When institutions that were once exemplars of legal independence succumb to political pressure from power brokers, a deeper professional calculus emerges: Shielding the institution can take priority over asserting principle.
That dynamic, amplified across the profession, has helped normalize a culture of retreat at precisely the moment when clarity and courage are most needed.
Over the past year, the Trump administration has subjected the legal profession to a sustained campaign of pressure—one that threatens the independence on which our legal system depends. Law firms have faced executive orders, attorneys have been threatened with restrictions to court access, and career attorneys have been removed from public service.
That pressure also has been channeled through regulatory scrutiny. Most recently, the Federal Trade Commission sent warning letters to 42 major firms raising antitrust concerns about participation in widely used diversity, equity, and inclusion programs tied to Mansfield Certification—suggesting that efforts to broaden candidate pools and share best practices could be treated as “potentially anticompetitive.”
These efforts are designed to intimidate and test institutional resolve.
In some of the most visible cases, elite firms have chosen accommodation over confrontation in response to political and regulatory pressure, despite clear evidence that standing up can succeed.Peers such as Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey successfully challenged that pressure in court – demonstrating that principled resistance can prevail.
For the future of our profession and our country, that complacency must end.
This pattern isn’t unique. It reflects a wider professional reflex: Preserve institutional positioning first, ask hard questions later. Over time, that instinct reshapes behavior across the profession, encouraging quiet accommodation rather than principled resistance.
We’ve seen this dynamic play out in real time at the highest levels of our profession. Last week, Brad Karp, the longtime chairman of Paul Weiss, resigned after newly released records revealed extended ties to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, raising serious questions about judgment, boundaries, and professional responsibility.
His resignation is insufficient. The profession doesn’t need episodic departures—it needs a sustained re-commitment to independent judgment, ethical leadership, and the rule of law over proximity to power.
Lawyers are trained to manage risk, protect clients, and safeguard institutional credibility, so caution is deeply ingrained in our professional culture. In ordinary times, that discipline matters. But the last year has shown that when caution becomes the dominant response to sustained pressure, it stops being prudence and starts becoming complicity.
The consequences are cumulative. When prominent leaders and firms accommodate pressure, others learn that risk is individualized and courage is optional. Collective norms weaken. Silence becomes the default response.
Lawyers understand how this happens. We see how precedent is formed, not only through court decisions, but also through repeated institutional choices. We know how quickly temporary accommodations harden into permanent expectations, creating chilling effects that deter advocacy, narrow representation, and weaken public trust.
Leadership at this moment requires more than carefully vetted statements. It requires coordinated action, shared risk, a renewed commitment to professional interdependence and urgent action. No single lawyer, law firm or legal institution can carry this alone. But together, our profession has enormous influence.
It also requires candor about leadership. Influence isn’t an entitlement; it’s a responsibility. Those who are unwilling to use it in moments that test our professional values should make space for those prepared to lead with clarity and courage.
Some may dismiss the recent federal agency actions as hollow threats without substantive merit That misses the point. Deterrence doesn’t require courtroom victories. It succeeds when institutions adjust behavior preemptively, limit public engagement, and avoid coordinated responses. Pressure works when firms respond alone, quietly, and defensively.
The time has come for the legal profession to move from caution to coordination, from silence to shared leadership. The future of public trust in our legal institutions—and of our country—will be shaped by those who have the courage to lead together now.
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
Kristina Lawson is managing partner of Hanson Bridgett.
Write for Us: Author Guidelines
To contact the editors responsible for this story: