{"id":157197,"date":"2026-07-17T12:10:54","date_gmt":"2026-07-17T20:10:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/17\/the-dojs-biglaw-subpoena-explanation-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers\/"},"modified":"2026-07-17T12:10:54","modified_gmt":"2026-07-17T20:10:54","slug":"the-dojs-biglaw-subpoena-explanation-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/17\/the-dojs-biglaw-subpoena-explanation-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers\/","title":{"rendered":"The DOJ\u2019s Biglaw Subpoena Explanation Raises More Questions Than It Answers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Remember when Trump turned <\/a>on the nine capitulating Biglaw firms<\/a> that sold out the rule of law to escape his retaliatory, constitutionally dubious executive orders<\/a>? Yeah, well, now we\u2019ve got more details on what\u2019s behind that decision.<\/p>\n

Quick recap for anyone just catching up: DOJ hit the nine firms with third-party subpoenas demanding their communications with Trump\u2019s personal lawyer Boris Epshteyn, plus deposition notices for the firm leaders who actually signed those deals \u2014 all as a side effect of its legal tussle with the ABA, which sued the administration<\/a> over the legal-blacklist-by-executive-order campaign.<\/p>\n

Bloomberg Law reports<\/a> that when asked for comment on the subpoenas, an unnamed DOJ spokesperson actually answered:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWe sent the subpoenas to the law firms to reinforce our argument that the ABA should obtain this information from its own members, rather than a close presidential advisor.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Whoa, doggie. I have some thoughts about that.<\/p>\n

Okay, it is genuinely strange that DOJ is narrating its own litigation strategy to a reporter in the middle of a live discovery fight. Attorneys are not exactly known for offering up the \u201cwhy\u201d behind a subpoena while the ink is still wet\u2026 that\u2019s usually the kind of thing you save for a brief, not a press inquiry. Worth remembering, too, that since the nine firms haven\u2019t formally opposed these subpoenas yet, still too worried that fighting back will earn them another executive order for their trouble, the DOJ could have kept this card closer to their chest, at least for the moment.<\/p>\n

Also it is worth noting the theory doesn\u2019t hold up on its own terms. Sure, the nine firms that cut deals worth $940 million in pro bono payola<\/a> may have some responsive documents. But, even if they do, \u201csome\u201d is not \u201cthe entire universe.\u201d The ABA isn\u2019t just asking about the firms\u2019 side of nine deals, it\u2019s specifically asking about the White House\u2019s and Epshteyn\u2019s role in orchestrating all of them. The law firms wouldn\u2019t have been cc\u2019d on that.<\/p>\n

And isn\u2019t this just conceding the responsiveness of the Epshteyn communications? Those are the exact materials the administration is fighting to keep out of the hands of the ABA! But, by subpoenaing the firms for their Epshteyn communications, the DOJ just admitted that whatever Epshteyn said about the EOs is relevant to the ABA case. Now, admittedly, the administration is making a privilege claim over the materials, as the spokesperson said, \u201cDOJ\u2019s motion to quash [the ABA\u2019s subpoena of materials related to Epshteyn] is consistent with longstanding practice to protect any president\u2019s ability to obtain confidential advice from his closest advisors.\u201d It seems an unforced error to concede responsiveness when they didn\u2019t have to.<\/p>\n

So the ABA\u2019s discovery fight<\/a> just got a gift, courtesy of the department\u2019s own subpoenas, and its own press office.<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Trump Turns On Capitulating Biglaw Firms HAHAHAHAHA<\/a>
The ABA Wants The White House\u2019s Receipts On The Biglaw Executive Orders<\/a>
The Trump Administration\u2019s Best Argument For Its Biglaw EOs Is That You Just Have To Trust The President<\/a>
DOJ\u2019s Defense Of Trump\u2019s Biglaw Executive Orders: Look How Many Firms We Scared Into Compliance!<\/a>
DOJ Drops Defense Of Biglaw Executive Orders, Leaving Capitulating Firms Holding $940 Million Bag<\/a>
There\u2019s No Absolution For Biglaw Firms Suing The Administration After Bending A Knee To Trump<\/a>
\u2018Pray I Don\u2019t Alter It Any Further\u2019: What Darth Vader Should Teach Law Firms About Settling With Trump<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post The DOJ\u2019s Biglaw Subpoena Explanation Raises More Questions Than It Answers<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Image via Getty)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Remember when Trump turned <\/a>on the nine capitulating Biglaw firms<\/a> that sold out the rule of law to escape his retaliatory, constitutionally dubious executive orders<\/a>? Yeah, well, now we\u2019ve got more details on what\u2019s behind that decision.<\/p>\n

Quick recap for anyone just catching up: DOJ hit the nine firms with third-party subpoenas demanding their communications with Trump\u2019s personal lawyer Boris Epshteyn, plus deposition notices for the firm leaders who actually signed those deals \u2014 all as a side effect of its legal tussle with the ABA, which sued the administration<\/a> over the legal-blacklist-by-executive-order campaign.<\/p>\n

Bloomberg Law reports<\/a> that when asked for comment on the subpoenas, an unnamed DOJ spokesperson actually answered:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWe sent the subpoenas to the law firms to reinforce our argument that the ABA should obtain this information from its own members, rather than a close presidential advisor.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Whoa, doggie. I have some thoughts about that.<\/p>\n

Okay, it is genuinely strange that DOJ is narrating its own litigation strategy to a reporter in the middle of a live discovery fight. Attorneys are not exactly known for offering up the \u201cwhy\u201d behind a subpoena while the ink is still wet\u2026 that\u2019s usually the kind of thing you save for a brief, not a press inquiry. Worth remembering, too, that since the nine firms haven\u2019t formally opposed these subpoenas yet, still too worried that fighting back will earn them another executive order for their trouble, the DOJ could have kept this card closer to their chest, at least for the moment.<\/p>\n

Also it is worth noting the theory doesn\u2019t hold up on its own terms. Sure, the nine firms that cut deals worth $940 million in pro bono payola<\/a> may have some responsive documents. But, even if they do, \u201csome\u201d is not \u201cthe entire universe.\u201d The ABA isn\u2019t just asking about the firms\u2019 side of nine deals, it\u2019s specifically asking about the White House\u2019s and Epshteyn\u2019s role in orchestrating all of them. The law firms wouldn\u2019t have been cc\u2019d on that.<\/p>\n

And isn\u2019t this just conceding the responsiveness of the Epshteyn communications? Those are the exact materials the administration is fighting to keep out of the hands of the ABA! But, by subpoenaing the firms for their Epshteyn communications, the DOJ just admitted that whatever Epshteyn said about the EOs is relevant to the ABA case. Now, admittedly, the administration is making a privilege claim over the materials, as the spokesperson said, \u201cDOJ\u2019s motion to quash [the ABA\u2019s subpoena of materials related to Epshteyn] is consistent with longstanding practice to protect any president\u2019s ability to obtain confidential advice from his closest advisors.\u201d It seems an unforced error to concede responsiveness when they didn\u2019t have to.<\/p>\n

So the ABA\u2019s discovery fight<\/a> just got a gift, courtesy of the department\u2019s own subpoenas, and its own press office.<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Trump Turns On Capitulating Biglaw Firms HAHAHAHAHA<\/a>
The ABA Wants The White House\u2019s Receipts On The Biglaw Executive Orders<\/a>
The Trump Administration\u2019s Best Argument For Its Biglaw EOs Is That You Just Have To Trust The President<\/a>
DOJ\u2019s Defense Of Trump\u2019s Biglaw Executive Orders: Look How Many Firms We Scared Into Compliance!<\/a>
DOJ Drops Defense Of Biglaw Executive Orders, Leaving Capitulating Firms Holding $940 Million Bag<\/a>
There\u2019s No Absolution For Biglaw Firms Suing The Administration After Bending A Knee To Trump<\/a>
\u2018Pray I Don\u2019t Alter It Any Further\u2019: What Darth Vader Should Teach Law Firms About Settling With Trump<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Remember when Trump turned on the nine capitulating Biglaw firms that sold out the rule of law to escape his retaliatory, constitutionally dubious executive orders? Yeah, well, now we\u2019ve got more details on what\u2019s behind that decision. Quick recap for anyone just catching up: DOJ hit the nine firms with third-party subpoenas demanding their communications […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":157198,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-157197","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-BmzGW4.jpg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157197","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157197"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157197\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/157198"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157197"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157197"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157197"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}