When I ask Grok to recommend essays supporting Trump’s approach, it can’t find any. When I keep pushing, it notes some comments on X linking to these commentaries:
Joel Pollak lands some good points:
It remains to be seen whether these firms also fold. But they are finally facing the cost of their partisan behavior.
“Big Law” sits at the apex of a political pyramid that has served, until now, to institutionalize the power of the Democratic Party in American society.
While Democrats used frivolous Bar complaints to target lawyers and firms that dared to represent Trump, Democrat-aligned firms raked in business and enjoyed proximity to government power. Pro bono programs also allowed left-wing lawyers to continue the activism of their student days on the job.
Critics of the president claim that he is abusing his power to target his political opponents. The opposite is true: he is restoring balance and justice, allowing conservative attorneys and clients — as well as conservative law students — the same rights and opportunities that liberals have enjoyed.
While elite law schools are still, for now, dens of conformity, Big Law is getting a long-overdue reality check from Trump that will, hopefully, spread change throughout the system.
Former lawyer Matt A. Mayer writes:
Why Donald Trump’s Fight Against Big Law Is About Restoring Fairness to Our Justice System
If you ask me, given how perversely Big Law has warped our justice system, Trump is being too lenient.
It isn’t because many of the law firms being targeted by Donald Trump played a role, small or large, in the various hoaxes and impeachment attempts against him. They did. It isn’t because most of the partners of those law firms are hard left Democrats who provide a large amount of funding to the Left. They are. It isn’t because those law firms have managed to set up grossly parasitic legal practices heavily dependent on siphoning funds from taxpayers via federal contracts. They have. It isn’t because those law firms are no more deserving of the numerous security clearances held by their lawyers than the tens of thousands of lawyers scraping by at middle and small law firms in the National Capitol Region. They aren’t. It isn’t because those law firms serve as the revolving door outside of government where many of their partners land to influence peddle until they can once again enter government to do whatever it is they do. They are. It isn’t because those law firms discriminated against and blacklisted Trump Administration veterans simply looking to practice law after serving a president. They did.
All of these reasons are perfectly legitimate ones to strip these law firms of the special and undeserved privileges they’ve held for years and, in some cases, decades.
Trump’s fight against Big Law is vital because those law firms eagerly put the heft of their firms and top-notch skills of their lawyers to work representing terrorists who attacked our country and left-wing rioters, in some cases as pro bono clients, while refusing to do the same for any of the 1/6ers who faced a legal onslaught unparalleled in American history. To be clear, I’m not suggesting the terrorists and left-wing rioters weren’t entitled to legal counsel; rather, I’m suggesting that Big Law had no problem representing literal enemies of America and progressive Left rioters who attacked The White House, the Secret Service, and even Members of Congress, but couldn’t muster a mid-level associate to defend a senior citizen who did nothing more than trespass on January 6, 2021.
Instead, 1/6ers faced the enormous power of the entire federal government as power-hungry investigators at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) spared no expense to hunt and to track down every American whose cell phone appeared anywhere near the Capitol on January 6th (except the pipe bomber and Ray Epps); as overzealous prosecutors charged 1/6ers with every imaginable crime they could conceive of—even crimes they knew didn’t apply—while at the same time refusing to show even a scintilla of compassion as families were bankrupted, suicides mounted, and the accused rotted away in jails for months on end (except Epps); and as bloodthirsty and biased Inside the Beltway judges and juries took every opportunity to inflict as much punishment on their political enemies who they saw as stand-ins for Trump as they could (except Epps). As the investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries gleefully did their dastardly work, Big Law and the thousands of lawyers at those prestigious law firms sat on their hands believing the 1/6ers weren’t entitled to the best legal minds in America—the same legal minds that jumped into the arena for terrorists and left-wing violent rioters…
The fact that the FBI had a satellite office at Perkins Coie is beyond absurd.
Grok says:
Across these sources, key supportive themes emerge:
Anti-Elitism: Big Law is cast as an arrogant, liberal monolith that Trump bravely challenges to protect ordinary Americans.Lawfare Retribution: Trump’s moves are seen as payback for firms’ roles in investigations (e.g., Jan. 6, classified documents), framed as justified rather than vindictive.
Restoring Balance: Supporters argue these firms’ partisan leanings (via pro bono work or client choices) distort justice, and Trump’s pressure corrects this imbalance.
Practical Wins: Concessions from firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden are touted as proof Trump’s strategy works, forcing accountability without needing courts.
Limitations and Context
Recency: Most explicit commentary clusters around late March 2025, reflecting the escalation of Trump’s orders (e.g., Covington ban on Feb. 25, Perkins Coie hit on March 6). April 1-2 content is sparse, suggesting the narrative is still forming.X Sentiment: Posts on X are short and lack depth but show real-time grassroots enthusiasm, often linking to conservative sites for fuller arguments.
@marcorandazza (March 29, 2025, 09:58 PDT)
“For all of you flipping out about what Trump is doing to biglaw, it’s the same old game, it’s just Trump is not very elegant at it. Why do you think bigLaw fell over itself to volunteer to defend terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, but black balled anyone who defended a J6er?”Why It’s Notable: This post, from a user with a legal perspective (implied by the handle), defends Trump by arguing Big Law’s hypocrisy—eagerly taking on leftist causes while shunning conservative ones—makes it a fair target. The blunt tone and provocative examples (Guantánamo vs. Jan. 6) appeal to Trump supporters who see his approach as exposing double standards, even if “not elegant.”
How Trump is exploiting Big Law’s identity crisis
Firms like Paul Weiss have hired star lawyers to expand in dealmaking. Fear of losing business has made them less willing to have a fight with the government
Over the past two decades, dealmaking has become a much more important part of the business models of many of the larger firms, buoyed in part by the explosive growth of the private equity industry and hedge funds. This shift has brought with it a coterie of star lawyers and pay packages that mirror those of their Wall Street clients.
For {Brad] Karp, who has chaired Paul Weiss since 2008, the attack has represented a brutal personal reversal. An outspoken Wall Street supporter of the Democratic party, he had helped raise millions of dollars for Kamala Harris. Had she won, Karp was in the running to be US attorney-general, the highest ranking lawyer in America, according to multiple Democratic party operatives and donors.
… Shortly after Trump targeted Perkins Coie and Covington, Karp contacted the heads of several law firms to try to organise support for them. The response was almost non-existent, and also failed to materialise when the White House issued an executive order against Paul Weiss….
“Most firm leaders would do exactly what Brad did,” says a chair from one of the country’s top law firms. “We — and I talk to everyone — are all incredibly grateful because it allows the industry, it gives us a blueprint, to resolve things in a constructive way.”
“No one is willing to go on the record because everyone’s concerned. I don’t want to pop my head up because you don’t know how it’s going to get smacked. But that’s very different from saying we don’t support what was done.”
Another corporate adviser is more blunt: “It was a mafia-like shakedown . . . There was no choice. Do you have a choice whether to pay the mob?”
