Why We Signed Onto the Amicus Briefs Challenging Attacks on Law Firms

During the first few months of his presidency, President Trump targeted a number of law firms with Executive Orders. These Executive Orders restricted these law firms’ abilities to represent clients by rescinding security clearances, removing access to federal buildings, and requiring federal agencies to terminate any contracts they have with these firms. Heads of federal agencies were also instructed to encourage employees to limit engagement with employees of these firms, implementing restrictions on hiring former employees. 

President Trump claimed his motivations were based on national interest and preventing racial discrimination, but he specifically targeted firms with clients or interests he disliked. Perkins Coie, the first of four law firms to file a lawsuit in response to the Trump Executive Orders, had previously represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. During the 2016 Presidential campaign, they hired Fusion GPS to look into her opponent, current President Trump. Jenner & Block was targeted for doing pro bono work for transgender individuals and asylum seekers, and Susman Godfrey was targeted for representing Dominion Voting in their defamation suit against Fox News. WilmerHale faced retaliation, like Perkins Coie, for its involvement in investigations into Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Each law firm felt the weight of the Executive Orders immediately as they started to lose clients.

In a recent court ruling enjoining the Trump Executive Order issued against Jenner & Block, District Judge John D. Bates noted: “More than forty percent of Jenner’s revenue comes from government contractors, subcontractors, or affiliates, … the order puts that revenue at grave risk.”

Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto chose to sign all four of the amicus briefs filed in support of these law firms because we agree the with the key principle at the core of the brief in the Perkins Coie case: “For our system of justice to operate, members of the bar must be free to advocate zealously for all their clients, large and small, rich and poor, without fear of retribution. They must be free, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, to defend ‘the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws.’” Hundreds of other law firms joined in signing these amicus briefs to demonstrate their support for those law firms that were targeted by the Trump administration. 

In all four cases, the Courts declared these Executive Orders to be null and void on the grounds that they violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. These Executive Orders infringed upon constitutional protections from retaliation against speech protected by the First Amendment and individuals’ right to choose counsel. If these Executive Orders were not enjoined from taking effect, it would have created serious challenges for many individuals to find representation if their interests did not align with the Trump administration.

Citing “national interest” as a valid reason to sanction any law firm the President disproves of represents a dangerous expansion of executive power that threatens any law firm. District Judge Beryl Howell highlighted that this comes “at the expense of the constitutionally mandated role of the judicial branch and the concomitant safeguards for the individual rights of Americans.”

In the memorandum opinions filed by both District Judge Howell and District Judge Bates, the judges affirm that President Trump clearly targeted law firms that “represented clients the President does not like, represented clients seeking litigation results the President does not like, and represented clients challenging some of the President’s actions, which he also does not like. That is unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.”

District Judge Bates underlines President Trump’s intention to threaten other law firms by concluding that the Trump administration “seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers. It thus violates the Constitution and the Court will enjoin its operation in full.”

As a whistleblower law firm, Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto is committed to representing individuals seeking justice and truth regardless of their popularity with the government. Over the years, we have represented many individuals who became unpopular or were ostracized for having blown the whistle or sued the government to vindicate their rights and the rights of others. In more recent years, we have represented those who have risked their careers to report illegal conduct, fraud and abuse to protect taxpayers, consumers and investors. Reporting wealthy tax cheats, securities fraudsters or government contracting fraud is not a popular endeavor. In order for there to be justice under law, clients must have access to lawyers and the courts without fear of retribution. If the government can “chill” and retaliate against lawyers then what hope exists for their clients?

We believe that lawyers have an ethical duty to ensure the integrity of their profession and to prevent the government from interfering with individuals’ right to counsel, which is protected by the Constitution. We are proud to have signed onto amicus briefs challenging these attacks on the legal profession and the rule of law.