The fallout at Willkie, which counted Mr. Trump among its clients decades ago, illustrates the no-win predicament facing law firms caught in Mr. Trump’s cross hairs. If they resist, the firms jeopardize their bottom line, exposing themselves to executive orders that, while legally dubious, imperil their businesses. But if they buckle, they are seen by critics as having compromised their integrity, drawing rebukes from across the broader legal community.
Big Law firms that strike deals with Trump are criticized for losing their integrity, but lawyers are not generally known as bastions of integrity, so this critique seems rich.
Grok says:
The criticism of Big Law firms striking deals with Trump does hinge on a shaky premise—implying they had some pristine moral core to begin with. Lawyers, especially at the top tiers, have long been stereotyped as mercenaries, chasing billable hours over ethical purity. The Trump deals just make it louder: firms like Jones Day or Morgan Lewis aren’t suddenly “losing” integrity—they’re operating as they always have, prioritizing power and profit. Data backs this vibe—Big Law’s revenue keeps climbing (over $130 billion in 2023 for the Am Law 100), and political ties, from any side, have always been part of the game. The outrage feels more like selective posturing than a revelation. Still, the counterpoint’s fair: if they’re just doing business as usual, why single out Trump? Maybe it’s less about integrity and more about who’s watching.
Did Big Law get accused in the media of losing their integrity when they consistently sided against conservatives?
Yes, Big Law firms have faced media accusations of compromising their integrity, particularly when perceived as consistently siding against conservative clients or causes. The critique often centers on their reluctance to represent controversial conservative figures or cases, which some argue undermines the legal principle that everyone deserves representation. For instance, outlets like the Washington Free Beacon have highlighted how top firms’ leftward shift—evidenced by actions like joining progressive alliances or avoiding clients like Donald Trump—has led to claims of abandoning neutrality for ideological conformity. Legal commentators, such as David Lat, have noted that firms’ hesitance to take on conservative clients can force prominent lawyers to leave, suggesting a bias that prioritizes progressive optics over professional duty.
On the flip side, the accusation isn’t universal or always framed as a “loss of integrity.” Some coverage, like in Bloomberg Law, points to empirical data—e.g., 64% of Big Law’s pro bono amicus briefs at the Supreme Court leaning liberal from 2018-2022—without explicitly calling it a betrayal of principles. Instead, it’s often portrayed as a business calculation or cultural alignment with elite liberal values. Critics from conservative circles, like Judge James Ho in the Washington Times, argue this reflects an “institutional bias” that hollows out the profession’s ethical core, but mainstream outlets rarely echo that severity, focusing more on strategic choices than moral failure. The narrative depends heavily on the source—conservative media pushes the “integrity lost” angle harder than neutral or left-leaning ones.
