{"id":114852,"date":"2025-04-14T15:55:06","date_gmt":"2025-04-14T23:55:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/04\/14\/legal-ethics-roundup-trump-pro-bono-nears-1b-scotus-takes-atty-client-comms-case-lawyer-detained-dtw-barrett-recusal-standard-doj-bans-aba-judges-clerk-boycott-ok-per-ethics-rules-a\/"},"modified":"2025-04-14T15:55:06","modified_gmt":"2025-04-14T23:55:06","slug":"legal-ethics-roundup-trump-pro-bono-nears-1b-scotus-takes-atty-client-comms-case-lawyer-detained-dtw-barrett-recusal-standard-doj-bans-aba-judges-clerk-boycott-ok-per-ethics-rules-a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/04\/14\/legal-ethics-roundup-trump-pro-bono-nears-1b-scotus-takes-atty-client-comms-case-lawyer-detained-dtw-barrett-recusal-standard-doj-bans-aba-judges-clerk-boycott-ok-per-ethics-rules-a\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Ethics Roundup: Trump Pro Bono Nears $1B, SCOTUS Takes Atty-Client Comms Case, Lawyer Detained @ DTW, Barrett Recusal Standard, DOJ Bans ABA, Judge\u2019s Clerk Boycott OK Per Ethics Rules & More"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ed. note<\/u>: Please welcome Renee Knake Jefferson back to the pages of Above the Law. Subscribe to her Substack, Legal Ethics Roundup,\u00a0<\/strong>here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Welcome to what captivates, haunts, inspires, and surprises me every week in the world of legal ethics.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Highlights from Last Week\u00a0\u2013 Top Fifteen Headlines<\/h3>\n

#1 Executive Order Threatening Susman Godfrey \u2014 Firm Sues in Response.<\/strong>\u00a0Two headlines for #1.\u00a0First,<\/strong>\u00a0from the\u00a0Houston Chronicle<\/strong>: \u201cPresident Donald Trump<\/strong>\u00a0signed an executive order Wednesday ordering federal agencies to terminate their contracts with\u00a0Susman Godfrey LLP<\/strong>, a Houston-based law firm that represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation suit against Fox News. The order also revoked security clearances for the firm\u2019s attorneys, barred them from accessing government buildings \u2018when such access would threaten the national security\u2019 and directed agencies to refrain from hiring employees of Susman Godfrey.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. Read the full EO\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. Here\u2019s Susman Godfrey\u2019s\u00a0statement<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0in response: \u201cAnyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it. This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

Second,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0The Hill<\/strong>: \u201cSusman Godfrey<\/strong>\u00a0\u2026 is suing the administration, arguing that Trump is in violation of the Constitution after he issued the Wednesday executive order.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n
\n

#2 Nearly $1B in Pro Bono Work Pledged by Firms to Avoid Punitive Executive Orders \u2013 Trump Plans to Use it for Tariffs, Coal Industry and the \u201cAmerica First Agenda.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0Paul, Weiss Pro Bono Head Resigns.<\/strong>\u00a0Conflicts Inevitable.<\/strong>\u00a0Five headlines for #2.\u00a0First,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0The Guardian<\/strong>: \u201cDonald Trump<\/strong>\u00a0said on Friday that five major law firms reached agreements to together provide his administration $600m in pro bono legal work, among other terms, to avoid executive orders punishing them, a significant capitulation to the president as he attacks the legal profession. The five firms \u2013\u00a0Kirkland & Ellis<\/strong>,\u00a0Latham & Watkins<\/strong>,\u00a0Allen Overy Shearman Sterling<\/strong>,\u00a0Simpson Thacher & Bartlett<\/strong>, and\u00a0Cadwalader,<\/strong>\u00a0Wickersham & Taft<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 are among the most prestigious and recognized firms in the US. Trump\u2019s\u00a0announcement<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0on Friday on Truth Social means he has secured a total of\u00a0$940m<\/strong>\u00a0in pro bono work from some of the most powerful law firms in the US. The orders come as Trump\u2019s attack on the legal profession has divided the most prestigious firms in the US. More than 500 firms signed an amicus brief last week in support of a legal challenge to executive orders punishing the firm\u00a0Perkins Coie<\/strong>. But many of the country\u2019s biggest firms \u2013 including those that reached agreements announced on Friday \u2013 were conspicuously absent.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0Second,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0Bloomberg Law<\/strong>: \u201cTrump Says He\u2019ll Enlist Big Law Dealmakers for Coal, Tariffs.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0Third,<\/strong>\u00a0from the\u00a0New York Times<\/strong>: \u201cKaroline Leavitt<\/strong>, the White House press secretary, said in a statement that \u2018Big Law continues to bend the knee to President Trump because they know they were wrong, and he looks forward to putting their pro bono legal concessions toward implementing his America First agenda.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).\u00a0Fourth,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0Reuters<\/strong>: \u201cThe head of the pro bono practice at\u00a0Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison<\/strong>\u00a0said on Wednesday he was resigning from the Wall Street law firm just weeks after it struck a deal with Republican U.S. President Donald Trump to escape an executive order imperiling its business.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0Fifth,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0Brad Wendel<\/strong>\u00a0(Cornell) at\u00a0Legal Ethics Stuff<\/strong>: \u201cThere are many reasons for law firms to avoid cutting these deals with Trump \u2026 . I want to add a concern from my own little corner of the legal world: Spare a thought for the conflicts partners at these firms. It\u2019s always been a difficult, thankless job, but it now got about 100 times harder.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#3 DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel<\/strong>\u00a0Dismisses Complaint Against Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin.<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Lawfare<\/strong>: \u201cThe D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel\u00a0declined to launch<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0a probe of\u00a0Ed Martin<\/strong>, the interim U.S. attorney, over an alleged ethics violation he committed when he sought to dismiss the criminal charges of a man whom he represented as a defense attorney. \u2018[W]e decline to open a full investigation of this matter and have closed this file,\u2019 wrote\u00a0Hamilton P. Fox<\/strong>, the head of the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, in\u00a0a\u00a0<\/a>February letter<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0addressed to the complainant and obtained by Lawfare.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#4 \u201cJustice Barrett Has Set a New Judicial Ethics Standard \u2014 and It\u2019s About Time.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Caroline Ciccone<\/strong>\u00a0(Accountable.US) in\u00a0The Hill<\/strong>: \u201cUnlike every other federal court, the Supreme Court operates without mandatory ethics rules. The justices alone decide if their conflicts merit recusal, with no obligation to explain their reasoning. This self-policing system creates an accountability void that would be unacceptable in any other branch of government. However, a recent decision by a member of the court\u2019s conservative supermajority shows us that it doesn\u2019t have to be this way.\u00a0Justice Amy Coney Barrett<\/strong>\u00a0bucked this trend with her\u00a0recent recusal<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0from Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. Although Barrett provided no public explanation, it\u2019s plausible if not likely that her decision stemmed from her\u00a0close ties<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0to\u00a0Notre Dame\u2019s Religious Liberty Clinic<\/strong>\u00a0and personal friendship with one of the case\u2019s legal adviser, Notre Dame law Professor and Federalist Society Director\u00a0Nicole Stelle Garnett<\/strong>. This choice reflects the longstanding principle, mostly abandoned by the\u00a0Roberts Supreme Court<\/strong>, that judges should step aside when personal relationships might bias them, or even create the appearance of impropriety.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#5 US House Panel Drops Inquiry Into Northwestern\u2019s Law School Clinics \u2013 Move Comes After Professors Sued and Alleged Investigation Violated Their Constitutional Free Speech Rights.<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0The Guardian<\/strong>: \u201cThe US House education and workforce committee withdrew an investigation into\u00a0Northwestern University\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0law school clinics after professors there sued and alleged that the inquiry violated their constitutional free speech rights. The professors secured what amounted to a legal victory for them on Thursday, when the House committee withdrew its investigative requests with respect to the university and its law school\u2019s\u00a0Bluhm Legal Clinic<\/strong>\u00a0program on Thursday.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#6\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cJustice Department Expands its Retribution to American Bar Association.\u201d<\/strong>From\u00a0CBS News<\/strong>: \u201cAmid a tumultuous and controversial campaign of executive orders targeting major law firms, the\u00a0Justice Department<\/strong>\u00a0is now adding the\u00a0American Bar Association<\/strong>\u00a0to its target list, according to a memo obtained by CBS News. In the memo dated Friday and shared with Justice Department employees,\u00a0Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche<\/strong>\u00a0ordered that \u2018the Department of Justice will no longer use taxpayer funds to pay for any travel to or engagement with ABA events. Additionally, department employees may not, when acting in their official capacities, speak at, attend, or otherwise participate in events hosted by the ABA.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#7 \u201cJustice Dept. Lawyers Are Struggling to Defend Trump\u2019s Policies in Court.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0New York Times<\/strong>: \u201c\u2018Justice Department<\/strong>\u00a0attorneys are being put in an impossible position: Obey the president, or uphold their ethical duty to the court and the Constitution,\u2019 said\u00a0Stacey Young<\/strong>, a former department lawyer who is now the executive director of\u00a0Justice Connection<\/strong>, an organization of former department officials.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

\n

#8 SCOTUS Grants Cert to Review Limit on Attorney-Client Recess Communications.\u00a0<\/strong>From the\u00a0Bloomberg Law<\/strong>: \u201cThe\u00a0US Supreme Court<\/strong>\u00a0will hear the appeal of a Texas man who says his constitutional right to an attorney was violated when he and his lawyer were prohibited from discussing his testimony while his murder trial was in a recess overnight. In an order Monday, the justices agreed to consider if a court order, which bars attorney-client consultation during a trial, violates a defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. For more about the history of Supreme Court cases involving legal ethics, revisit\u00a0Roundup Bonus Content No. 3<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#9 \u201cAttorney Representing a Student Protester Detained by Federal Immigration Agents.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0National Public Radio<\/strong>: \u201cEarlier this week, Michigan-based attorney\u00a0Amir Makled<\/strong>\u00a0was detained by federal immigration agents while returning home from a family vacation to the Dominican Republic. On Sunday at the Detroit Metro Airport, Makled \u2014 who is a U.S. citizen \u2014 attempted to pass through customs with his wife and children. The rest of his family was able to enter the country without issue. But when Makled\u2019s turn came, he overheard one of the agents call for assistance from the \u2018Tactical Terrorism Response Team.\u2019 \u2026 Border agents pressured Makled to hand over his cell phone. He refused. After more than 90 minutes of back-and-forth, he eventually showed agents his contacts list. He was eventually released. Makled says he was never given a reason for his detainment. However, one of his current clients is a student who has been charged in connection to a pro-Palestinian protest at the\u00a0University of Michigan<\/strong>. Makled does not think it\u2019s a coincidence that he was targeted after deciding to represent this client following the Trump administration\u2019s crackdown on visa holders who have expressed support for Palestine.\u201d Read more and listen\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#10 \u201cIf the Attorney General orders a DOJ lawyer to lie in court, should he refuse the order?\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0David Kluft<\/strong>\u00a0on\u00a0LinkedIn<\/strong>: \u201cNYC Bar Opinion<\/strong>\u00a02025-1 addresses situations where a government lawyer is asked to lie or engage in other unethical conduct by a political appointee or other senior official. The Opinion states: \u2018No obligation to a client\u2014including one that happens to be a governmental entity\u2014justifies a lawyer in violating the Rules. For that reason, a lawyer\u2019s discretion to disobey a superior\u2019s directives that would result in violations of the Rules may never be abridged, even if that superior accurately conveys the desires of the client governmental entity. It is especially true that a lawyer may not violate those Rules requiring candor and fair advocacy in the conduct of litigation in deference to the demands of a client, even if the client\u2019s authorized representative is a high-ranking government official or one of its officers or agencies.\u2019\u201d Read more (including a link to the full NYC Bar Opinion)\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#11 \u201cNJ Justices OK Tech CLE And Reject Competence Proposal.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Law360<\/strong>: \u201cThe\u00a0New Jersey Supreme Court<\/strong>\u00a0has approved a continuing legal education requirement for technology-related subjects but declined a proposal to add a comment to the competence section of the state\u2019s Rules.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#12 Law Firms \u201cQuietly Scrub DEI References from Websites;\u201d Meanwhile \u201cHundreds\u201d of Michigan Law Alumni Protest DEI Removal.<\/strong>\u00a0Two headlines for #12.\u00a0First,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0The Guardian<\/strong>: \u201cNearly two dozen US law firms have quietly scrubbed references to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) from their website and revised descriptions of pro-bono work to more closely align with\u00a0Donald Trump\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0priorities, a Guardian review has found, underscoring the Trump administration\u2019s successful campaign of intimidation against the legal profession. The changes, which have occurred at some of the nation\u2019s most prestigious firms, include eliminating mention of pro-bono immigration work from firm websites and deleting sections entirely related to DEI. In some cases, firms appear to have dropped the word \u2018diversity\u2019 from descriptions of their work. In at least one case, a change included revising a quote from firm partners to eliminate mention of diversity and inclusion.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0Second<\/strong>, from\u00a0MLive<\/strong>: \u201cHundreds of alumni from the\u00a0University of Michigan Law School<\/strong>\u00a0expressed their frustrations about the university\u2019s cuts to its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in a recent letter. The Wednesday, April 9,\u00a0letter was addressed to Law School interim dean Kyle Logue<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>was sent on behalf of more than 250 alumni. Organizers behind the group, Concerned University of Michigan Law School Alumni, confirmed the letter now has over 330 signatures and counting.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n
\n

#13 \u201cAn Uprising at a Big Law Firm Targeted by Trump.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0The Bulwark<\/strong>: \u201cMore than 500 associates and staff at a top global law firm sent a letter Friday morning\u00a0<\/strong>urging the firm\u2019s leadership not to enter into a consent agreement with Donald Trump as the White House ramps up its targeting of the legal profession. The effort being spearheaded by officials at\u00a0Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP<\/strong>\u00a0(A&O Shearman) was an attempt to stave off a deal first hinted at in a new\u00a0report<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0that the firm was among a group of big-name legal entities looking to craft a deal with the White House to avert restrictions on its business. But shortly after the letter was sent, Trump announced that the deal had been completed, with the firm set to provide $125 million in pro-bono legal services along with changes to its hiring practices.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#14 \u201cWhy One Lawyer Resigned When His Firm Caved to Trump.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0The Daily\u00a0<\/strong>(a New York Times podcast): \u201cOver the past few weeks,\u00a0President Trump<\/strong>\u00a0has used executive orders to wage war on law firms, specifically targeting those whose lawyers have investigated him or sued him, or have represented his enemies in court. Rather than fighting back, many of these elite law firms \u2014 including\u00a0Paul Weiss<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 have struck deals with the Trump administration to avert the order, and top partners have closed ranks in support of the agreements. This has led to discontent, particularly among young lawyers, who feel that these deals have betrayed the principles of their firms. Earlier this week, The Daily podcast spoke to one associate who resigned:\u00a0Thomas Sipp<\/strong>. A Columbia Law School graduate, Mr. Sipp, 27, opened up about why he had chosen to become a lawyer, and why he had decided to quit the law firm after less than two years.\u201d Read the transcript and listen\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

\n

#15 \u201cFederal Judge\u2019s Columbia Clerk Boycott Didn\u2019t Harm Public Confidence in Judiciary, Judicial Council Rules.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0ABA Journal<\/strong>: \u201cA judge on the\u00a0U.S. Court of International Trade<\/strong>\u00a0did not violate ethics rules by refusing to hire law clerks who attended\u00a0Columbia University<\/strong>, according to the judicial council of the\u00a07th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago<\/strong>. In an\u00a0April 8 decision<\/a><\/strong>, the council dismissed the complaint against\u00a0Judge Stephen A. Vaden<\/strong>, one of 13 federal judges who participated in the boycott and explained why in a letter to the school.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Where\u2019s the Rest of the Roundup?<\/h3>\n

Revisit the\u00a0\u201cWelcome Back Edition\u201d<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0for an explanation of the new format. And keep an eye out for next month\u2019s \u201cFirst Monday Edition\u201d with reading recommendations, analysis, reforms watch, jobs, events, and much more.<\/p>\n

\n

Get Hired<\/h3>\n

Did you miss the 100+ job postings from previous weeks? Find them all\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Upcoming Ethics Events & Other Announcements<\/h3>\n

Did you miss an announcement from previous weeks? Find them all\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Keep in Touch<\/h3>\n