Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Former associates and witnesses say executive orders and threats pushed law firms to capitulate; some associates resigned
Loading...
Summary
Several witnesses, including former Skadden associate Rachel Cohen, testified that a sequence of executive orders and threats against private law firms has intimidated corporate firms into refusing or restricting representations; two associates at Skadden resigned publicly and others organized anonymous protests and statements.
Rachel Cohen, a former associate at Skadden Arps, told the joint House–Senate hearing that the Trump administration's executive orders targeting law firms that had represented certain clients prompted some major firms to offer pro bono projects or other concessions to the White House rather than litigate the orders.
"It is easier to ignore what is happening than to acknowledge the fight that lies ahead," Cohen said, describing a series of court‑blocked executive actions against Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie and the subsequent responses by other firms. She testified that Paul Weiss offered $40,000,000 in pro bono work to resolve pressure from the administration and that Skadden committed $100,000,000 in pro bono legal services to the administration in another reported instance.
Cohen told lawmakers she resigned because she perceived firm leadership would not collectively resist the administration's pressure and she wanted to ensure lawyers remained able to represent unpopular clients and public interest causes. "I will not allow my fear to manifest as silence. I choose courage," she said.
Committee members discussed the mechanism and legal reach of the executive orders; witnesses and lawmakers noted that multiple federal courts had issued preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders blocking parts of those actions. Witnesses testified the orders named firms for prior representations they found objectionable and threatened to withdraw government contracts, security clearances or access to federal buildings.
Lawmakers and witnesses described a consequential cascade effect: when large firms decline to represent certain clients, public interest groups and smaller firms lose access to resources and casework; those groups and clients may face difficulties pursuing litigation that challenges government action or defends civil rights. Cohen cited examples of pro bono work such firms historically supported that would be jeopardized if firms accept the executive‑branch terms.
Members repeatedly urged bar associations, law schools and firms to act collectively to defend the independence of the bar and the adversarial system; witnesses said associates across multiple firms prepared anonymous statements and amicus briefs in response to the administration's actions.
No formal disciplinary actions against firms were taken at the hearing; senators and representatives pressed for further review and for courts to continue enforcing constitutional limits on executive power.
