As President Donald Trump’s executive orders against several leading law firms wind their way through the appellate process, an amicus brief filed by General Counsels United, a coalition of over 800 past and present general counsel, argues that the orders will chill legal representation and distort the selection of outside counsel.
The brief’s core point is correct. Government retaliation against law firms for representing clients or causes disfavored by those in power is unconstitutional and antithetical to our justice system. Kudos to the law firms that chose to fight.
But the brief also reveals a blind spot that the legal establishment seldom confronts: Its definition of political pressure runs in only one direction. Pressure from the right is treated as a constitutional crisis; pressure from the left is accepted as ordinary course.
This asymmetry prevails among general counsel, large‑firm leaders, bar association officials, and law school faculties, leaving the American bar less neutral than it thinks or portrays itself to be.
Many lawyers have grown so accustomed to pressures from one ideological direction that they no longer recognize them as pressures at all. Imagine if the Biden Justice Department had issued similar directives against law firms that lagged on diversity, equity, and inclusion; challenged environmental, social and governance standards; or contested the results of the 2020 election. The reaction of the legal establishment wouldn’t have been the same, and deep down most everyone knows it.
This is why the brief’s central argument deserves scrutiny. The general counsel assert that their “non-waivable professional duties of competence and independent judgment” are “impaired, not merely inconvenienced, when political considerations are injected” into the selection of outside counsel.
But decisions to retain law firms are rarely based on competence alone. For as long as I can remember, in-house lawyers (including me) have required law firms to submit DEI scorecards, certify alignment with ESG and other progressive standards, and avoid arguments or representations that conflict with the client’s policy views. These are political filters, even if companies prefer to label them “best practices.”
Other pressures are more subtle. Many general counsel stay away from lawyers or law firms associated with causes disfavored by leaders of the bar. Lawyers who work on anti-abortion matters, gun‑rights litigation, or religious‑liberty cases often face internal resistance, client pushback, or other pressure to avoid those representations. I’ve had young lawyers tell me privately that they avoid certain types of matters because they fear the professional consequences of being associated with them.
These aren’t theoretical concerns; they are recurring features of modern practice. The most visible example came in 2022, when Kirkland & Ellis parted ways with two partners after they won a major Second Amendment case. A similar dynamic played out with Jones Day after the 2020 elections. Many in the legal community were angry that a major firm would take on cases that they associated with the Trump campaign. I distinctly recall extensive public and private chatter at the time by in‑house counsel to the effect that they planned to steer clear of lawyers and law firms connected to the Trump administration or reelection campaign.
The most pervasive pressure may be the least visible. Companies sometimes hesitate to hire law firms associated with conservative causes because their boards, employees, or customers would object. Because these vetoes align with the dominant ideological preferences of our profession, they are rarely described as political pressure—even though that’s exactly what they are.
These examples aren’t about who was right or who was wrong. (Heck, I’m sympathetic to the stand that K&E decided to take.) They simply illustrate how ideological preferences can shape which clients with politically charged cases are able to secure representation from the country’s leading law firms.
Nor should this be taken as an argument against DEI, ESG, or allowing general counsel to factor ideology into their choice of outside counsel. It also isn’t a defense of President Trump’s actions or an attempt to equate decisions that private-sector actors are entitled to make with retaliatory exercises by the government of its vast powers.
My point is that our profession needs to be more consistent. An industry that applies its own political filters shouldn’t be so shocked or indignant when others do the same.
This asymmetry helps explain why several leading law firms chose not to fight the executive orders despite their well-earned reputations for zealous advocacy. Beyond ordinary business considerations, their own practices made it harder to claim a neutral high ground. When politics already influences so much, it becomes harder to draw a principled line against partisan interference from the government.
Treating only one set of pressures as political has also made it easier for the Trump administration to defend the executive orders in the court of public opinion. What once would have been viewed as an extraordinary breach of norms now provokes less outrage in the broader public because the ground has moved. When the legal profession’s own practices blur the line between principle and politics, public confidence in the neutrality of our system inevitably suffers.
The predictable response is that “Trump is different.” He is, especially in testing the limits of the powers of the presidency and pushing boundaries on conflicts of interest. But every era believes its opponents to be uniquely dangerous.
That belief is precisely why our profession once had a proud tradition of representing unpopular clients and causes to ensure that the passions of the moment don’t overtake the rule of law. Our system is stronger when controversial figures and polarizing organizations across the political spectrum are represented by established law firms with mainstream sensibilities. All of us would do well to remember this, regardless of our personal political views.
Public trust erodes when neutrality appears selective. A profession that values independence must be willing to acknowledge political pressures even when they originate inside its own house.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.
Author Information
Alex Dimitrief is the founder and principal of Dimitrief Advisory. He previously was senior vice president and general counsel of General Electric and a trial lawyer at Kirkland & Ellis.
Interested in writing? Review our author guidelines, and submit pitches to Insights@bloombergindustry.com.