In a bold move underscoring the stakes for the legal profession, over 700 law firm partners have rallied behind Susman Godfrey, lending their support in the firm’s battle against a controversial executive order from former President Donald Trump. Filed in Washington, D.C., the brief submitted on April 25 targets the order that has put the renowned litigation firm in the crosshairs, accusing it of undermining U.S. elections, a claim Susman Godfrey vehemently denies.
The brief, filed by Law Firm Partners United, highlights how the punitive measures—intended to penalize Susman Godfrey for its involvement in election-related legal battles—pose a serious threat not only to the firm but to the integrity of the legal profession as a whole. According to the filing, the executive order seeks to restrict the firm’s access to government buildings, cut off federal contracts held by its clients, and intimidate legal professionals from taking on politically sensitive cases.
The amicus curiae brief features support from 110 individual law partners, representing the 700-member network of top-tier firms across the U.S. These signatories, while acting in their personal capacity and not as representatives of their firms, express a shared commitment to safeguarding the rule of law. Among them are three partners from firms—Cadwalader, Simpson Thacher, and Willkie Farr—that reached deals with Trump to avoid similar repercussions, though they did not provide immediate comment on the matter.
At the heart of Susman Godfrey’s lawsuit is its defense of Dominion Voting Systems, the company at the center of defamation lawsuits against Trump’s allies for spreading false claims about the 2020 election. The firm contends that the executive order, which claims the firm has undermined the integrity of the election, is an unwarranted act of retaliation against legal professionals who challenge political powers.
In its legal filing, Susman Godfrey asserts that such orders send a chilling message to the legal community: lawyers who take on cases that are politically charged may face retribution. This has sparked concern among legal professionals who fear the broader implications for free speech and due process, with courts already halting parts of Trump’s earlier executive orders targeting law firms like Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block.
The Justice Department, however, maintains that Trump was within his rights to penalize these firms, accusing them of weaponizing the legal system against him and his allies. As the legal challenges progress, the involvement of other legal heavyweights and advocacy groups shows the far-reaching consequences of this battle.
With some of the country’s largest law firms making concessions to avoid similar fallout, the case has ignited fierce debates on the intersection of law, politics, and the protection of civil liberties. Yet, for now, it remains a pivotal moment for the legal community as they weigh in on the broader implications for the practice of law in the United States.
