Comment at Volokh: Big Law firms are vulnerable to Trump due to their DEI initiatives. It's the same tried and true method of the DOJ under Holder and Garland--nail them on something, then leverage that to get them to cooperate on other fronts. Now, we are supposed to be sad because BigLaw is getting a taste of his medicine?
Grok says:
Key Points
- It seems likely that Big Law firms are vulnerable to Trump due to their DEI initiatives, as recent actions by the Trump administration target these programs.
- Research suggests the administration's methods, like using the EEOC to investigate DEI, may mirror past DOJ strategies under Holder and Garland, pressuring cooperation.
- The situation is controversial, with some seeing it as retaliation, while others view it as enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
Background
Big Law firms, known for their large size and influence, have implemented Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives to promote workplace diversity. Recently, the Trump administration has scrutinized these programs, suggesting they might violate federal anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Current Actions
As of April, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has warned 20 major law firms that their DEI policies may be illegal, seeking detailed information on these programs Reuters: US civil rights agency targets 20 big law firms with demand for DEI data. Some firms have faced executive orders, like Perkins Coie, which had security clearances suspended, citing DEI practices and political activities Reuters: Trump expands clash with law firms with order against Perkins Coie. This has led some firms to settle, agreeing to drop DEI policies or provide pro bono work to Trump-aligned causes.
Historical Comparison
Under Attorney General Eric Holder, the DOJ emphasized cooperation in corporate investigations, where companies could avoid charges by disclosing information and waiving privileges Global Investigations Review: The Evolution and Current Approach to Corporate Cooperation in US Enforcement Investigations. Merrick Garland continued this approach, focusing on cooperation in investigations like the Louisville police case Office of Public Affairs: Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Delivers Remarks at Announcement of Pattern or Practice Investigation. The Trump administration's strategy seems to follow a similar pattern, using legal vulnerabilities to pressure firms into compliance.
Implications
This situation is seen by some as "getting a taste of their own medicine," suggesting Big Law firms, often involved in high-stakes legal battles, are now facing the scrutiny they might have applied to others. The controversy lies in whether this is legitimate enforcement or political retaliation, with firms like Paul Weiss facing criticism for settling The Guardian: Two more law firms reach deals with Trump to avoid executive orders.
Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Big Law Firms, DEI Initiatives, and Political Pressure
This survey note provides a comprehensive examination of the vulnerability of Big Law firms to political pressure from the Trump administration over their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, drawing parallels to historical Department of Justice (DOJ) methods under Attorneys General Eric Holder and Merrick Garland. The analysis is grounded in recent developments as of April, 2025, and explores the implications of these actions, including the perception of retaliation and the legal and ethical debates surrounding them.
Context and Background
Big Law firms, characterized by their large size, global reach, and significant influence, have increasingly adopted DEI initiatives to enhance workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion. These programs often include diversity fellowships, numerical hiring goals based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity, and public commitments to diversifying their workforces Bloomberg Law: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Framework from Bloomberg Law. Such initiatives have been seen as essential for attracting talent and meeting client demands, particularly from large corporations HR Brew: The country’s biggest law firms are largely sticking with DEI, despite the president’s attacks.
However, these programs have come under scrutiny, especially in the context of the Trump administration's broader crackdown on diversity initiatives. The administration has framed these efforts as potentially discriminatory, violating federal laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics Law Gazette: Big firms under fire as Trump's diversity purge takes aim at legal sector.
Recent Actions by the Trump Administration
As of April, 2025, the Trump administration has taken aggressive steps to target Big Law firms over their DEI practices. On March 17, 2025, the EEOC, led by acting chair Andrea Lucas, warned 20 major law firms, including Kirkland & Ellis, Ropes & Gray, and Simpson Thacher, that their DEI employment policies may be illegal Reuters: US civil rights agency targets 20 big law firms with demand for DEI data. The EEOC is investigating these firms for potential discrimination in their diversity programs, with Lucas stating, "The EEOC is prepared to root out discrimination anywhere it may rear its head, including in our nation’s elite law firms" Bloomberg Law: Trump EEOC Hits Big Law Firms With DEI Bias Investigations.
Additionally, President Trump has signed executive orders targeting specific firms. On March 6, 2025, an executive order suspended security clearances for employees of Perkins Coie, citing its DEI practices and political activities, particularly its work for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign Reuters: Trump expands clash with law firms with order against Perkins Coie. Similar actions have been taken against firms like Covington & Burling, with the administration also directing the DOJ to take additional actions based on evidence uncovered Above the Law: Trump Signs Executive Order Calling Out Top 50 Biglaw Firm.
This pressure has led to varied responses from the firms. Some, like Paul Weiss, have settled, agreeing to drop DEI policies and provide $40 million in pro bono work for Trump-aligned causes, while others, like Perkins Coie, have challenged the orders in court PBS News: Associates at prominent law firms urge their employers to withstand pressure from Trump. A coalition of Republican-led states, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, has also requested documentation of DEI practices from these firms to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws Bloomberg Law: GOP-Led States Want 20 Law Firms to Disclose Their DEI Practices.
Historical Comparison: DOJ Methods Under Holder and Garland
To understand the user's implication of "getting a taste of their own medicine," it is useful to examine the methods used by the DOJ under Eric Holder and Merrick Garland, particularly in investigations and cooperation. Under Holder, the DOJ issued the Holder Memorandum in 1999, which placed significant emphasis on corporate cooperation in investigations. This memorandum stated that a corporation’s willingness to cooperate, such as identifying culprits, making witnesses available, and disclosing internal investigation results, could influence whether it would be charged or even granted immunity Global Investigations Review: The Evolution and Current Approach to Corporate Cooperation in US Enforcement Investigations. This approach was further enhanced by the Thompson Memorandum in 2003, focusing on corporate fraud cases.
Merrick Garland, as Attorney General, continued this emphasis on cooperation, particularly in high-profile investigations. For instance, in April 2021, Garland announced a pattern or practice investigation into the Louisville Metro Police Department, emphasizing cooperation with local authorities to promote public trust Office of Public Affairs: Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Delivers Remarks at Announcement of Pattern or Practice Investigation. His approach to the January 6 insurrection investigation also highlighted a commitment to holding all perpetrators accountable, maintaining the DOJ's independence CNN Politics: Biggest investigation in FBI history still has Merrick Garland in the hot seat.
The parallel lies in the method: both Holder and Garland used the threat of legal action to encourage cooperation, often finding a legal issue to leverage compliance. Similarly, the Trump administration is using the alleged illegality of DEI practices to pressure Big Law firms into changing their policies or agreeing to other terms, such as pro bono work for Trump-aligned causes. This can be seen as a form of leveraging, akin to the DOJ's historical approach, but with a political twist, targeting firms based on their political activities or affiliations.
Implications and Controversy
The user's phrase "getting a taste of their own medicine" suggests that Big Law firms, often involved in representing clients in investigations or lawsuits, are now experiencing the kind of legal scrutiny they might have previously applied to others. This perception is fueled by the administration's focus on firms that have represented Trump's political opponents, such as Perkins Coie for its work with Hillary Clinton, or those challenging his policies in court The Washington Post: Trump expands retribution campaign against law firms that aided his foes.
The controversy is evident in the responses. Some firms, like Willkie Farr & Gallagher, have settled, agreeing to $100 million in pro bono work, while others, like Cooley, have faced criticism for removing diversity language from their websites to avoid scrutiny, yet still being targeted Above the Law: Law Firm Removing Diversity Language But Breaks Trend By Being Upfront. Legal experts, such as Michael Frisch from Georgetown University, have warned that these actions challenge the fundamental tenet of the legal profession that everyone is entitled to a defense, regardless of the client Reuters: Trump expands clash with law firms with order against Perkins Coie.
The International Bar Association has condemned these actions as an "ongoing erosion of the rule of law," highlighting concerns about the chilling effect on law firms' willingness to take on clients or cases counter to the administration Law Gazette: Big firms under fire as Trump's diversity purge takes aim at legal sector. Conversely, the administration argues it is enforcing anti-discrimination laws, with Attorney General Pam Bondi directing the DOJ to investigate private companies with DEI programming HR Brew: The country’s biggest law firms are largely sticking with DEI, despite the president’s attacks.
Detailed Breakdown of Firm Responses
To illustrate the varied responses, the following table summarizes the status of some Big Law firms as of April, 2025, based on available information:
Firm Name | Action Taken | Outcome/Status |
|---|---|---|
Perkins Coie | Challenged executive order in court | Ongoing legal battle, security clearances suspended |
Paul Weiss | Settled, dropped DEI policies, $40M pro bono | Order rescinded, criticized by legal community |
Milbank | Agreed to $100M pro bono for Trump-aligned causes | Settlement reached, criticized for compliance |
Willkie Farr & Gallagher | Agreed to $100M pro bono, no race-based hiring | Settlement reached, faced internal opposition |
Kirkland & Ellis | Under EEOC investigation | No settlement, ongoing scrutiny |
Cooley | Removed diversity language from website | Still targeted by EEOC, no settlement |
This table highlights the range of strategies, from legal challenges to settlements, reflecting the pressure and uncertainty faced by these firms.
Conclusion
The evidence leans toward Big Law firms being vulnerable to Trump due to their DEI initiatives, with the administration using methods akin to past DOJ strategies under Holder and Garland to pressure cooperation. This situation is highly controversial, with debates over whether it is legitimate enforcement or political retaliation. The user's implication of "getting a taste of their own medicine" resonates with the perception that these firms are now facing the scrutiny they might have previously applied, raising significant questions about the rule of law and the future of DEI in the legal profession.
Key Citations
