A federal court in Washington DC appears to have put the brakes on president Donald Trump’s attempt to punish a law firm apparently for political reasons.
An executive order signed by Trump last week tried to place sweeping restrictions on the global firm Perkins Coie, citing its ‘dishonest and dangerous activity’ in representing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. The order stopped the firm from doing business with federal contractors and denied lawyers access to government officials and buildings.
Perkins Coie, which opened a UK office last year, issued proceedings against the US government, calling the order ‘an affront to the constitution and our adversarial system of justice’.
The Perkins Coie filing continued: ‘[The order’s] plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his administration.’
Following a hearing on Wednesday, US District Judge Beryl Howell granted the firm’s request for a temporary restraining order against Trump’s order, adding that the legal profession was ‘watching in horror’ at developments in the White House.
Perkins Coie said Howell’s ruling was ‘an important first step in ensuring this unconstitutional executive order is never enforced’.
Trump has also made an executive order involving US firm Covington, revoking security clearances for two lawyers who advised Jack Smith, a special counsel appointed under the Biden administration who brought criminal charges against Trump.
There has been surprise in some quarters at the lack of condemnation from the legal profession in the US, with few law firms speaking out publicly in support of Perkins Coie and Covington.
Rachel Cohen, a Chicago-based finance associate, pointed out on Linkedin she was the only contributor to an article for The American Lawyer who had spoken on the record, with the rest remaining anonymous.
Cohen said: ‘If the industry signals that it will be cowed by the Trump administration, the overarching outcome for challenges to said administration is the same. If comments are only given anonymously, public pressure and outrage is easy to dismiss.’
The American Bar Association issued a statement earlier this month attacking government attempts to punish lawyers who represent certain clients. ‘Clients have the right to have access to their lawyer without interference by the government,’ said the ABA. ‘Lawyers must be free to represent clients and perform their ethical duty without fear of retribution. These government actions deny clients access to justice and betray our fundamental values.’
6 Readers' comments