Legal Ethics & Democracy Tracker

A free service from the Legal Ethics Roundup

Mar 19, 2025

Having trouble keeping track of the many ongoing and emerging matters involving legal ethics and democracy? The Legal Ethics Roundup is here to help. Below you’ll find a list I’m monitoring. Is something missing? Email legalethics@substack.com. (Please be sure you’ve subscribed — it’s free! — to the LER or your email won’t be delivered.)

(Last updated 07.03.25 - click on heading below for a jump to the section)

*2025 NYC Rule of Law Rally © 2025 by David Lat is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0*.

Statements from Bar Regulators, Advocacy Groups, Academics, Lawyers, Judges, and Others on Legal Ethics & Democracy

From 1,300+ Anonymous Associates: “We call on our employers, large American law firms, to defend their colleagues and the legal profession.”
From 21 Attorneys General: “An Open Letter to the Legal Community
Regarding the President’s Attacks on the Legal Profession and the Federal Judiciary” (03.26.25)
From 70+ Bar Associations: “Bar organizations’ statement in support of the rule of law” (03.26.25)
From 80 Law Deans: “We write to affirm basic principles. The government should not punish lawyers and law firms for the clients they represent, absent specific findings that such representation was illegal or unethical.” (03.26.25)
From 159 Law Firms and Organizations Plus Hundreds of Individuals: “Letter to Attorney General Bondi” (03.23.25)
From 140+ Alumni of Paul, Weiss: “The undersigned, alumni of Paul, Weiss, write to protest the firm’s recent decision to surrender to the Trump administration in the face of threats to its operations.” (03.24.25)
From 80+ Alumni of Skadden: “As alumni of Skadden, we write to express our profound disappointment and deep outrage regarding the firm’s recent agreement with President Donald Trump. At a time when rule of law, freedom of speech, and the adversarial system collectively face existential threat,
Skadden’s agreement with President Trump emboldened him to further undermine our democracy. The deals Willkie Farr and Milbank struck with President Trump this week evinces the deeply disturbing behavior that Skadden helped normalize.” (04.03.25)
From 775 Law Professors on Behalf of Susman Godfrey: “Amici 775 law professors submit this brief in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief to emphasize the threat that the President’s Executive Order presents to the independence and integrity of the legal profession, the rights of clients to seek redress in the courts, and, by extension, the rule of law. As experts in constitutional law, legal ethics, and the history of the legal profession, among other fields, we have a significant interest in ensuring that the principles of free speech, freedom of association, the right to petition the government, and the right to counsel are upheld. As educators, amici have an interest in fostering the next generation of attorneys, and in preparing them to zealously represent clients and causes without fear of reprisal.”
From the American Bar Association: “The ABA rejects efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession.” (03.03.25)(a longer excerpt of the ABA Statement is at the end of this tracker … just keep scrolling down)
From the American Civil Liberties Union: “ACLU Reacts to President Trump’s Latest Directive Threatening Lawyers and Law Firms” (03.22.25)
From the American Immigration Lawyers Association: “AILA Rejects Administration’s Dangerous Threats on Immigration Attorneys” (03.22.25)
From the Association of American Law Schools: “Statement of the Association of American Law Schools on Executive Branch Compliance with Court Orders” (02.18.25)
From the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers: “Statement by the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers on Executive Orders Against Particular Law Firms” (03.14.25)
From the California State Bar: “Statement on Recent Executive Actions Threatening the Availability of Legal Counsel and the Rule of Law” (05.09.25)
From Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” (03.18.25)
From the Commonwealth Lawyers Association: “CLA Joint Statement on the recent targeting of legal professionals by the US Government” (03.18.25) (signatories include Law Society of England and Wales; Law Society of Northern Ireland; The Bar Council of Northern Ireland; Faculty of Advocates; The German Federal Bar; German Bar Association; Law Council of Australia; Paris Bar; Union of the Italian Criminal Chambers; LAWASIA; European Criminal Bar Association; Fédération des Barreaux des d’Europe; Institute for the Rule of Law of the Union Internationale des Avocats; International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute; International Observatory for Lawyers in Danger;
Lawyers for Lawyers; Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada)
From Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia: “The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing First Amendment–protected speech.” (03.20.25)
From Democracy Forward: “Democracy Forward Issues Statement Regarding President Trump’s Targeting of Lawyers and Legal Profession” (03.22.25)
From the Harvard Law Faculty (80+): A jointly-signed letter, with separate commentary from professors Adrian Vermuele (here) and Lawrence Lessig (here). (03.29.25). Here’s an excerpt from the letter:
Lawyers have special obligations to protect and uphold the rule of law. As the Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide: “A lawyer is … an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.”

Similar letters have been issued from faculty at UCLA Law (100+) (03.31.25); Georgetown Law (90+)(04.03.25); Yale Law (63) (04.04.25); Washington University Law (39) (04.07.25); University of Virginia (68) (04.04.25); the University of Kentucky (03.28.25); Washington University (40+) (04.14.25); NYU Law (100+) (04.17.25).

From Human Rights First: “Human Rights First Blasts White House Effort to Intimidate Lawyers” (03.22.25)
From the International Bar Association: “IBA expresses deep concern over the ongoing erosion of the rule of law in the United States” (03.17.25)
From the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights: “Lawyers’ Committee Denounces President Trump’s Unprecedented Assault on the Legal System and Rule of Law” (03.22.25)
From the Lawyers Defending American Democracy: “These 21 AmLaw 200 who have chosen to fight stand in contrast to the 9 firms that have negotiated ‘agreements’ with the President, and the 170 firms who have taken no position at all. Lawyers Defending American Democracy calls on the 170 undeclared AmLaw 200 firms to avoid the path of those now notorious nine. We call on these 170 firms to convene – as a group – to create a unified response to the President’s unconstitutional actions and threats to the rule of law and system of justice.” (04.23.25)
From the Legal Defense Fund: “LDF Condemns President Trump’s Dangerous and Overtly Political Speech at Department of Justice and Ongoing Attack on the Legal Profession” (03.17.25)
From Protect Democracy: “More than 1,300 former Department of Justice (DOJ) officials—spanning both Republican and Democratic administrations—have signed a statement condemning the Trump Administration’s campaign of intimidation and retaliation against law firms and attorneys who challenge the government in court.” (03.31.25)
From Amy and Nina Rifkind: “We are confident that our grandfather would have recognized in this delicate moment, when the country hovers between a new authoritarianism and its longstanding freedoms, that what is good for the nation and rule of law is good for Paul, Weiss, not the other way around. Following your agreement, more executive orders threatening additional retaliation and intimidation of lawyers have unsurprisingly followed. It is plain to us, as it would have been to our grandfather, that taking action to stay off an enemies list does not advance the rule of law as embodied in the
Statement of Principles, it undercuts it and emboldens those who seek to dismantle it.” (03.27.25)
From the Society for the Rule of Law: “We are a group of attorneys dedicated to the protection of the rule of law in Washington, D.C. and beyond. Several of us previously served as Justice Department attorneys. We write today to urge you to investigate Edward R. Martin, Jr.’s violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and subject him to appropriate sanction.” (04.14.25)
From the State Bar of Michigan: “Statement from SBM Leadership on Unprecedented Threats to Rule of Law” (03.21.25)

The Brennan Center for Justice also maintains a list of statements from judges, government officials, academics, lawyers, and other individuals.

Hundreds of lawyers, former judges, and academics have filed amicus briefs on behalf of Perkins Coie, which can be viewed at this website. (More on the Perkins Coie EO challenge below.)

Other Trackers and Toolkits

Law Firm Response Tracker (300+ Firms). From LinkedIn: “We are a grassroots group of law students who were extremely disappointed to see members of the legal profession—law firms, Department of Justice lawyers, members of the Trump Administration—completely disregard the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, legal ethics, and equal treatment and protection under the law. … We created this spreadsheet based on publicly available information to help law students make decisions that align with their values.” Read more here and view the tracker here. (H/T Mari Latibashvili)
Spreadsheet Listing Lawyer and Law Professor Responses to Executive Order Threats. (H/T John Coates - Harvard) Explore the spreadsheet here.
Law Student Toolkit. “Tools for Current Law Students Enrolled in ABA Accredited Law Schools for Harnessing Collective Power to Influence Firm Decision-Making.” (04.02.25) Learn more and download the Toolkit here.
Above the Law’s Biglaw Spine Index. “Introducing the Biglaw Spine Index. Every firm in the Am Law 200 (based on the 2024 ranking, which is the most readily available one as of this publication) is listed with what they’re doing — or not — in the face of Trump’s attack on Biglaw.” Read more and view the Index here.

Op-Eds From Lawyers, Academics, and Other Commentators

“'We Could Not Remain Silent': The Members of the Legal Profession Pursuing Ethics Investigation for AG Pam Bondi.” An op-ed from Abbe Smith (Georgetown) and Ellen Yaroshefsky (Hofstra) in the New York Law Journal: “Since Donald Trump’s return to office, every agency tasked with ethical oversight of the executive branch, including the Office of Government Ethics, the Office of Special Counsel, and the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility has been shut down or rendered feeble. This rapid descent into an ethics-free regulatory environment happened in less than five months. It is against this backdrop that, last month, three civil society groups and 70 prominent lawyers, law professors, and judges filed a complaint with the Florida Bar Association, urging it to investigate U.S. Attorney General and Florida Bar member Pam Bondi for her misuse of the concept of ‘zealous advocacy’ to pursue the Trump Administration’s objectives. We helped draft this complaint because we could not remain silent while Bondi violated ethical obligations fundamental to the legal profession by repeatedly firing Justice Department lawyers, or giving them no choice but to resign, when those lawyers refused to act unethically.” Read more here.
“The End of Rule of Law in America.” By Judge J. Michael Luttig in The Atlantic: “For the almost 250 years since the founding of this nation, America has been the beacon of freedom to the world because of its democracy and rule of law. Our system of checks and balances has been strained before, but democracy—government by the people—and the rule of law have always won the day. Until now, that is. America will never again be that same beacon to the world, because the president of the United States has subverted America’s democracy and corrupted its rule of law. ….It is now entirely foreseeable that arrests of judges will occur in the federal courts across the country as well.. … Amid the ocean of unconstitutional orders, Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting some of the most prestigious law firms in the country because these firms represented or employed Trump’s personal enemies in the past are the most sinister and corrupt, which is saying something. Some of the firms—Paul Weiss; Latham & Watkins; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Kirkland & Ellis; and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett—cut ‘deals’ to avoid the president’s persecution. In doing so, they shamefully sold out their own lawyers, clients, and the entire legal profession, including the handful of courageous law firms—such as WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—that rightly and righteously decided to fight the president instead. It is the sworn duty of all American lawyers to denounce the president’s lawlessness, not to ingratiate themselves to him. [The orders] are manifestly unconstitutional, and every single federal court to consider them has immediately stayed their implementation over the defiant, contemptuous arguments made by Department of Justice lawyers.” Read more here (gift link).
“Trump’s Attacks on Law Firms are an Attack on Law Itself.” (04.04.25) By David Cole (Georgetown) and Amrit Singh (Stanford) in The Guardian: “If the United States is to be governed by the rule of law, lawyers and law firms cannot bow down to such unlawful assaults on the legal profession’s independence. Their duties as officers of the court require them to stand and fight. If lawyers are afraid to challenge unlawful actions by the administration, Trump will be free to act extra-legally. It has long been a bedrock of the American system that anyone harmed by official action can challenge that action in court, even where the official is the president himself. But that depends on lawyers maintaining their independence.” Read more here.
“Adams Case, Big Law Deals Launch Era Rife With Ethical Conflicts.” (04.03.25) By Ray Brescia (Albany) in Bloomberg Law: “Almost at the same time that US District Judge Dale Ho was dismissing the prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams on April 2, another major law firm agreed to provide volunteer time on causes preferred by President Donald Trump with the understanding that he will go easy on them. … The fact that law firms have struck agreements with the Trump administration raises serious questions about whether they can provide effective assistance of counsel in cases against the government. What happens if the Trump administration doesn’t like the way in which a particular case is being litigated by one of these firms? … To ensure that both federal and state courts across the country are protecting the constitutional rights of the defendants before them, judges now must inquire whether any criminal defense attorney from one of these firms that has cut a deal with the Trump administration is operating under a conflict similar to the one that doomed the Adams prosecution.” Read more here.
“Big Law's Blacklist Reckoning Will Mark Firms for a Generation.” (04.03.25) By Eric Schnapper (University of Washington) in Bloomberg Law: “Major large firms’ choices today will help define those firms for decades. The firms that opt to challenge government blacklisting will be regarded as courageous by some, and as reckless by others. The firms that settle will be seen as pragmatic by some, but as unprincipled by others. In the future, attorneys and clients will, to varying degrees, choose to join, remain at, leave, hire, or dismiss major law firms based on what positions and actions those firms took in response to the Trump blacklisting.” Read more here.
“It’s Time to Defend the Guardrails of Democracy.” (04.01.25) By Evan Falchuck (Lawyers Defending American Democracy) in the Fulcrum: “Far too many law schools and their leaders seem to be trying to avoid confrontation. But these institutions, which teach the Constitution, the rule of law, legal ethics, and lawyers’ duty to preserve and protect a system of law focused on justice and fairness, don’t get to sit silently when those very principles are under attack. They have an obligation to set an example. It is past time for these leaders to speak out against this behavior, to call out their alumni who are acting this way, and to even revoke their degrees.” Read more here.
“Our Law Firm Won’t Cave to Trump. Who Will Join Us?” (03.30.25) By John W. Keker, Robert A. Van Nest, and Elliot R. Peters in the New York Times: “You can support a lawyer’s right to represent unpopular clients and causes against powerful forces — essentially the oath we all took when becoming members of the bar. Or you can sit back, check your bank balance and watch your freedoms, along with the legal system and the tripartite system of government we should not take for granted, swirl down the drain. … Lawyers and big firms: For God’s sake, stand up for the legal profession, and for the Constitution. Defend the oath you took when you became officers of the court. If we stand together and fight, we will win.” Read more here (gift link).
“How Donald Trump Throttled Big Law.” (03.27.25) By Ruth Marcus in The New Yorker: “Yet, whatever the deal means for Paul, Weiss, its acquiescence to Trump marks a sad day for the legal profession—or what once was a profession, and is now just another business. It marks an even sadder day for the rule of law, which can only be vindicated when there are lawyers fearless enough to stand up for it, no matter the price.” Read more here (gift link).
“Standing Up to Trump Is Good for Big Law's Business. No, Really.” (03.27.25) By Ray Brescia (Albany) in Bloomberg Law: “Critics inside and out of the legal profession have derided Paul Weiss’ decision to reach an agreement so President Donald Trump would revoke an executive order punishing the firm for its past political actions and hobbling its ability to represent clients. Some begrudgingly have accepted the firm’s justification—that the potential to lose business was far too great. But no one should welcome a situation in which lawyers can be cowed by the US government. In fact, a client should seek out lawyers who will fight for their interests and rights without fear that doing so could anger the government.” Read more here.
“Partisan Warfare is Pushing the American Legal System Toward Collapse.” (03.27.25) By Jay Edelson (Edelson PC) in The Hill: “As a center-left lawyer who has spent his career fighting powerful interests on behalf of everyday people, I find the current moment deeply alarming. Ironically, despite my skepticism of Big Law, the first line of defense is going to be these large firms, on whom we now must rely to protect both themselves and, by extension, the legal system as a whole from many of the powerful interests it has historically served. Yet conservatives rightly note these developments didn’t emerge spontaneously. Many of my friends on the left seem unaware of the backdrop that Trump’s supporters and allies point to in justifying or contextualizing his administration’s actions. Conservative judges have faced relentless personal attacks that go beyond legitimate criticism.” Read more here.
“The Pathetic, Cowardly Collapse of Big Law; Trump’s Actions are an Attempt to Tilt the Scales Justice by Using the Raw Power of Government Coercion — and They’re Working.” (03.26.25) By Paul Rosenzweig (former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department of Homeland Security) in The Atlantic: “Taken as a whole, this attack on law firms is nothing short of an assault on the very idea of an independent legal profession. For years, the profession has had a set of overarching principles that are thought to guide its members’ conduct. Among them: Clients should be able to hire whom they wish without worrying about government retribution, and lawyers should be free to zealously represent their clients without the threat of government retaliation. To say otherwise is to betray the fundamental value of fairness that undergirds our justice system. Trump’s actions are an attempt, bluntly speaking, to tilt the scales of justice by using the raw power of government coercion.” Read more here (gift link).
“How Trump is Preemptively Neutralizing His Legal Opposition.” (03.26.25) By Richard Zitrin (Hastings) in the San Francisco Chronicle: “The threat to democracy from these acts is qualitatively different from any in our lifetimes.” Read more here.
“They Are America’s Most Powerful Law Firms. Their Silence Is Deafening.” (03.25.25) By Deborah Pearlstein (Princeton) in the New York Times: “The choice by these firms to accommodate Mr. Trump’s attacks, either through action or silence, is deeply wrong. It weakens the rule-of-law system on which all Americans depend — a system in which the rules are publicly known and set in advance, not subject to the whims of arbitrary vendettas. … The choice is misguided as a business strategy, too, compromising attorney ethics, which can expose them to discipline by bar associations and courts, and giving clients ample reason to doubt that the firms will act unflinchingly in their defense.” Read more here (gift link).
“Trump Can’t Stop Threatening Lawyers.” (03.24.25) By Barb McQuade (Michigan) in Bloomberg Law: “President Donald Trump’s retribution tour made its latest stop late Friday with a new threat to the legal profession. Trump issued a memorandum directing Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to prioritize the enforcement of regulations governing attorney conduct and discipline. The memo further instructs Bondi to seek sanctions against attorneys who engage in ‘frivolous litigation’ against the US ‘or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.’ The attorney general also is to refer for disciplinary action lawyers who violate rules of professional conduct.” Read more here.
“Paul Weiss Cut a Deal With Trump—That Doesn't Mean It Caved.” (03.24.25) By Stephen Gillers (NYU) in Bloomberg Law: “There is a suggestion in the current debate that Paul Weiss was obligated to be brave for the rest of us, that it was required to fight Trump on behalf of the rule of law, and that its settlement was somehow a betrayal of some principle governing the conduct of private law firms. That is not so. Paul Weiss’ first obligation is to the courts that license its lawyers, then to its clients, many of whom have business or cases with the federal government, then to its staff of 2,500, and finally to its own survival. … The larger and unsettling truth here is that no law firm can stop Trump. Even the courts, to which lawyers have special access, are limited, as a practical matter and doctrinally, in what they can do. While other firms might have chosen (or hereafter choose) differently, we shouldn’t vent our anger and frustration at Trump by faulting Paul Weiss’s strategy to survive.” Read more here.
“It’s Trump vs. the Courts, and It Won’t End Well for Trump.” (03.23.25) By J. Michael Luttig (former U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Judge) in the New York Times: “President Trump has wasted no time in his second term in declaring war on the nation’s federal judiciary, the country’s legal profession and the rule of law. He has provoked a constitutional crisis with his stunning frontal assault on the third branch of government and the American system of justice.” Read more here (gift link).
“A Disgraceful Capitulation.” (03.21.25) By Brad Wendel (Cornell) at his Legal Ethics Stuff Substack: “Even worse, from my perspective as a legal ethics scholar, is the upside-down invocation of core professional ideals and principles to justify surrendering to an authoritarian leader. Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul Weiss, reportedly sent an email to firm employees stating that he had merely reaffirmed a set of principles stated in 1963 by one of the firm’s founding partners. You be the judge of whether you think the terms of the agreement between the firm and Trump would be consistent with the ethical principles that a law firm should affirm.” Read more here.
“The Law Must Not Bend to Trump’s Crusade of Political Retribution.”(03.19.25) By Austin Sarat (Amhurst) and Lauren Stiller Rikleen (Lawyers Defending Democracy) in The Hill: “These firms are putting profit over principle, worrying about their bottom line more than the looming collapse of the constitutional order. Lawyers should not sit on the sidelines as firms and judges are attacked merely for doing their jobs. The threat is clear. J. Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge, called Trump’s executive order directed against Perkins Coie ‘sinister’ — a part of a ‘full-frontal assault on the Constitution, the rule of law, our system of justice, and the entire legal profession.’” Read more here.
“Bluff Justice.” (03.18.25) By Jeff Bleich (former US Ambassador to Australia) in Persuasion: “Americans are so used to having independent courts that it may be hard to imagine what it means when courts lose their independence. If courts are not independent, there is no free speech. Government critics or people with unpopular views are not protected from prosecution or assault. Freedom of religion doesn’t exist either, except for those who worship the religion acceptable to their leader. Corruption is rampant. Whatever people think they own or have is never truly theirs—the government or friends of the government can and do take whatever they want, whenever they want. Everyone outside the leader’s personal protection lives in fear.” Read more here.
“Donald Trump's All-Out Attack on Law Firms.” (03.17.25) By Bob Bauer in Executive Functions: “Trump’s motive in these specific cases is retaliatory, as the court concluded in issuing the TRO, but it is deeply rooted in his politics—a politics of sorting out who is with him, and who is against him, and of denying legitimacy to his foes. The determination of who is corrupt, unethical, or dishonest is his alone to make, on the basis of which he can impose severe sanctions and achieve intimidation through his exercise of presidential power. In a divinely sanctioned mission, he can violate no law when trying to ‘save the country.’ Williams and Connolly counsel to Perkins Coie, Dane Butswinkas, responded aptly at the hearing: ‘That is a different Constitution from the one I am familiar with.’” Read more here.

Executive Order Threatening Lawyers (03.22.25)

From the New York Times: “President Trump broadened his campaign of retaliation against lawyers he dislikes with a new memorandum that threatens to use government power to punish any law firms that, in his view, unfairly challenge his administration. The memorandum directs the heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to ‘seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States’ or in matters that come before federal agencies. Mr. Trump issued the order late Friday night, after a tumultuous week for the American legal community in which one of the country’s premier firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, struck a deal with the White House to spare the company from a punitive decree issued by Mr. Trump the previous week. Vanita Gupta, who as a civil rights lawyer and a former Justice Department official has both sued the government and defended it in court, said Mr. Trump’s memo ‘attacks the very foundations of our legal system by threatening and intimidating litigants who aim to hold our government accountable to the law and the Constitution.’” Read more here (gift link).

Read the full EO here.

“American Bar Association Sues to Block Trump's Attacks on Law Firms.”From Reuters: “The American Bar Association sued the Trump administration on Monday, seeking an order that would bar the White House from pursuing what the ABA called a campaign of intimidation against major law firms. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., said the administration violated the U.S. Constitution in a series of executive orders targeting law firms over their past clients and lawyers they hired.” Read more here. Download the complaint here, and read the ABA’s press release about the lawsuit here.

Executive Order Threatening Perkins Coie (03.06.25)

From the New York Times: “President Trump’s retribution campaign against law firms, legal experts and analysts say, is undermining a central tenet of the American legal system — the right to a lawyer to argue vigorously on one’s behalf. With the stroke of a pen last week, Mr. Trump sought to cripple Perkins Coie … by stripping its lawyers of security clearances needed to represent some clients and limiting the firm’s access to government buildings and officials. That action came after he revoked security clearances held by any lawyers at the firm Covington & Burling … . Mr. Trump’s attack on Big Law comes as his administration has also gone after law schools, the American Bar Association and even lawyers inside the government itself who might question or hinder his agenda. … Last week, the top federal prosecutor in Washington threatened to stop hiring graduates from Georgetown Law School if its dean, William Treanor, failed to abolish the school’s diversity programs. Mr. Treanor all but dared the prosecutor, Ed Martin, to make good on his threats, saying that the First Amendment would forbid them.” …

“This is certainly the biggest affront to the legal profession in my lifetime,” said Samuel W. Buell, who is a longtime professor of law at Duke University and a former federal prosecutor.
A federal judge on Wednesday sided with Perkins Coie in an initial courtroom skirmish with the White House, temporarily barring a major portion of Mr. Trump’s executive order against the firm from taking effect. “I am sure that many in the profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through,” said Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington. She added, “It sends little chills down my spine” to hear arguments that a president can punish individuals and companies like this.

Read the rest of the NYT coverage here. And if you haven’t read Treanor’s response to Martin, you’ll find it here.

Perkins Coie has created a website for accessing the legal resources used in its defense, which includes declarations from Bruce Green (Fordham), Robert Hirshon (Michigan), and Roy Simon (Hofstra).

As of April 20, eighteen amicus briefs have been filed raising a range of arguments in support of Perkins Coie. Find the list of briefs here courtesy of emptywheel. Of particular note to LER readers is a brief from six legal ethics professors.

Read the full EO here.

On May 2, 2025, the court permanently blocked the unlawful Executive Order targeting Perkins Coie. From a Perkins Coie press statement: “This ruling affirms core constitutional freedoms all Americans hold dear, including free speech, due process, and the right to select counsel without the fear of retribution. We are pleased with this decision and are immensely grateful to those who spoke up in support of our positions. As we move forward, we remain guided by the same commitments that first compelled us to bring this challenge: to protect our firm, safeguard the interests of our clients, and uphold the rule of law.” Read the court’s opinion here.

On June 30, 2025, the Trump administration appealed the ruling. From the Wall Street Journal: “The Trump administration isn’t giving up its legal fight to enforce punishing sanctions against law firms following a string of resounding defeats in court. The Justice Department on Monday filed notice that it was appealing a ruling that struck down an executive order against Perkins Coie, one of the first law firms to be targeted by a sweeping measure that directed agencies to remove access to federal buildings and strip its clients of government contracts. Judge Beryl Howell, a Barack Obama-appointee, ruled in May that the order was unconstitutional. She is one of four judges who have struck down similar executive orders targeting firms that President Trump perceived as being at odds with his administration, politics or him personally. The latest came on Friday from Judge Loren AliKhan, who said an order against Susman Godfrey was plagued by ‘grave constitutional violations.’” Read more here.

Executive Order Threatening Paul Weiss (03.14.25)

From Politico: “President Donald Trump continued his retaliatory spree against major law firms on Friday, signing an executive order targeting New York firm Paul Weiss days after a judge ruled that major parts of a similar order were unconstitutional. Trump’s new order seeks to suspend the security clearances of attorneys with the firm and limit their access to government buildings, ability to get federal jobs and receive money from federal contracts.” Read more here.

Rather than litigate like Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss decided to negotiate. From the BBC: “President Donald Trump has rescinded an executive order targeting a prestigious international law firm after it promised to abandon diversity policies and provide $40m (£31m) worth of free legal work to support White House initiatives. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP is a multinational law firm headquartered in New York that has many high-profile clients. Trump's 14 March executive order had terminated federal contracts with the firm and suspended security clearances for its lawyers, saying it was undermining the US judicial system. Trump has issued similar executive orders against the law firms Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling. The White House rescinded the order on Thursday after a meeting between Trump and Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton.” Read more here. Brad Wendel (Cornell) called this “a disgraceful capitulation” on his Legal Ethics Stuff Substack. Read more here. For a competing view, read Karp’s email to his fellow lawyers explaining why negotiating rather than litigating was in the best interests of their clients and the firm, courtesy of David Lat at his Original Jurisdiction Substack.

Read the full EO here and the response to “remedial action” here.

In late May, several prominent lawyers left the firm. From the New York Times: “Four top partners at Paul Weiss announced late Friday that they were leaving the law firm, a major blow to the firm in the wake of its decision to cut a deal with President Trump to head off an executive order that would have restricted its business. The partners — Karen Dunn, Bill Isaacson, Jeannie Rhee and Jessica Phillips — will form their own law firm.” Read more here - gift link.

Executive Order Threatening Jenner & Block (03.25.25)

From the Wall Street Journal: “Trump Expands Retribution Against Law Firms in New Executive Order. President Trump signed an executive order targeting the Jenner & Block law firm. He cited the firm’s ties to prosecutor Robert Mueller and investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.. … Tuesday’s order also explicitly targets pro bono work the firm has taken on to challenge the administration’s policies, saying it abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.’ Jenner has touted its extensive pro bono work in the past, and this year has backed lawsuits challenging the administration’s policies, including on behalf of transgender individuals and asylum seekers.” Read more here and here (gift link). Read the full EO here.

Jenner won a temporary restraining order on Friday, March 28. From Bloomberg Law: “Judge Freezes Trump Executive Order Targeting Jenner & Block. A DC federal judge on Friday temporarily barred the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order targeting law firm Jenner & Block. The ruling halts most of President Donald Trump’s March 25 order, which directed agencies to restrict firm employees from accessing US buildings and terminate government contracts with Jenner clients. The firm did not seek a temporary restraining order against another section of the order that strips lawyers’ security clearances.” Read more here.

Jenner has created a website “Jenner Stands Firm” to follow their legal challenge to the EO. From the website:

On March 28 2025, Jenner & Block filed a lawsuit to stop an unconstitutional executive order that has already been declared unlawful by a federal court. We expect to prevail quickly. For more than 100 years, Jenner has stood firm and tirelessly advocated for our clients against all adversaries, including against unlawful government action. We once again go to court to do just that. To do otherwise would mean compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA.

On May 23, 2025, a federal judge held that the Executive Order was unconstitutional. From the Washington Post: A federal judge on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order sanctioning the law firm Jenner & Block, the second time a court has quashed one of Trump’s efforts to punish a firm. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates wrote that Trump’s order was unconstitutional, saying the president was trying ‘to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers.’” Read more here (gift link).

Executive Order Threatening WilmerHale (03.27.25)

From the Washington Post: “President Donald Trump on Thursday signed another executive order aimed at what he labeled ‘rogue law firms,’ this time calling on federal agencies to end all contracts with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, known as WilmerHale. The directive calls on the government to avoid hiring the firm’s employees, restricting its employees’ access to government buildings and suspending security clearances for its lawyers.” Read more here (gift link). Read the full EO here.

WilmerHale won a temporary restraining order on Friday, March 28. From a WilmerHale spokesperson: “We appreciate the court’s swift action to preserve our clients’ right to counsel and acknowledgement of the unconstitutional nature of the executive order and its chilling effect on the legal system. The court’s decision to block key provisions of the order vindicates our and our clients’ foundational First Amendment rights.” Read the full opinion granting the TRO from US District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Richard Leon here and the hearing transcript here. Key provisions from Judge Leon’s opinion are highlighted below (emphasis added):

“This prohibition includes retaliatory actions based on perceived viewpoint. The retaliatory nature of the Executive Order at issue here is clear from its face – not only from Section 1, but also from the Fact Sheet published the same day. Indeed, the Executive Order requires government contracting agencies to disclose , review , and terminate all contracts with the plaintiff – that is Section 3 – and restricts WilmerHale employees from access to federal officials, buildings, and employment – that is Section 5. There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.”
“While economic loss does not always warrant a TRO, this is not a typical situation. This plaintiff faces more than economic harm – it faces crippling losses, and its very survival is at stake.”
“The injuries to plaintiff here would be severe, and would spill over it clients and the justice system at large. The public interest demands protecting against harms of this magnitude.”

Executive Order Threatening Susman Godfrey (04.09.25)

From the Houston Chronicle: “President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday ordering federal agencies to terminate their contracts with Susman Godfrey LLP, a Houston-based law firm that represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation suit against Fox News. The order also revoked security clearances for the firm's attorneys, barred them from accessing government buildings ‘when such access would threaten the national security’ and directed agencies to refrain from hiring employees of Susman Godfrey.” Read more here. Read the full EO here. In response, Susman Godfrey has issued the following statement:

“Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it. This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.”
Read more here.

Initial Victory for Susman Godfrey Blocking President’s Executive Order. From the New York Times: “A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump from punishing the law firm Susman Godfrey, calling the retribution campaign he has waged from the White House against the nation’s top firms ‘a shocking abuse of power.’ Ruling from the bench, Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia said that the executive order Mr. Trump signed last week targeting the firm stemmed from a ‘personal vendetta.’ Susman Godfrey represented Dominion, a manufacturer of voting machines that lawyers allied with Mr. Trump falsely attacked when he lost the 2020 election; the firm helped Dominion secure a $787.5 million settlement in a defamation case against Fox News. The judge’s decision temporarily blocks the Trump administration from carrying out many of the order’s punishments, including one directing agencies to turn the firm’s lawyers away from federal buildings and another aimed at terminating any federal contracts Susman Godfrey holds.” Read more here (gift link).

Permanent Injunction Issued. From NPR: “A federal judge has struck down President Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey, delivering the latest in a series of legal wins for firms that have challenged the president's punitive campaign against Big Law. The ruling Friday from U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan marks the fourth time out of four that a federal judge has permanently blocked one of Trump's executive orders seeking to punish an elite law firm.” Read more here.

Executive Order Threatening American Bar Association Accreditation for Law Schools (04.23.25)

From Reuters: “The Trump Administration said in an executive order on Wednesday that it is considering revoking the American Bar Association’s status as the federally recognized accreditor of law schools, a change that could impact lawyer licensing, student loans and attorney mobility, legal education experts said.” Read more here. Read the full EO here.

Executive Order Threatening Milbank Avoided With Settlement (04.02.25)

From Reuters: “A fourth major law U.S. law firm, Milbank, struck a deal on Wednesday with Donald Trump amid the U.S. president's campaign against perceived enemies within the legal industry, while another law firm fought back in court against an executive order targeting its business. New York-headquartered Milbank committed $100 million in free legal services to mutually agreed-upon initiatives with the White House and said it would not engage in diversity-based hiring, mirroring the deals Trump has reached with other law firms that he threatened to punish for being ideologically biased and unfair to him.” Read more here.

Executive Order Threatening Willkie Farr & Gallagher Avoided With Settlement (04.01.25)

From the New York Times: “President Trump announced Tuesday another deal with a law firm he had targeted for punishment, this time the one that employs Doug Emhoff, former Vice President Kamala Harris’s husband. Mr. Trump said the firm had committed to $100 million in pro bono legal work to causes he had championed. ‘Willkie’s pro bono Committee will ensure that new pro bono matters are consistent with these objectives, and that pro bono activities represent the full political spectrum, including Conservative ideals,’ Mr. Trump said on social media.” Read more here (gift link).

Executive Order Threatening Skadden Avoided With Settlement (03.28.25)

From CBS News: “President Trump announced Friday that the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom agreed to provide more than $100 million in pro bono work for initiatives backed by his administration. The agreement makes Skadden Arps the second major firm to reach a deal with Mr. Trump amid a recent blitz of executive orders targeting law firms that have employed his purported political opponents. The orders issued by the president have focused on the firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, known as WilmerHale. … The president said in a statement posted to Truth Social that in addition to providing $100 million in pro bono work, the firm will not engage in ‘illegal DEI discrimination and preferences’ and work with an outside counsel to advise it on employment practices.” Read more here.

Executive Orders Threatening Kirkland, Latham, Allen Overy, Simpson Thacher, and Cadwalader Avoided With Settlements (04.11.25)

From The Guardian: “Donald Trump said on Friday that five major law firms reached agreements to together provide his administration $600m in pro bono legal work, among other terms, to avoid executive orders punishing them, a significant capitulation to the president as he attacks the legal profession. The five firms – Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Allen Overy Shearman Sterling, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft – are among the most prestigious and recognized firms in the US. Trump’s announcement on Friday on Truth Social means he has secured a total of $940m in pro bono work from some of the most powerful law firms in the US.” Read more here.

Attorney Discipline Proceedings - 2020 Election Challenges

“Lawyer Who Pushed Bogus Trump Elector Scheme Is Disbarred in New York.” From the New York Times: “Kenneth Chesebro, a lawyer who helped spearhead a brazen legal effort to use phony slates of pro-Trump electors to overturn the 2020 presidential election, was disbarred in New York on Thursday, cementing an indefinite ban issued last year. The decision by a New York State appellate court concluded a strange legal journey for a Harvard-educated lawyer who worked for former Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 presidential election recount in Florida and later evolved into a supporter of President Trump. In a seven-page opinion, the court cited a criminal racketeering case centered on the fake electors in Georgia, where in 2023 Mr. Chesebro pleaded guilty.

The New York court said Thursday that Mr. Chesebro’s “criminal conduct — conspiracy to commit filing false documents — is unquestionably serious” and that he had undercut “the very notion of our constitutional democracy that he, as an attorney, swore an oath to uphold.”

Disciplinary Complaint Against Attorney General Pam Bondi

“Pam Bondi Accused of 'Serious Misconduct' in Florida Bar Complaint.”From Newsweek: “US Attorney General Pam Bondi has been accused of ‘serious professional misconduct’ in an ethics complaint filed with the Florida Bar, signed by 70 people. The signatories include liberal and moderate-leaning law professors, attorneys, and retired chief justices of the Florida Supreme Court. They accused Bondi of misconduct that ‘threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.’” Read more here.

Disciplinary Complaints Against Acting DC US Attorney Ed Martin

From the Washington Post: “Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have lodged a formal complaint against acting D.C. U.S. attorney Ed Martin with the office that handles attorney discipline, seeking the suspension of his law license or other penalties. ‘Martin has abused his position in several ways,’ committee Democrats, led by Sen. Dick Durbin (Illinois), wrote in a letter sent Thursday to a legal disciplinary office, called the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Those abuses include Martin’s dismissal of charges against a pardoned Capitol riot defendant he represented before taking office and his ‘using the threat of prosecution to intimidate government employees and chill the speech of private citizens,’ the senators alleged. Durbin has complained to D.C. authorities about alleged wrongdoing in the legal profession before. After a request from him in 2021, the DD Office of Disciplinary Counsel launched a probe of Jeffrey Clark, who had served in President Donald Trump’s Justice Department, over alleged ethical violations he committed in advancing false claims of election fraud after the 2020 presidential election. A panel recommended in August that Clark’s license be suspended, though the case is still pending.” Read more here (gift link).

The DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel declined to proceed with a separate complaint. From Lawfare: “The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel declined to launch a probe of Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney, over an alleged ethics violation he committed when he sought to dismiss the criminal charges of a man whom he represented as a defense attorney. ‘[W]e decline to open a full investigation of this matter and have closed this file,’ wrote Hamilton P. Fox, the head of the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, in a February letter addressed to the complainant and obtained by Lawfare. Fox penned the letter in response to a complaint filed by Jennifer Jensen, an insurance agent who resides in Utah. Jensen’s complaint alleged that Martin violated conflict of interest rules when he signed off on a motion to dismiss the case against Joseph Padilla, a convicted Capitol riot defendant whom President Donald Trump had pardoned. Martin, who had previously worked as defense counsel on Padilla’s case, was still listed as one of Padilla’s attorneys when he filed the motion to dismiss on behalf of the Justice Department. Rule 1.7(a) of the D.C. bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer ‘shall not advance two or more adverse positions in the same matter.’ In declining to further investigate Jensen’s complaint, Fox noted that Martin’s actions in Padilla’s case were dictated by Trump’s sweeping pardons for people who participated in the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.” Read more here.

On April 14, 2025, the Society for the Rule of Law sent a letter to the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel requesting a separate investigation into Martin: “We are a group of attorneys dedicated to the protection of the rule of law in Washington, D.C. and beyond. Several of us previously served as Justice Department attorneys. We write today to urge you to investigate Edward R. Martin, Jr.’s violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and subject him to appropriate sanction.” Read the full letter here.

On May 8, 2025, Martin was replaced by Judge Jeanine Pirro as the interim U.S. Attorney for D. C. For more on that, see this coverage from ABC News.

Disciplinary Complaints Against Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove

From Bloomberg Law: “A watchdog organization is calling on the Justice Department’s attorney misconduct office to investigate acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove’s ‘partisan’ order to dismiss charges against New York’s mayor. Bove potentially violated multiple New York attorney ethics rules and DOJ policies by directing prosecutors to partake in ‘what appears to be a corrupt quid pro quo deal,’ the Campaign for Accountability said in a complaint filed Monday with the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility. The complaint, which echoes similar accusations made by two Democratic senators Feb. 27, puts Bove in a somewhat awkward situation of possibly facing a probe from an office he oversees.” Read more here.

“Justice Dept. Leader Suggested Violating Court Orders, Whistle-Blower Says.” From the New York Times: “A senior Justice Department official, Emil Bove III, told subordinates he was willing to ignore court orders to fulfill the president’s aggressive deportation campaign, according to a whistle-blower complaint by a department lawyer who has since been fired. The account by the dismissed lawyer, Erez Reuveni, paints a disturbing portrait of his final three weeks on the front lines of the Trump administration’s legal efforts to ship immigrants overseas, often with little notice or recourse. In Mr. Reuveni’s telling, Mr. Bove discussed disregarding court orders, adding an expletive for emphasis, and other top law enforcement officials showed themselves ready to stonewall judges or lie to them to get their way.” Read more here (gift link). For more commentary, head over to this Substack post by Brad Wendel (Cornell) where, among other observations, he catalogs the eight - yes eight- professional conduct rules implicated. As Brad says: “Don’t take my word for it. Read through the letter and, if you’re a lawyer, ask yourself what you would have done.”

Disciplinary Complaints Against Interim New Jersey Attorney General Alina Habba

From the Campaign for Accountability (CfA): “[The CfA] asked the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) to investigate Alina Habba, the Interim United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, for potential violations of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct related to her ordering the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, subsequent prosecution of Congresswoman LaMonica McIver, and announcing a criminal investigation into New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy and Attorney General Matt Platkin. CfA Executive Director Michelle Kuppersmith said, ‘In less than three months on the job, Alina Habba has managed to steamroll over a shocking number of ethical boundaries. She has been explicit in her intention to weaponize her position to “turn New Jersey red.”Unfortunately, while she appears to have repeatedly broken her oath to uphold the constitution, she’s demonstrated a willingness to abuse her position, putting put partisan politics above her professional responsibilities.’”

Read CfA’s complaint here.

From NOTUS: “Alina Habba, once President Donald Trump’s personal attorney and now the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey, has quietly been under investigation by the state’s professional regulators for more than a year — putting her license to practice law at risk. NOTUS obtained documents detailing the investigation, which since January 2024 has been probing what happened when a young waitress at Trump’s Bedminster golf club tried to sue over sexual harassment by her manager.” Read more here.

Removing Judges

The Trump administration is seeking the removal of judges in at least two of the cases where it was unhappy with a ruling, and criminal sanctions against a third.

“Trump Administration Sees Bias in a Judge and Tries to Push Her Off a Case.” From the New York Times: “The Trump administration filed a motion on Friday seeking to disqualify Judge Beryl A. Howell from presiding over a lawsuit brought by the law firm Perkins Coie over an executive order stripping its lawyers of their security clearances and denying them access to government buildings.” Read more here (gift link). Update 03.26.25 from Bloomberg Law: “Judge Rejects Trump Bid to Oust Her From Perkins Coie Fight.” Read more here.
“Judge James E. Boasberg Halted the Administration from Using an 18th-Century Law to Deport Migrants. Does a Constitutional Crisis Loom Between Trump and the Courts?” From the Washington Post: “Ignoring the usual practice of filing an appeal or an emergency writ of mandamus seeking higher appellate court review, the Justice Department also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reassign the case from Boasberg, accusing him of ‘micromanagement’ of the executive branch. The circuit court gave no sign it was considering the unusual request.” Read more here (gift link).
Wisconsin Judge Claims ‘Absolute Immunity,’ Calls DOJ Indictment an ‘Ugly Innovation.’” From Fox News: “The legal team representing a Wisconsin judge accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities recently expanded their motion to dismiss the case. Judge Hannah Dugan’s attorneys say that she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts and that the federal government overstepped its authority by arresting and charging her. Additionally, the legal team asserts in its memo that the charges violate the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.” Read more here.

ABA Statement on the Rule of Law and the Ethical Obligations of Lawyers

From the American Bar Association website:

Three weeks ago, the American Bar Association spoke to you about values that guide us. We called upon every lawyer to insist that the government adhere to four major principles of law that have guided our country for over 200 years: Defending Judges and Courts, Acknowledging the Role of the Courts, Adhering to the Rule of Law, and Respecting the Separation of Powers and the three co-equal branches of government with distinct duties and responsibilities. These principles have been bedrocks of American democracy. The ABA does not shrink from standing in support of each of them.
Since that time, government actions evidence a clear and disconcerting pattern. If a court issues a decision this administration does not agree with, the judge is targeted. If a lawyer represents parties in a dispute with the administration, or if a lawyer represents parties the administration does not like, lawyers are targeted. We issued statements standing up for these four key principles, and a government official targeted us by instructing some of its lawyers not to attend ABA meetings or participate as speakers. These actions highlight escalating governmental efforts to interfere with fair and impartial courts, the right to counsel and due process, and the freedoms of speech and association in our country. …
We speak today on behalf of the legal profession and its members who seek to live by the oath each took upon admission to the bar. This is not something we do lightly nor is it the first time we have spoken in opposition to actions against an administration, regardless of political party. We sued or opposed policy proposals of the last few administrations when they failed to adhere to the rule of law or interfered with access to justice, and we are doing the same with the current administration. We are nonpartisan. We stand for the rule of law. We stand for the vital role of our courts and the essential job that lawyers do every day throughout our country. We have stood on this ground for many years.
We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not. Words and actions matter. And the intimidating words and actions we have heard must end. They are designed to cow our country’s judges, our country’s courts and our legal profession. Consistent with the chief justice’s report, these efforts cannot be sanctioned or normalized.
There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation. We acknowledge that there are risks to standing up and addressing these important issues. But if the ABA and lawyers do not speak, who will speak for the organized bar? Who will speak for the judiciary? Who will protect our system of justice? If we don’t speak now, when will we speak?
Read the full statement here.

Share Legal Ethics Roundup

Legal Ethics Roundup