at risk?