Big law is starting to look like a line of dominoes. Not alike in the white color or ubiquitous rectangle shape, but in the ritual of lining up each domino until finding the courage to let the first one fall.
Right now that first domino is tipping. Trump's recent actions are setting law firms up for a chain reaction far less innocent.
Recently, the District of Columbia Bar’s Ethics Committee released an opinion on which clients law firms should take on. When considering representation of a client, the opinion states that law firms and lawyers should first examine "whether the arrangement would prevent the firm from providing conflict-free representation to clients — existing and new — who are adverse to the relevant government." Since law firms should "represent clients zealously and diligently,'" they are recommended to take three options: drop the client, pull out of its government agreements or obtain a conflict-of-interest waiver form.
For context, the DC Bar is the body that sets policies governing lawyers' conduct in relation to their clients. Reinforcing this governance is the Rules of Professional Conduct, which primarily address legal ethics.
As someone planning to pursue corporate law in the future, I naturally found myself asking: how is this affecting entry into big law? Are there actions I should take to prepare myself for the change? And, more fundamentally, how did we get here?
The answer to the latter lies in the series of attacks Trump launched earlier this year. Through a set of executive orders, he terminated government contracts with five law firms and barred federal employees from interacting with them. He claimed that these firms played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and foundational “American principles.” But at its core, his motivations clearly lie elsewhere. The pattern was disturbing, yet obvious: targeting firms that had previously opposed Trump or other federal employees in the past.
This ulterior motive is not just unjust, it is a blatant weaponization of our legal system. If we start treating law firms like high school friend groups where we can "drop" them at our own volition, and force others to drop them too, we aren't dealing with politics — we're entertaining drama.
Worse, we must ask ourselves how this affects the future of our legal system. If our president has the power to blackmail firms that go against him, how far can he push those firms until they have nothing left? This power imbalance will not only create a narrative of survival of the fittest — only law firms with the capacity and resources to fight Trump will survive — but also push the narrative that survival equals agreement with the current government.
The District of Columbia's recent actions reflect Trump's earlier ones. Although the opinion did not specifically mention Trump, it contained explicit references to his administration's pressure on law firms not to challenge government policies or any member of the executive branch. As we assess just how far his actions have permeated the contemporary landscape of big law, we must also determine how far they will continue to permeate the future.
Trump's executive orders were the catalyst, and if action isn't taken soon, like any domino reaction, we must prepare ourselves for what may topple next.
Ella Pham '29 is an Opinion Columnist studying Economics in the College of Arts and Sciences. Her column Ellaments of Truth explores ethics in professional fields, attempting to give voice to underserved communities. She analyzes business, politics, and history, in an effort to make broad trends understandable truths. She can be reached at epham@cornellsun.com.
