On April 4, Whistleblower Partners joined over 500 law firms who signed an amicus (friend of the court) brief supporting the suit filed by the law firm Perkins Coie against the Trump Administration. Unfortunately, none of the top 20 law firms in the country (based on annual revenue) signed the brief, often citing the very real potential threat to their business that could result from speaking out. So why did we sign? Our decision was motivated by concerns similar to those that motivate our whistleblower clients, so the decision flowed naturally from our chosen practice area.
The lawsuit challenges an Executive Order signed by President Trump singling out the Perkins firm for retribution, which included (i) suspending the security clearances of Perkins attorneys, (ii) requiring government contractors doing business with Perkins to disclose those relationships, (iii) terminating any government contract where Perkins has been retained to perform any services, (iv) limiting access, and potentially barring Perkins attorneys from entering any federal building, and (v) refraining from hiring Perkins attorneys for any government position. The Executive Order cites Perkins’ participation in representing Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton as the basis for its punishment.
Apart from Perkins’ representation of Senator Clinton, President Trump has long voiced antipathy for the firm, especially one of its former partners, Marc Elias. Trump has publicly expressed loathing for Elias in the past, referring to him in 2018 as the Democrats’ “best Election stealing lawyer,” who “miraculously started finding Democrat votes” in Broward County, Florida.
Law Firms at the Center of the Administration’s Retribution Campaign
Trump has not limited his retribution campaign to Perkins and Elias. He has issued similar Executive Orders punishing other law firms who have represented Trump’s political enemies. He issued a punitive Executive Order against Jenner & Block, citing Jenner’s decision to rehire Andrew Weissman, who worked with Special Counsel Robert Mueller on the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. He issued a similar Executive Order against WilmerHale for rehiring attorneys after they finished work on the Mueller investigation. And he issued a third Executive Order against Covington & Burling, which, remarkably, cited no “wrongdoing” other than the firm’s recent decision to represent Special Counsel Jack Smith following Trump’s suggestion to open a criminal investigation of him. Apparently, any attorney with the temerity to provide legal representation to certain White House “enemies” is automatically subject to government sanctions.
Multiple courts have found these orders likely illegal and stopped them from taking effect. However, in many cases, the damage may already have been done, as firms lose clients with business ties to the Trump administration. As one commenter observed, this is “economic assassination dressed up as executive action.”
Still other large law firms headed off similar punishment by capitulating to Trump and agreeing to perform massive amounts of pro bono (free) work on causes that Trump supports, including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Wilkie Farr and Milbank.
All these firms are household names in the nation’s law schools, and all have robust nationwide legal practices. It has been jarring to see them singled out by name in a McCarthy-like purge. And make no mistake, Whistleblower Partners did not sign the Perkins brief because of a desire to benefit our “friends.” Nearly all of the firms Trump has singled out represent companies that our firm routinely targets and sues. We have been on opposite sides and battled nearly all of them. There is a larger principle at stake.
Nonpartisan Collapse
Whistleblower Partners does not take partisan political positions, and this amicus brief is no exception. We represent whistleblowers whose views span the entire political spectrum. As many others have observed, the Trump Administration’s retribution campaign attacks the entire legal profession, including law firms that employ mostly Republican attorneys. Indeed, WilmerHale’s challenge to the Trump Executive Orders is led by Paul Clement, one of the most prominent conservative attorneys in the country.
The 500 signatories to the Perkins brief also reflect that diversity. As the brief explains, many of those who signed “advocate for the interests of the Nation’s leading business and financial institutions,” while others “advocate for the interests of small businesses, nonprofit organizations, consumers, workers and other individuals.” They “hold a wide range of political, social and economic views” but are “united in their support for the integrity of the adversarial system and the rule of law.”
If these Executive Orders are allowed to stand, firms dominated by Republicans could find themselves in the crosshairs of the next Democratic president. When lawyers are cowed from representing those who challenge power, the legal system risks a nonpartisan collapse.
The Risks and Rewards of Whistleblowing
Our decision to sign the amicus brief closely aligns with our representation of whistleblowers. Our clients often raise their voices to object to wrongdoing at their own companies, thereby risking their employment and even their careers. They choose to accept those risks in part because they believe strongly that they are doing the right thing by objecting to unlawful activity.
Whistleblower firms who ask their clients to take those risks should be willing to take them as well. Here at Whistleblower Partners, we certainly take that view and welcome clients looking for someone to guide them through the potential risks and rewards of speaking out.
