Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
NEW YORK — The largest law firms in the United States have been far less likely to challenge President Donald Trump's policies than they were during his first term, and smaller firms are carrying much more of the burden of high-stakes legal challenges, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.
Large firms represented plaintiffs in 15 percent of cases challenging Trump executive orders between the start of his term in January and mid-September, compared with roughly 75 percent of cases during a comparable period in Trump's first term, The Post found. The analysis examined civil complaints and court records from legal research website CourtListener mentioning Trump and the term "executive order" for each time period.
The shift by large firms has put a significant extra burden on small- and medium-sized firms. They have taken on more of the workload in the nearly 400 lawsuits filed between January and mid-September, according to The Post's analysis. Trump signed more than 200 executive orders in that time period, well above the count from the first eight months of his first term. Some of his executive orders this spring targeted major law firms.
The Post's analysis was largely based on reviews of court records and interviews with attorneys who have litigation experience challenging government actions. The disputes examined in the analysis covered issues including dismissal of federal employees, health benefits, education resources and immigration.
In some cases, firms whose resources were stretched thin and whose lawyers became worn out have turned down clients facing life-changing issues tied to Trump's policies. Firms such as the Baltimore outfit Brown, Goldstein & Levy, with about 20 attorneys, aren't equipped to assist the deluge of people who say they have been harmed by the administration's directives, said Eve Hill, a partner.
"They beg us," said Hill, who represents people with disabilities suing the government over cuts to the Social Security Administration. "They say, 'I'm going to lose my job and my home. … I'm going to lose my family.'"
Not only are fewer cases being brought by large firms, the biggest firms also make up a reduced share of those getting involved in litigation against the government. Nearly 90 percent of firms suing the government during Trump's second term through mid-September employ fewer than 500 lawyers, an increase in small- and medium-sized law office involvement from 60 percent during the same stretch of the president's first term.
Some of the firms that have sued the administration employ one attorney, and many team up with nonprofits and other groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward.
The number of suits filed against Trump executive orders was more than four times larger through mid-September this year than in the comparable period of 2017, giving firms more opportunities to get involved in legal challenges.
Among the nation's 20 largest law firms as measured by revenue, six have been involved in challenging administration actions this year, several fewer than in 2017.
Since returning to the White House, Trump has taken aim at numerous industries and institutions, including law firms that had challenged his policies or had ties to his perceived opponents. He issued executive orders this spring seeking to block prominent firms from government contracts and access to federal buildings.
Four of the firms targeted by Trump responded by suing. Judges have sided with all of them so far and struck down Trump's orders. The Trump administration is appealing in all four cases. Nine firms made deals with the administration, outraging many of their own employees.
Paul Weiss, the first firm to cut a deal with Trump, agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono work for causes the administration supports, including aiding veterans and combating antisemitism. Eight other firms also made agreements. In total, the nine firms pledged nearly $1 billion in legal work.
It is unclear if any of the promised work has been done. The firms declined to comment or did not respond to messages seeking comment.
Trump's orders unnerved many in the industry and appear to have discouraged some large firms from taking on cases they would otherwise have backed, lawyers say. That has dried up a formerly reliable supply of help from large law offices for people and institutions challenging government policies.
The American Bar Association, which joined or filed four lawsuits against the Trump administration, "has experienced difficulty finding previously willing law firms to represent it," its attorneys wrote in court papers. In one case, the organization said, it was unable to join a lawsuit challenging the administration because it could not get attorneys in time.
The White House did not respond to a message seeking comment. A Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement: "This Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the Administration's agenda whenever challenged in court."
Most of the 23 attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights are working on Trump-related matters, including a case filed on behalf of asylum seekers blocked from entering the country, said Vincent Warren, the nonprofit's executive director.
"It's a feature of litigating during the Trump administration," Warren said, "and I think that's made a lot worse by the fact that we can't rely on [high revenue] law firms to bring the resources necessary for us to be able to do effective litigation on a larger scale."
Kara Janssen, senior counsel at San Francisco-based Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, said that starting in January, she and her colleagues spent many hours through several weekends seeking to obtain rulings to protect transgender women in federal custody. Their urgency was driven by fears that clients could be denied medical care and faced heightened danger in male facilities.
"We were working in the office and in evenings, and then from home on the weekends," said Janssen, whose firm has fewer than 30 attorneys. "This was the only thing we were working on."
A Supreme Court ruling in June that limited the power of district judges to grant nationwide injunctions will further increase the workload for firms and groups challenging the government, said Steven Banks, the former head of the Legal Aid Society in New York, who went on to run the pro bono practice at Paul Weiss. He left the firm after it made its deal with the administration.
Hill's firm, which is challenging the administration in class-action cases, fields dozens of calls a week from federal employees and others seeking assistance. The law office hears from people who say they have been desperate to find representation, citing a lack of available lawyers.
In some cases, the grievanc
es relate to students whose educational services are in jeopardy. "You think about the long-term effects of that, and you're really depressed," Hill said.
Nicole Gueron is a partner at Clarick Gueron Reisbaum, a New York-based boutique firm of fewer than 20 lawyers. The firm has challenged Trump's efforts to fire Federal Trade Commission members and the firing of Maurene Comey, who alleges she was dismissed from the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan as part of a vendetta against her father, former FBI director James B. Comey.
"My partners and I easily reached the decision that we do not want to be on the sidelines watching what we see as a frontal assault on the rule of law," Gueron said. "Our profession - and so much more - depends on it."
Some of the biggest firms are still challenging the Trump administration, including firms Trump targeted with executive orders.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, one of the country's largest firms, struck a deal with Trump in March, but the firm signed on to a lawsuit in May brought by a Mexican immigrant suing over a visa she was denied during the Biden administration.
In another case, attorneys with the firm Milbank, which also made an arrangement with Trump, are defending New Jersey cities sued by the administration because of their immigration policies. The attorneys include Neal Katyal, a partner who was acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama. Katyal is also involved in a lawsuit challenging tariffs and another tied to the firing of an independent regulator. Katyal did not respond to requests for comment.
Some attorneys, however, say large firms' reluctance to take on cases has continued.
The nonprofit National Immigrant Justice Center found several of its "usual partner firms" had stopped taking on immigration cases "due to messaging from the White House about pro bono involvement" in such matters, Lisa Koop, national director of legal services for the organization, wrote in an April court declaration.
When firms that are part of what is known as Big Law, a moniker for the biggest, best-known legal shops, partner with smaller practices and organizations, they take on duties that can be tedious, time-consuming - and vital for cases.
Government lawyers often try to overwhelm opponents, said Warren, of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "They paper the case to death," he said. "Nonstop motions, nonstop appeals." Large firms have more ability to handle that sort of onslaught.
The biggest law firms are "the most capable of doing meaningful pro bono work given their size and resources," said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, part of a group of Democratic attorneys general who have brought dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration, with the majority as multistate efforts.
Banks required his staff at Legal Aid to pair with a private firm before taking on litigation over issues including civil rights or justice reform.
The rule was in place "not because our lawyers couldn't do the cases on their own, but because the additional resources would enable us to do twice as much work on behalf of our clients," he said.
While nonprofits and states are doing legal work challenging the administration, he said, "ultimately private law firm resources are needed to support the effort."
(COMMENT, BELOW)