President Donald Trump’s decision to retaliate against Covington & Burling for their representation of former Special Counsel Jack Smith is causing concern among law firms about allowing attorneys to volunteer to represent former Justice Department officials. Covington & Burling is facing scrutiny after Trump’s administration withdrew the firm’s security clearances and threatened to cancel government contracts, according to a report from Bloomberg Law. This action has underscored an existing tension where private practice lawyers wishing to defend DOJ employees may encounter resistance from their firm’s leadership.
The dilemma is particularly visible in larger firms with significant presence in Washington, D.C. Attorneys at these firms often see participation in defense of civil servants facing administration backlash as part of a broader, nonpartisan effort to uphold democratic principles. However, firm leadership sometimes hesitates, primarily due to concerns about negative impacts on the firm’s brand and client relations. Clients may view support of Trump’s adversaries unfavorably, leading to potential economic repercussions for the firms involved.
Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer who assists governmental employees in need of legal defense, has observed a growing divide between firm leadership and attorneys eager to provide such assistance. Some firms have actively sought to prevent their attorneys from representing these DOJ workers, according to legal professionals familiar with these internal discussions. However, Zaid and others note that some proactive lawyers have found alternatives, such as discreetly supporting their associates in taking the lead on court filings.
Meanwhile, some firms are re-evaluating their stances as certain competitors have moved closer to Trump. Firms such as Sullivan & Cromwell and Jones Day have become more prominent in Trump’s legal strategies, further complicating the decisions other firms face in defining their political and client alignments. As firms contemplate the potential consequences of being perceived as partisan, there remains a degree of encouragement among those advocating for DOJ employees, as some individual attorneys continue to receive the go-ahead for pro bono work.
While some firms might feel pressure to avoid associations that could alienate clients, others might see an opportunity in cultivating a politically distinct reputation, which could attract a particular client demographic. This dynamic leaves firms grappling with the balance between principled legal defense and economic pragmatism.