Law Firms Respond to Trump’s Call for Sanctions Against Lawyers
March 24, 2025, 11:20 am CDT
President Donald Trump speaks at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., on March 14. (Pool photo by the Associated Press)
In response to President Donald Trump’s recent directive concerning legal practices, two law firms have taken a public stand against the implications of his comments. The Executive Memo, issued late on a Friday, calls for penalties against lawyers and law firms deemed to engage in “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation” involving the U.S. government.
The firms, Selendy Gay and Keker, Van Nest & Peters, have expressed their support for other targeted firms, particularly Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling, along with the American Bar Association, regarding their commitment to uphold legal ethics. This comes in the wake of Trump’s executive orders that revoked security clearances for three major law firms due to their representation of specific clients. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison has agreed to lift sanctions after reaching an accord with the Trump administration, while Perkins Coie has filed litigation in response.
Content of the Executive Memo
The memo, dated March 22, urges the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to consider sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, highlighting a perceived trend of wrongful litigation against the federal government. It alleges that many attorneys have violated the rule that prohibits such frivolous legal actions. The document asserts that the government should take firm action against attorneys who engage in what it describes as baseless partisan legal challenges, particularly those that could affect national security or election integrity.
The directive includes recommendations for ethics referrals when attorneys exhibit such misconduct. Bondi is advised to also evaluate the professional duties of supervising partners regarding the actions of junior attorneys, emphasizing accountability at all levels within firms.
Examples of Alleged Misconduct
In support of its stance, the memo cites specific, alleged unethical practices within the immigration bar and describes how some lawyers supposedly coach clients to misrepresent their circumstances when seeking asylum, potentially undermining national security. Additionally, it accuses Marc Elias, a former attorney for Perkins Coie, of unethical behavior relating to the compilation of an alleged false dossier concerning Trump.
Legal advocacy organizations and a coalition of over a dozen prominent law firms have actively participated in litigation challenging various executive orders issued by the Trump administration, underscoring the contentious nature of these legal battles.
Industry Reaction
Amidst this climate, Selendy Gay has voiced that it rejects the idea that government can impose punitive measures on lawyers based on their client choices, and refutes the attempt to intimidate courts handling adverse cases. Similarly, Keker Van Nest characterized Trump’s actions as a direct assault on legal representation for unpopular causes, asserting that it is “inexcusable and despicable.” The firm has encouraged its colleagues to join in an amicus brief to support Perkins Coie’s legal challenge against the new executive orders.
These developments not only reflect ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and various legal entities but also highlight the critical role of legal ethics in the representation of clients, especially in politically sensitive cases.
