Earlier this week, Fabio Bertoni, General Counsel at the New Yorker, critiqued the deterioration of the rule of law in 2025, attributing it to the acquiescence of nine major law firms to the Trump administration. Bertoni suggests these firms could have curtailed Trump's early momentum toward lawlessness by standing united in defense of legal norms.

While it's tempting to lay full blame on these firms, the broader political landscape also shares responsibility. Despite Trump's overt declarations of a lawless future regime, many Republican officials and federal judges have either remained passive or actively supported the erosion of governance norms.

The first major law firm to capitulate was Paul, Weiss, surprising many given its previous commitment to social justice. The firm agreed to a deal just six days after a controversial executive order from Trump, committing to provide $40 million in pro bono services to support the administration's initiatives and to eschew any DEI policies. This move spurred eight other major firms to follow suit, leading to nearly a billion dollars in pro bono services pledged to Trump-approved causes.

This backlash was not just about the firms themselves; it had a ripple effect across the entire industry. Other firms, wary of attracting Trump's ire, began altering their DEI programs and reducing their pro bono engagements, particularly those that might provoke federal scrutiny. The chilling effect extended to the reduction in public interest representations and an overall retreat from advocacy against Trump’s policies.

Perkins Coie stood out as one of the few firms to challenge Trump's executive order, demonstrating the potential for resistance within the legal community. However, even this resistance was tempered by caution, as the firm tightened controls on attorneys' personal expressions to avoid further controversy.

The broader implication of these deals is a stark reminder of how easily authoritarianism can co-opt powerful institutions not through outright conflict but through calculated acquiescence. In this context, the actions of Biglaw firms represent not just a business decision but a significant ethical and societal retreat.

The industry's willingness to compromise has not only affected the firms involved but also set a concerning precedent for legal resistance to authoritarian moves. This episode in legal history underscores the complex interplay between business interests and moral responsibility, challenging the industry to reflect on its role in shaping the rule of law.