Perkins Coie: 504 law firms as amicus oppose Exec Orders vs. Law Firms

Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice , D.C., D.C.  - Docket

 Regrettably the statement of the 504 law firms amicus brief by former Solicitor General Donald Verilli, et al. is entirely true:

The Executive Order (which is now subject to a temporary restraining order) should be permanently enjoined as a violation of core First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment guarantees, as well as bedrock separation-of-powers principles. 

 

 This amicus brief is filed on behalf of many of this Nation’s leading law firms.2 Although we do not take this step lightly, our abiding commitment to preserving the integrity of the American legal system leaves us no choice but to join together to oppose the March 6, 2025 Executive Order entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP” (the “Executive Order”) that is at issue in this litigation. The Executive Order (which is now subject to a temporary restraining order) should be permanently enjoined as a violation of core First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment guarantees, as well as bedrock separation-of-powers principles.

As is the statement of Fordham Law Professor Bruce Green who directs our Stein Center for Law & Ethics.:

 As a result of the Executive Order, law finns will be governed in their legal representations not only by professional conduct rules adopted and enforced by the courts, but by a fear of angering the President. Law finns seeking to avoid a similar Executive Order will have an incentive to eschew "reasonably available means" to advance their clients' lawful objectives that the President may find objectionable. This fonn of regulation by presidential whim, therefore, threatens to undermine the judicial regulation that requires lawyers to represent clients' zealously and not to subordinate clients' interests to lawyers' own self-interest. A law firm that fails to pursue a client's lawful objectives zealously and diligently out of concern for losing other clients' business would be prioritizing its own business interests in violation of conflict-of-interest rules. 

Some of our most prestigious law firms have already broken under the pressure of Donald Trump's thuggery.  Among them are New York based Skadden Arps,  Paul Weiss, and Millbank Tweed - three firms which I have long held in high regard.  The list of the compliant is still growing.   As the New Republic observes they have, to their shame, capitulated, promising millions in "pro bono" services as tribute to causes approved by the tyrant. Fortunately we now have 504 law firms that have joined together to issue a grave warning of the dangers posed by Donald Trump's bullying. Represented by former Solicitor General Donald Verilli the firms demonstrate their adherence to basic principles of rule of law. - GWC

PERKINS COIE LLP v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al, Docket No. 1:25-cv-00716 (D.D.C. Mar 11, 2025), Court Docket

ARGUMENT 1. The Executive Order at issue in this case, and the others like it, take direct aim at several of the Nation’s leading law firms and seek to cow every other firm, large and small, into submission. On the basis of almost-decade-old allegations, the Executive Order subjects an entire firm, as well as its clients and personnel, to draconian punishment—including the revocation of its attorneys’ security clearances, the potential loss of clients that contract with the United States, and denial of access to federal buildings and facilities. Such disabilities would threaten the survival of any law firm. 

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1 

This amicus brief is filed on behalf of many of this Nation’s leading law firms.2 Although we do not take this step lightly, our abiding commitment to preserving the integrity of the American legal system leaves us no choice but to join together to oppose the March 6, 2025 Executive Order entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP” (the “Executive Order”) that is at issue in this litigation. 

The Executive Order (which is now subject to a temporary restraining order) should be permanently enjoined as a violation of core First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment guarantees, as well as bedrock separation-of-powers principles. But something even more fundamental is at stake. In recent weeks, the President has issued not one but five executive orders imposing punitive sanctions on leading law firms in undisguised retaliation for representations that the firm, or its former partners, have undertaken, and more may be in the offing.3 Those Orders pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself. The judiciary should act with resolve—now—to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases. Cf. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).