How Should Biglaw and the Bar Respond to Executive Overreach

How Should Biglaw and the Bar Respond to Executive Overreach

In March 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders that sparked an unprecedented confrontation between the legal profession and the federal government. According to an Attorney at Work article by Camille Stell, VP of Risk & Practice Management for Lawyers Mutual Liability Insurance, the orders targeted major law firms perceived as adversaries of the administration, imposing punitive measures such as revoking security clearances, suspending federal contracts, and demanding settlements in exchange for relief. 

While some firms, like Skadden, chose to negotiate and pledged hundreds of millions in pro bono work aligned with administration priorities, others mounted legal challenges, citing constitutional violations and threats to legal independence.

Stell highlights that firms like Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey filed lawsuits against these orders. Federal judges have already issued temporary restraining orders halting enforcement in multiple cases, with motions for permanent injunctions underway. These cases have drawn widespread support across the legal community, including amicus briefs from over 500 firms, hundreds of solo practitioners, and bar associations nationwide. The American Bar Association has strongly condemned the orders, emphasizing the risk they pose to core legal values.

For law firm leaders, Stell says this moment demands reflection and resolve. The independence of the legal profession is foundational to democracy. According to Stell, capitulating to political pressure and executive overreach compromises professional integrity and public trust, even in the form of coerced pro bono work. 

Stell suggests managing partners affirm their firm’s commitment to the rule of law, encourage internal dialogue on ethical resistance, and publicly support bar-led advocacy efforts. Whether through litigation, public statements, or amicus participation, law firms have both the platform and responsibility to resist encroachments on legal neutrality.