The fight over Trump’s legal bullying campaign makes for odd alliances
- Share via
- While many are caving, Usha Vance’s former law firm is fighting Trump in court.
- Doug Emhoff’s firm has capitulated to Trump, to the unhappiness of the former second gentleman.
Lawfare makes for strange bedfellows.
As part of his tightening grip on power, and his assault on 200-plus years of checks and balances, President Trump has bludgeoned some of the nation’s leading law firms into shameful submission, extracting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free legal work for his pet causes.
More significantly, the vengeful felon-in-chief has sent a clear-cut message: Oppose his heedless, plainly unconstitutional actions in court — one of the only avenues left to fight Trump’s creeping authoritarianism — and there will be a dear price to pay.
Given that choice — between principle and profits — many high-powered litigators have collapsed like a cheap umbrella.
But not all.
Last week, the L.A.-based law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson filed a federal court brief denouncing Trump’s targeting of Perkins Coie — which numbered Hillary Clinton among past clients — and other legal firms facing wrongful retribution for, among other things, holding the Jan. 6 rioters to account.
Trump’s actions “pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself,” the firm said in its brief. “The looming threat ... is not lost on anyone practicing law in this country today: any controversial representation challenging actions of the current administration (or even causes it disfavors) now brings with it the risk of devastating retaliation.”
The Trump administration’s refusal to ‘facilitate’ the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is an attack on our most basic expectations of American justice.
The ranks of Munger, Tolles used to include one Usha Vance, who resigned in the summer after her husband, JD, was chosen as Trump’s vice presidential running mate and avenging mini-me.
Small world.
The political views of America’s second lady are something of a well-kept mystery.
Though she clerked for the conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the even-more conservative Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh before his ascension to the Supreme Court, Vance was a registered Democrat until at least 2014. By signing on with Munger, Tolles, the Yale Law School graduate embraced a firm that describes its corporate culture as “radically progressive.”
Its reputation is no secret. In a 2019 column, the American Lawyer called Munger, Tolles “a top contender in the cool, woke category” — which is about as far removed from the Trump World groove as it gets. Kind of like a drag queen showing up at a MAGA picnic.
It’s impossible to know what’s going on inside Vance’s head as she finds her old law firm so fiercely at odds with her new political peer group. But there was a definite hostage-video vibe to her appearances during the presidential campaign, giving students of body language a speculative field day.
Also worth noting: The second lady’s mom is a UC San Diego provost and big promoter of diversity, equity and inclusion — which Trump regards with the enmity other presidents once reserved for Al Qaeda and the former Soviet Union. Who wouldn’t love to be a fly on the wall when the extended Vance family gets together?
As it happens, the nation’s former second gentleman, as Doug Emhoff was known, is also crossways with his legal firm.
Kamala Harris’ spouse, a longtime entertainment, media and intellectual property attorney in Los Angeles, joined the white-shoe law firm of Willkie Farr & Gallagher after the former vice president left the White House. This month, Willkie Farr caved to Trump’s intimidation campaign, agreeing to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal work during Trump’s presidency and beyond.
The firm’s services will be dedicated to helping veterans, Gold Star families, law enforcement offices and first responders — all unarguably meritorious individuals deserving of support. Still, blackmail is no way to enlist the firm’s good counsel.
By coincidence, Emhoff spoke to Georgetown Law School students shortly before a preening Trump announced Willkie Farr’s surrender on social media.
President Trump’s defiance of court orders in a case involving a resident of Maryland being wrongly deported to a Salvadoran prison has pushed the country to a constitutional tipping point, according to legal experts.
“The rule of law is under attack. Democracy is under attack,” Emhoff said. “And so, all of us lawyers need to do what we can to push back on that. Us lawyers have always been on the front lines, fighting for civil rights, for justice. ... I love being a lawyer, this is what we do: We fight for people. We fight for what’s right.”
Emhoff subsequently made known his unhappiness with the firm’s capitulation, though he’s stopped short of quitting — as some have urged — to protest its bended knee.
“I disagree with the decision that my firm made to settle — I do,” he said at a recent Los Angeles fundraiser for Bet Tzedek, a legal aid organization Emhoff has supported for more than 30 years. “I wanted them to fight a patently unconstitutional potential executive order.
“Our legal system depends on the willingness of institutions — law firms, clients — to stand firm, and stand together,” he went on. “They need to do that in the face of pressure and we need to do it to defend the principles that define our democracy.
“At this very critical moment, I urge my colleagues across the legal profession to remain vigilant, engaged and unafraid to challenge actions that may erode our fundamental rights.”
Emhoff’s summons was a clarion call, crisp and clear.
Would that a certain resident of the vice presidential mansion add her public voice to the fight to preserve the rule of law and protect our imperiled democracy.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The author argues that President Trump’s legal intimidation campaign has coerced major law firms into prioritizing profits over principle, extracting over $100 million in free legal services from Willkie Farr & Gallagher alone. This tactic aims to silence opposition by threatening retaliation against firms that challenge his administration’s unconstitutional actions.
- Munger, Tolles & Olson is praised for resisting Trump’s pressure, filing a federal brief warning that his actions “pose a grave threat to ... constitutional governance” and risk chilling legal advocacy nationwide. The firm’s stance contrasts with Usha Vance’s political alignment as second lady, highlighting tensions between her past affiliation with the “radically progressive” firm and her current role in a Trump-aligned administration.
- Former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff openly criticizes his firm’s capitulation, urging lawyers to “remain vigilant ... and unafraid to challenge actions that may erode our fundamental rights”. His remarks underscore a broader call for legal institutions to defend democracy amid authoritarian pressures.
Different views on the topic
- Five major law firms, including Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins, have agreed to provide $500 million in pro bono services for Trump-backed initiatives, such as supporting veterans and combating antisemitism, while abandoning diversity efforts[3]. These settlements reflect a trend of firms prioritizing survival over ethical commitments, with total pledged services exceeding $900 million[3].
- Legal analyst Robert Reich condemns capitulating firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps for “disgrac[ing] the legal community” by settling with Trump, contrasting them with firms like Jenner & Block that continue fighting his “unconstitutional executive orders”[5]. Reich argues such deals embolden Trump’s authoritarian tactics and undermine democratic safeguards[5].
- The American Bar Association condemns Trump’s retaliation against lawyers as a “dangerous strike against an impartial justice system,” emphasizing that attorneys must represent clients without fear of government retribution[1][2]. This aligns with federal Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling that Trump’s order against Perkins Coie risked a “chilling harm of blizzard proportions”[2].
- Washington State legal organizations and the Seattle National Lawyers Guild warn that Trump’s targeting of centrist firms like Perkins Coie sets a precedent for broader attacks on judges, government officials, and constitutional rights[2]. They highlight how the administration’s use of contract disclosures and security-clearance revivals pressures clients to abandon targeted firms[2].
- Judges nationwide, including Theodore Chuang and James Boasberg, have temporarily blocked Trump policies, prompting retaliatory threats against the judiciary[4]. This judicial pushback underscores the legal system’s role as a remaining check on executive overreach, even as Trump escalates efforts to intimidate courts[4].
Get the latest from Mark Z. Barabak
Focusing on politics out West, from the Golden Gate to the U.S. Capitol.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
