The nation’s largest and one of its oldest legal organizations has filed a federal lawsuit seeking a restraining order to prevent President Donald Trump and his cabinet members from implementing a policy of “intimidation and coercion” against law firms that represent clients and causes the president does not like.
The American Bar Association, which has nearly 200,000 lawyers and judges as members, accuses President Trump of using “the vast powers of the Executive Branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like.”
In the 85-page lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., the ABA argues that President Trump developed and implemented a policy of law firm intimidation “through a series of materially identical executive orders designed to severely damage particular law firms and intimidate other firms and lawyers.” The Trump administration’s policy has created a “chill of blizzard proportions [that] continues to grip most of the top law firms and lawyers in the country,” the complaint states.
The ABA lawsuit also points to a series of similar deals or settlements between the Trump administration and certain law firms in order to avoid such orders or have pending orders rescinded.
“The president’s attacks on law firms through the law firm orders are thus not isolated events, but one component of a broader, deliberate policy designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the president or his administration in court, or from even speaking publicly in support of policies or causes that the president does not like,” the lawsuit states.
Houston-based Susman Godfrey, including Houston partners Justin Nelson, Neal Manne and Harry Susman and Dallas partner Barry Barnett, are leading the litigation for the ABA.
Starting in March, President Trump issued a half-dozen executive orders against large corporate law firms, including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Paul Weiss, accusing them of “spearheading efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrading the quality of American elections” and “undermining the effectiveness of the United States military.” The EOs also accuse the firms of racially discriminatory practices via their diversity and inclusion programs.
The executive orders revoked the security clearances of lawyers at those law firms, banned the lawyers from federal buildings and prohibited them from representing clients with government contracts.
The president also issued an executive order instructing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to crack down on law firms that bring “frivolous and vexatious” lawsuits against the government.
Three law firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — filed lawsuits challenging their constitutionality.
Paul Weiss, stating that the EO created an “existential crisis” and could destroy the firm, reached a settlement agreement with the Trump administration.
President Trump signed an executive order targeting Susman Godfrey on April 9. The Texas law firm sued and is awaiting a decision by a federal judge in Washington, D.C.
Since late March, nine large corporate law firms — including Skadden Arps, Willkie Farr, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, A&O Shearman and Simpson Thacher — have signed settlement agreements with the White House, agreeing to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal work on matters approved by the Trump administration.
“In the end, the president was not simply punishing Paul Weiss; he was dragooning Paul Weiss into his service,” the ABA lawsuit states. “Even more importantly, the president was sending a message in order to coerce Paul Weiss and other law firms into abandoning representations, speech, and other conduct the President dislikes (such as immigration cases or diversity initiatives).”
“These firms all agreed to represent clients in pro bono cases approved by the administration, and to jettison hiring practices disdained by the president,” the complaint states. “These ‘settlements’ are apparently not in writing or enforceable by the law firms, so the president can change his mind at any time and impose an executive order if the firms stray too far from the president’s wishes — thus maintaining the coercive effect of the policy even against ‘settling’ law firms.”
The ABA argues that the Trump administration’s policy is “working as designed.”
“Law firms that once proudly contributed thousands of hours of pro bono work to a host of causes — including causes championed by the ABA — have withdrawn from such work because it is disfavored by the administration, particularly work that would require law firms to litigate against the federal government,” the ABA lawsuit states. “News reports and studies already show that most top firms are lying low, trying to avoid being hit with similar executive orders. Public-interest organizations (including the ABA) that have historically relied heavily on top law firms to bring pro bono cases — particularly against the federal government to challenge unlawful executive action — face serious and sometimes existential crises, as those same law firms are declining to represent these organizations.”
The case is American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 1:25-cv-01888.