Law Firms Urged to Use Conduct Rule to Fight Trump Sanctions

Opinion: The American Bar Association's ethics rule on professional conduct may provide a path for law firms to push back on White House pressure.

Apr. 13, 2026 at 8:30am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A dimly lit, cinematic painting of an empty government office or courtroom, with warm sunlight streaming in through the windows and deep shadows casting an air of tension and uncertainty over the space.As the legal profession grapples with political pressure, the applicability of professional conduct rules may provide a path for law firms to resist improper influence from the White House.Seattle Today

With President Donald Trump continuing his battle against big law firms, a legal expert argues it's time to explore the applicability of the American Bar Association's rule on professional conduct, which prohibits law firms from promising pro bono work to avoid White House sanctions. The rule's three key elements - stating or implying an ability to improperly influence a government official - may apply to law firms that have agreed to provide millions in free legal services to curry Trump's favor, potentially subjecting them to professional misconduct.

Why it matters

The debate over Trump's executive orders targeting certain law firms has focused on constitutional issues and the rule of law, but the application of the ABA's Model Rule 8.4(e) on professional conduct has been overlooked. This rule could provide a concrete, enforceable way for the legal profession to resist improper influence from the White House, going beyond the hortatory language in other ethics rules.

The details

Since Trump issued the first executive order targeting Covington & Burling last February, the legal profession has been debating how to respond to the president's campaign against disfavored lawyers. Some firms, like Keker, Van Nest & Peters, have called for the profession to collectively resist the pressure, while others, like Paul Weiss, have sought to curry Trump's favor by promising millions in free legal services. The author argues that Paul Weiss and eight other firms that jointly promised almost $1 billion in Trump-directed pro bono services could be subject to professional misconduct under Model Rule 8.4(e), which prohibits stating or implying an ability to improperly influence a government official.

  • In February 2026, Trump issued the first executive order targeting Covington & Burling.
  • On March 2, 2026, the Department of Justice moved to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of four decisions striking down Trump's executive orders.
  • The next day, on March 3, 2026, the Justice Department withdrew its motion without explanation.

The players

Donald Trump

The former president who has targeted certain law firms with executive orders and sanctions.

Brad Karp

The managing partner of Paul Weiss at the time, who described conversations with clients concerned about the firm's standing with the Trump administration.

Keker, Van Nest & Peters

A well-regarded litigation boutique whose founding partners have called for the legal profession to collectively resist the Trump administration's pressure on disfavored lawyers.

Paul Weiss

One of the most prestigious white shoe law firms, which sent its managing partner to the White House to promise $40 million in free legal services for the president's preferred causes.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Nothing, you know, nothing protects me.”

— A partner at one of the settling firms

“give me a lot of money considering they've done nothing wrong.”

— Donald Trump

What’s next

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit will ultimately sort out the procedural maneuvers and address the constitutional issues raised by the law firms' lawsuits against Trump's executive orders.

The takeaway

The failure of the legal profession to collectively rally against Trump's executive orders targeting law firms reveals a larger problem of lawyers succumbing to economic and political pressures. The ABA's Model Rule 8.4(e) on professional conduct provides a concrete, enforceable way for the legal community to resist improper influence from the White House, going beyond the hortatory language in other ethics rules.