A wave of internal dissent has hit several prestigious law firms following their high-profile deals with former U.S. President Donald Trump, which have sparked outrage among some of their own attorneys. These firms, collectively committing nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal work and other concessions to Trump’s administration, now find themselves at the center of a growing controversy.
On Friday, Siunik Moradian, a Los Angeles-based lawyer, made headlines after resigning from Simpson Thacher, one of the firms involved in the deals. His resignation letter, laced with sharp criticism, condemned the firm for “bending the knee” to Trump’s administration and for contributing to what he described as an authoritarian political environment. “It takes intentional acts,” Moradian said, explaining that he was unable to remain silent as major institutions capitulated to the President’s influence.
Moradian’s bold departure was followed by similar actions from colleagues at other firms. Sam Wong, an associate at Latham & Watkins in Washington D.C., resigned in protest, citing the firm’s “disappointing decision to capitulate.” Jacqui Pittman of Kirkland, based in Chicago, also resigned, expressing in a LinkedIn post that she could no longer work at the firm “in good conscience.”
This wave of resignations highlights a deepening divide within the legal community. In total, at least five firms have seen associates walk out in response to the deals, which included commitments of $100 million to $125 million in pro bono work, as well as a pledge to not engage in what Trump deemed “illegal DEI discrimination.” The move also involved settlements with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, effectively ending investigations into the firms’ diversity practices.
The deals are part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to leverage legal power in its favor, even suggesting that firms involved might play a role in trade negotiations. In response, these firms have publicly defended their positions, claiming that the agreements were a necessary step to protect their interests while maintaining their core values. Some, like Alden Millard of Simpson Thacher, acknowledged the controversial nature of the decision, reassuring staff that the choice was not made lightly.
However, the fallout continues to reverberate. A letter signed by over 800 lawyers from firms that did not enter agreements with Trump condemned the executive orders targeting those that did, accusing the administration of using such measures to intimidate the legal profession. Additionally, four firms have taken legal action, challenging the executive orders that threaten their ability to work with the federal government and access federal spaces.
As these legal battles unfold, the question remains whether law firms will continue to navigate the pressure to align with political power or stand firm in defending their independence and integrity. The crisis exposes a fracture within the legal community—one that may have far-reaching implications for the profession’s role in a polarized political landscape.
