On April 4, 504 leading law firms from across the country filed a joint amicus curiae brief in support of Perkins Coie’s lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against the White House’s Executive Order, “Addressing the Risks from Perkins Coie LLP.”
The Executive Order is the fifth in a recent string from President Trump seeking to enact retributive actions against law firms performing “political” representation and utilizing diversity-focused hiring practices. The order cited Perkins Coie’s representation of former Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton and their undertaking of election law cases as threats to “democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement.” The Order sought to suspend the security clearance of Perkins Colie employees, prohibit their access to federal buildings, cancel government contracts with the firm, and to review the hiring practices of the firm.
In March, Perkins Coie filed a suit to block enforcement of the Executive Order and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by U.S District Judge Beryl Howell. Friday’s Amicus Brief supported the firm’s motion for summary judgement and declaration of permanent injunction.
In the brief, the Amici argued that the Executive Order should be permanently enjoined for violations of core First, Fifth, and Sixth amendment rights, raising issue with separation of power principles as well. The Amicus argues that the punitive actions laid out in the Order attempt to retaliate against the firm for their support of political objectives which undermine the sitting administration’s agenda, to quell their representation of such clients, and to deter other firms from similar activity. The Amici argue that, in doing so, the Order attempts to dismantle principles of equal, zealous representation for all clients which are integral to the judicial process, thus posing a “grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself.”
The Amici sounded the alarm on the administration’s repeated attempts to undermine Constitutionally guaranteed fair representation, stating that “history offers indelible reminders of the perils associated with government intrusion into the autonomy of the legal system and with political retribution aimed at lawyers thought to stand in the way of a regime’s political objectives. […] regimes have disbarred, prosecuted, and jailed lawyers who dared to represent opposition figures or challenge government actions, with predictable results for the rule of law and the integrity of the legal profession.”
Stephen M. Kohn, leading whistleblower attorney and partner at Amici firm Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto stated: “Lawyers have an ethical duty to ensure the integrity of their profession and to prevent the government from interfering with the right to counsel. Whistleblowers are particularly at risk for retaliation and having their lawyers inappropriately bullied. If the government can engage in such tactics, it’s open season for retaliation from state and local governments and large corporations on whistleblowers and their counsel. The right to counsel is sacrosanct, and any lawyers who engages in it should be removed from the profession.”
