Law firms and the rule of law remain under attack; Jenner and WilmerHale fight back

Skadden's Jeremy London, though, tried to explain the firm's capitulation. Also: A law firm partner provided Law Dork with a "parable" of two paths for firms in this moment.

President Donald Trump’s attack on the rule of law continued this week — with divergent paths for addressing the attack being made exceptionally clear on Friday.

In the morning, two law firms targeted by Trump — Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — sued him. In doing so, thy were in turn represented by lawyers from two other firms — Cooley and Clement & Murphy.

By the end of the day, two federal judges in D.C. — both appointed by George W. Bush — had held hearings and issued temporary restraining orders blocking parts of Trump’s executive orders against the firms.

The TROs from Judge John Bates, hearing the Jenner lawsuit, and Judge Richard Leon, hearing the WilmerHale challenge, block the Trump administration from enforcing the executive orders’ provisions seeking to end government contracts that the firms have with the government and investigate contracts that the firms’ clients have with the government. They also block the administration from enforcing the draconian “personnel” provision, which both subjects employees of the firm to an arduous process to work for the federal government and sets up a process that could result in firm employees being banned from federal buildings — even courthouses.

The two hearings came after Judge Beryl Howell, who granted a TRO in Perkins Coie’s challenge to Trump’s order against their firm, found that the cases — although certainly addressing related topics — are not “related cases” under the court’s rules such that she would hear all of them. The cases were reassigned to Bates and Leon, who quickly scheduled and held hearings.

Bates, who ruled from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing, found that the Jenner & Block executive order likely retaliates against the firm in violation of the First Amendment and is likely a form of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination — noting that its “litigation positions in court” are targeted by the order, including litigation aimed at protecting transgender people’s rights and immigrant’s rights.

A TRO here, Bates said, is “emphatically in the public interest.” The written order followed.

Shortly thereafter, Leon issued his TRO.

“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,” Leon wrote in his order. After detailing the contracting, building access, and employment provisions of the WilmerHale order, he added, “There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.”

And yet.

In between the lawsuits and the TROs, Trump posted at a little before 2 p.m. that a different firm, Skadden Arps, had reached a preemptive version of a Paul Weiss-style capitulation agreement, (temporarily?) averting a threatened executive order by agreeing to terms laid out by Trump, which include a $100 million pro bono commitment and changes to the firm’s pro bono program and Skadden Fellowships — all worded to comply with Trump’s desires.

For example, the law firm agreed to this absurd term for a president to demand a private company add to its prestigious program, let alone for a law firm to agree to: “Law Graduates that receive Skadden Fellowships will represent a wide range of political views, including conservative ideals.”

Then there’s this, if you can even parse it: “Skadden will not deny representation to clients, such as members of politically disenfranchised groups, who have not historically received legal representation from major National Law Firms, including in pro bono matters, and in support of non-profits, because of the personal political views of individual lawyers.”

Jeremy London, Skadden’s executive partner, sent an email to the firm’s lawyers and other employees shortly after Trump’s post to attempt to justify this preemptive capitulation. In the email, which was reviewed by Law Dork, he wrote:

Over the past few days, we learned that the Trump Administration intended to issue an executive order directed at Skadden. We believed it would focus on DEl initiatives and our pro bono activities. When faced with this information, we carefully considered what the right path would be for us, and the answer was not obvious.

Not a reassuring start, and this was as good as it got. Writing that he knew the decision of how to deal with this “would have fundamental consequences” for the firm, he continued:

With that in mind, we chose to engage proactively and constructively with the Administration to align on a productive path forward without the issuance of an executive order. We entered into the agreement the President announced today because, when faced with the alternatives, it became clear that it was the best path to protect our clients, our people, and our Firm.

He then repeated the list of agreements reached with Trump¹ and insisted, “This agreement does not change who we are.“ London concluded his letter thus: “With this resolution, I am confident that we will go forward with resilience, strength, and integrity.”

London, who apparently has not been paying attention to the past decade of Trump’s presence on the political scene, has done his firm, the legal profession, and the country a great disservice with this action.

London joined Paul Weiss’s Brad Karp in giving in to a would-be authoritarian in his efforts to make a mockery of and destroy the rule of law.

While Bates called Trump’s attacks on firms’ pro bono efforts “disturbing,” London saw in such an attack not a clear moment to fight — but a time to capitulate.

---

A partner’s parable

This is, to be clear, an existential crisis for BigLaw firms — and the lawyers and staff behind them.

A partner in the leadership of one of the nation’s largest law firms, who has litigated at every level of the federal court system and who spoke to Law Dork anonymously due to the sensitive nature of the topic, told Law Dork that this was nothing less than another "fork in the road" — but for the firms.

The lawyer provided Law Dork with this "parable" of two paths for an imagined firm in this moment.

1. Excerpt from Blackwell Peterson’s 150th Anniversary Press Release

. . . which transformed Blackwell Peterson into one of the largest and most successful firms in the world.

Blackwell Peterson’s finest hour came during the legal industry’s darkest hour. When disgraced former President Donald Trump regained power in early 2025, he targeted large law firms for retribution, singling out any firm he felt had wronged him or that had challenged his unconstitutional and authoritarian executive orders. Many law firms capitulated to Trump’s demands, gutting their affinity groups and pro bono programs and committing themselves to an escalating series of shameful public endorsements of Trump’s caprices.

Blackwell Peterson, however, never wavered. Its CEO, J. Michael (“Mike”) Schaefer, engaged in intensive consultations with his management team and the firm’s partners. Behind Schaefer, and with the support of the firm’s partners, associates, and staff, Blackwell Peterson stood up to Trump’s existential threat to the legal industry, becoming a leading voice against Trump’s predations and rallying other firms to its side.

It was not an easy path. Blackwell Peterson lost dozens of partners and clients over the ensuing two years. But as Trump’s power ebbed following the 2026 midterms, Blackwell Peterson slowly but surely regained the ground it had lost, culminating in 2028 with record-setting profits and a hiring spree facilitated by the implosion of firms that had bet on Trump. Schaefer’s portrait now hangs in the reception area of every Blackwell Peterson office, a testament to his visionary leadership at the time it was needed most.

2. Excerpt from Blackwell Peterson’s Obituary

. . . which transformed Blackwell Peterson into one of the largest firms in the world.

Blackwell Peterson met its demise slowly at first, then all at once. When disgraced former President Donald Trump regained power in early 2025, he targeted large law firms for retribution, singling out any firm that he felt had wronged him or that had challenged his unconstitutional and authoritarian executive orders. Many law firms stood unwaveringly against Trump’s attacks. And many of those firms suffered grievous losses, with their profits plummeting and partners fleeing.

Other firms attempted to bargain with Trump, gutting their affinity groups and pro bono programs and committing themselves to an escalating series of shameful public endorsements of Trump’s caprices. Blackwell Peterson was among them. Its CEO, J. Michael (“Mike”) Schaefer, justified the firm’s capitulation by explaining that he needed to protect Blackwell Peterson’s revenues, even if it came at the cost of some of Blackwell Peterson’s values.

It became clear, however, that Schaefer had made the wrong choice. Trump’s presidency limped to an end after the Republican party lost significant numbers of seats in the 2026 midterms. In the meantime, Blackwell Peterson partners, associates, and clients began leaving for other firms – those that had stood against Trump’s threat in the face of lost profits and departing partners, and which now were in a position to reap the benefits following those lean and difficult years. By early 2027, the slow trickle of departures from Blackwell Peterson had become a flood. Late that year, Blackwell Peterson broke apart, destroyed from the inside.

---

Deal or no deal

Despite what Karp and London seem to think, Donald Trump is not going to stop. He is not going to be satisfied with their current capitulation, and the next time they dare to do something that angers him, he will be back.

And why shouldn’t he? They have let him know they’ll be ready to deal.

For those firms that fight back — and defend them and speak out in support of them and the rule of law — they are sending the message that they are not ready to deal.

They have principles.

1. Per London’s email, the agreement includes the following commitments by Skadden Arps:

• “Provide a total of at least $100 million in pro bono legal services, during the Trump Administration and beyond, to causes that the President and Skadden both support in relation to the following areas: assisting veterans and other public servants, including members of the military, law enforcement, first responders and federal, state, and local government officials; ensuring fairness in our justice system; and combatting antisemitism.”

• “Change our pro bono policy so that all pro bono moving forward will be done in the Firm name and ensure that pro bono activities represent the full political spectrum.”

• “Continue The Skadden Foundation's mission of providing pro bono legal services to a wide variety of deserving organizations and individuals. Skadden will fund no fewer than five Skadden Fellows each year dedicated to the following projects: assisting veterans; ensuring fairness in our justice system; combatting antisemitism; and other similar types of projects. Law graduates that receive Skadden Fellowships will represent a wide range of political views, including conservative ideals.”

• “Affirm our commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention, and we will not engage in illegal DEl discrimination and preferences. We will engage independent outside counsel to advise the Firm to ensure employment practices are fully compliant with law, including, but not limited to, anti-discrimination laws.”

• “Not deny representation to clients, such as politically disenfranchised groups who have not historically received legal representation from major national law firms, including in pro bono matters and in support of non-profits, because of the personal political views of individual lawyers. However, this commitment does not obligate any one of our attorneys to take on any specific representation.”

They are the same, substantively, as what Trump posted, although there are some minor differences in the wording in places.