Why Donald Trump’s Fight Against Big Law Is About Restoring Fairness to Our Justice System

If you ask me, given how perversely Big Law has warped our justice system, Trump is being too lenient.

It isn’t because many of the law firms being targeted by Donald Trump played a role, small or large, in the various hoaxes and impeachment attempts against him. They did. It isn’t because most of the partners of those law firms are hard left Democrats who provide a large amount of funding to the Left. They are. It isn’t because those law firms have managed to set up grossly parasitic legal practices heavily dependent on siphoning funds from taxpayers via federal contracts. They have. It isn’t because those law firms are no more deserving of the numerous security clearances held by their lawyers than the tens of thousands of lawyers scraping by at middle and small law firms in the National Capitol Region. They aren’t. It isn’t because those law firms serve as the revolving door outside of government where many of their partners land to influence peddle until they can once again enter government to do whatever it is they do. They are. It isn’t because those law firms discriminated against and blacklisted Trump Administration veterans simply looking to practice law after serving a president. They did.

All of these reasons are perfectly legitimate ones to strip these law firms of the special and undeserved privileges they’ve held for years and, in some cases, decades.

Trump’s fight against Big Law is vital because those law firms eagerly put the heft of their firms and top-notch skills of their lawyers to work representing terrorists who attacked our country and left-wing rioters, in some cases as pro bono clients, while refusing to do the same for any of the 1/6ers who faced a legal onslaught unparalleled in American history. To be clear, I’m not suggesting the terrorists and left-wing rioters weren’t entitled to legal counsel; rather, I’m suggesting that Big Law had no problem representing literal enemies of America and progressive Left rioters who attacked The White House, the Secret Service, and even Members of Congress, but couldn’t muster a mid-level associate to defend a senior citizen who did nothing more than trespass on January 6, 2021.

Instead, 1/6ers faced the enormous power of the entire federal government as power-hungry investigators at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) spared no expense to hunt and to track down every American whose cell phone appeared anywhere near the Capitol on January 6th (except the pipe bomber and Ray Epps); as overzealous prosecutors charged 1/6ers with every imaginable crime they could conceive of—even crimes they knew didn’t apply—while at the same time refusing to show even a scintilla of compassion as families were bankrupted, suicides mounted, and the accused rotted away in jails for months on end (except Epps); and as bloodthirsty and biased Inside the Beltway judges and juries took every opportunity to inflict as much punishment on their political enemies who they saw as stand-ins for Trump as they could (except Epps). As the investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries gleefully did their dastardly work, Big Law and the thousands of lawyers at those prestigious law firms sat on their hands believing the 1/6ers weren’t entitled to the best legal minds in America—the same legal minds that jumped into the arena for terrorists and left-wing violent rioters.

I’m not a lawyer. Yes, I went to law school and, yes, I practiced law for just over four years. As I like to say, I’ve been legally sober for over twenty-three years. I hate lawyers and think William Shakespeare was largely right when he had Dick the Butcher in Henry VI utter, “Let’s kill all the lawyers,” but one of the most impressive things I learned occurred when I was in law school. There was a professor at Ohio State, David Goldberger, who was Jewish. Goldberger represented the Nationalist Socialist Party of America (i.e., Neo-Nazis) in its effort to hold a rally in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977. Goldberger took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where he successfully argued that the Neo-Nazis had a First Amendment right to hold their rally in Skokie. Goldberger “learned at the hearing the next morning that Skokie, at the time, was 40 percent Jewish, and there was a significant percentage that were Holocaust survivors.”

He faced a barrage of criticism, much of it from fellow Jews. But it wasn't all anger and bile. "I remember a woman with a thick German accent spoke up in the back of one room in a clear, loud voice. And she said, 'I am a Holocaust survivor, and I believe you are doing the right thing because I want to know who my enemies are. I want to be able to see them. I don't want them driven underground.'"

Goldberger empathized with many of his Jewish critics but was driven to defend the neo-Nazis precisely because of his heritage. "Part of the baseline of my values—that everyone should be treated fairly and equally under the law—can be traced to my own upbringing as a Jew. That Jews have had a hard time through history and have constantly been a target of hatred and abuse, and the only defense against that hatred and abuse are laws that are applied to everybody," Goldberger said. "So I basically stood my ground and made no secret of the fact that I was Jewish.”

…

But there was a steep price to pay too. Goldberger faced threats from friends and foes alike and experienced problems within his most intimate social circles too. "It was our mutual experience that even our friends would at least question, if not attack, what we were doing," Goldberger told The New York Times. "It became a very isolated existence and one which could easily have led to a lot of bitterness."

He also faced attacks from colleagues in legal circles. "Philip Kurland, a noted constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago who had taught Mr. Goldberger as [a] law student, disagreed publicly with the court decisions upholding the Nazis' rights," the Times reported. "I am troubled by a dictum once attributed to Huey Long," Mr. Kurland told an audience at the university. "'When fascism comes to this country, it will come in the name of freedom.’"

"That was troubling," Goldberger told the Times. "Part of it forced me to face my adulthood. I wasn't a student anymore." But more disturbing, he said, was that his old professor felt "compelled to cite Huey Long at all, as opposed to Thomas Jefferson."

Goldberger eventually moved his family out of Illinois.

I was blown away by Goldberger’s willingness to put the U.S. Constitution ahead of his personal views, his national origin and religious background, and his own standing within his community. Goldberger represented what was best about lawyers and the American system of justice.

Where were the Goldbergers within Big Law when it came to 1/6ers? Are there no conservatives at Big Law willing to stand up for what is right?

At the end of the day, keep in mind that all Trump is doing when it comes to Big Law is withdrawing the undeserved special privileges it has accumulated over the years simply as a creature of Washington, D.C. Security clearances should come and go based on particular cases. I lost my SCI security clearance (the highest you can get) the day I left my job at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. That is how it should be. The practice in which so many people keep their security clearances upon leaving federal service needs to end. Trump has been clear about his essential thrust against Big Law:

My Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called “Big Law” firms, that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. Many firms take actions that threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles. Moreover, law firms regularly conduct this harmful activity through their powerful pro bono practices, earmarking hundreds of millions of their clients’ dollars for destructive causes, that often directly or indirectly harm their own clients. Lawyers and law firms that engage in such egregious conduct should not have access to our Nation’s secrets, nor should such conduct be subsidized by Federal taxpayer funds or contracts.

While partisans may see all of the activities done by partners at Big Law firms against Trump, his Administration, and 1/6ers differently, it is unequivocally true that men like Andrew Weissmann, Marc Elias, Michael Sussmann, and the scores of lawyers who worked with them engaged in improper conduct and abused their government access and employment for partisan purposes. The fact that the FBI had a satellite office at Perkins Coie is beyond absurd. Trump is settling with law firms willing to end their partisan practices in a manner that doesn’t benefit him or his Administration; rather, the settlements are aimed at broader societal goals. Here is part of the settlement with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom:

1. Skadden will provide a total of at least $100 Million Dollars in pro bono Legal Services, during the Trump Administration and beyond, to causes that the President and Skadden both support, in relation to the following areas: Assisting Veterans and other Public Servants, including members of the Military, Law Enforcement, First Responders, and Federal, State, and Local Government Officials; ensuring fairness in our Justice System; and combatting Antisemitism. Skadden will change its pro bono policy so that all pro bono moving forward will be done in the Firm name. A pro bono Committee will be constituted to ensure that pro bono matters are consistent with the objectives of the program, and that pro bono activities represent the full political spectrum.

2. The Skadden Foundation will commit to the mission of providing pro bono Legal Services to a wide variety of deserving organizations and individuals. Skadden is committed to funding no fewer than five Skadden Fellows each year dedicated to the following projects: Assisting Veterans; ensuring fairness in our Justice System; combatting Antisemitism, and other similar types of projects. Law Graduates that receive Skadden Fellowships will represent a wide range of political views, including conservative ideals.

3. Skadden affirms its commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention. Accordingly, the Firm will not engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences. Skadden will engage independent outside counsel to advise the Firm to ensure employment practices are fully compliant with Law, including, but not limited to, anti-discrimination Laws.

4. Skadden will not deny representation to clients, such as members of politically disenfranchised groups, who have not historically received legal representation from major National Law Firms, including in pro bono matters, and in support of non-profits, because of the personal political views of individual lawyers.

If the rest of Big Law is willing to agree to these terms, fairness is the justice system will return, which would be a good outcome for ALL. A justice system that remains blind to the accused’s political affiliation is the inheritance of every American. So in conclusion:

Neo-Nazis? Big Law says, “Well, of course!”

Terrorists? Big Law says, “Yes!”

Left-wing rioters? Big Law says, “Hell, yes!”

Any action against Trump? Big Law says, “Is the Pope catholic?”

BUT

1/6ers? Big Law says, “Never!”

Trump Administration veterans? Big Law says, “Don’t darken our doorsteps!”

If you ask me, given how perversely Big Law has warped our justice system, Trump is being too lenient.

ICYMI, listen to my interview from last Friday on the Bruce Hooley Show on 98.9FM The Answer.

P.S. The Hill ran an excellent op-ed, Congress Must Shield US Companies from European Regulations, that echoed much of what I’ve written and said in the past on the “regfare" (i.e., regulatory lawfare) the European Union has used for decades to harm U.S. companies in order to promote weaker European companies. The op-ed noted:

Europe today seeks creative ways to regulate the global operations of U.S. companies even if they have a small footprint in the E.U. The extraterritorial reach of E.U. rules can best be described as a 21st century version of European imperialism.

My favorite example of EU regfare is its requirement that Apple adopt the same charging device as other smartphone companies use so consumers don’t have to carry around multiple chargers while at the same time refusing to require a common electrical outlet in every EU country so consumers didn’t have to carry around converters for each country’s outlets. See the hypocrisy?

P.P.S. Last week, Mississippi became the 10th state to eliminate the state income tax. Ohio could have beaten Mississippi to the punch had it heeded the policy recommendation I made over a decade ago. Nonetheless, with Vivek Ramaswamy adopting my policy recommendation for his gubernatorial run, Ohio could start down that path as soon as 2027.