Legal Ethics Roundup: Trump Pro Bono Nears $1B, SCOTUS Takes Atty-Client Comms Case, Lawyer Detained @ DTW, Barrett Recusal Standard, DOJ Bans ABA, Judge’s Clerk Boycott OK Per Ethics Rules & More

Ed. note: Please welcome Renee Knake Jefferson back to the pages of Above the Law. Subscribe to her Substack, Legal Ethics Roundup, here.

Welcome to what captivates, haunts, inspires, and surprises me every week in the world of legal ethics.

Highlights from Last Week – Top Fifteen Headlines

#1 Executive Order Threatening Susman Godfrey — Firm Sues in Response. Two headlines for #1. First, from the Houston Chronicle: “President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday ordering federal agencies to terminate their contracts with Susman Godfrey LLP, a Houston-based law firm that represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation suit against Fox News. The order also revoked security clearances for the firm’s attorneys, barred them from accessing government buildings ‘when such access would threaten the national security’ and directed agencies to refrain from hiring employees of Susman Godfrey.” Read more here. Read the full EO here. Here’s Susman Godfrey’s statement in response: “Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it. This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.”

Second, from The Hill: “Susman Godfrey … is suing the administration, arguing that Trump is in violation of the Constitution after he issued the Wednesday executive order.” Read more here.

#2 Nearly $1B in Pro Bono Work Pledged by Firms to Avoid Punitive Executive Orders – Trump Plans to Use it for Tariffs, Coal Industry and the “America First Agenda.” Paul, Weiss Pro Bono Head Resigns. Conflicts Inevitable. Five headlines for #2. First, from The Guardian: “Donald Trump said on Friday that five major law firms reached agreements to together provide his administration $600m in pro bono legal work, among other terms, to avoid executive orders punishing them, a significant capitulation to the president as he attacks the legal profession. The five firms – Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Allen Overy Shearman Sterling, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft – are among the most prestigious and recognized firms in the US. Trump’s announcement on Friday on Truth Social means he has secured a total of $940m in pro bono work from some of the most powerful law firms in the US. The orders come as Trump’s attack on the legal profession has divided the most prestigious firms in the US. More than 500 firms signed an amicus brief last week in support of a legal challenge to executive orders punishing the firm Perkins Coie. But many of the country’s biggest firms – including those that reached agreements announced on Friday – were conspicuously absent.” Read more here. Second, from Bloomberg Law: “Trump Says He’ll Enlist Big Law Dealmakers for Coal, Tariffs.” Read more here. Third, from the New York Times: “Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement that ‘Big Law continues to bend the knee to President Trump because they know they were wrong, and he looks forward to putting their pro bono legal concessions toward implementing his America First agenda.’” Read more here (gift link). Fourth, from Reuters: “The head of the pro bono practice at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison said on Wednesday he was resigning from the Wall Street law firm just weeks after it struck a deal with Republican U.S. President Donald Trump to escape an executive order imperiling its business.” Read more here. Fifth, from Brad Wendel (Cornell) at Legal Ethics Stuff: “There are many reasons for law firms to avoid cutting these deals with Trump … . I want to add a concern from my own little corner of the legal world: Spare a thought for the conflicts partners at these firms. It’s always been a difficult, thankless job, but it now got about 100 times harder.” Read more here.

#3 DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel Dismisses Complaint Against Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin. From Lawfare: “The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel declined to launch a probe of Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney, over an alleged ethics violation he committed when he sought to dismiss the criminal charges of a man whom he represented as a defense attorney. ‘[W]e decline to open a full investigation of this matter and have closed this file,’ wrote Hamilton P. Fox, the head of the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, in a February letter addressed to the complainant and obtained by Lawfare.” Read more here.

#4 “Justice Barrett Has Set a New Judicial Ethics Standard — and It’s About Time.” From Caroline Ciccone (Accountable.US) in The Hill: “Unlike every other federal court, the Supreme Court operates without mandatory ethics rules. The justices alone decide if their conflicts merit recusal, with no obligation to explain their reasoning. This self-policing system creates an accountability void that would be unacceptable in any other branch of government. However, a recent decision by a member of the court’s conservative supermajority shows us that it doesn’t have to be this way. Justice Amy Coney Barrett bucked this trend with her recent recusal from Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. Although Barrett provided no public explanation, it’s plausible if not likely that her decision stemmed from her close ties to Notre Dame’s Religious Liberty Clinic and personal friendship with one of the case’s legal adviser, Notre Dame law Professor and Federalist Society Director Nicole Stelle Garnett. This choice reflects the longstanding principle, mostly abandoned by the Roberts Supreme Court, that judges should step aside when personal relationships might bias them, or even create the appearance of impropriety.” Read more here.

#5 US House Panel Drops Inquiry Into Northwestern’s Law School Clinics – Move Comes After Professors Sued and Alleged Investigation Violated Their Constitutional Free Speech Rights. From The Guardian: “The US House education and workforce committee withdrew an investigation into Northwestern University’s law school clinics after professors there sued and alleged that the inquiry violated their constitutional free speech rights. The professors secured what amounted to a legal victory for them on Thursday, when the House committee withdrew its investigative requests with respect to the university and its law school’s Bluhm Legal Clinic program on Thursday.” Read more here.

#6 “Justice Department Expands its Retribution to American Bar Association.”From CBS News: “Amid a tumultuous and controversial campaign of executive orders targeting major law firms, the Justice Department is now adding the American Bar Association to its target list, according to a memo obtained by CBS News. In the memo dated Friday and shared with Justice Department employees, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche ordered that ‘the Department of Justice will no longer use taxpayer funds to pay for any travel to or engagement with ABA events. Additionally, department employees may not, when acting in their official capacities, speak at, attend, or otherwise participate in events hosted by the ABA.’” Read more here.

#7 “Justice Dept. Lawyers Are Struggling to Defend Trump’s Policies in Court.” From the New York Times: “‘Justice Department attorneys are being put in an impossible position: Obey the president, or uphold their ethical duty to the court and the Constitution,’ said Stacey Young, a former department lawyer who is now the executive director of Justice Connection, an organization of former department officials.” Read more here (gift link).

#8 SCOTUS Grants Cert to Review Limit on Attorney-Client Recess Communications. From the Bloomberg Law: “The US Supreme Court will hear the appeal of a Texas man who says his constitutional right to an attorney was violated when he and his lawyer were prohibited from discussing his testimony while his murder trial was in a recess overnight. In an order Monday, the justices agreed to consider if a court order, which bars attorney-client consultation during a trial, violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” Read more here. For more about the history of Supreme Court cases involving legal ethics, revisit Roundup Bonus Content No. 3.

#9 “Attorney Representing a Student Protester Detained by Federal Immigration Agents.” From National Public Radio: “Earlier this week, Michigan-based attorney Amir Makled was detained by federal immigration agents while returning home from a family vacation to the Dominican Republic. On Sunday at the Detroit Metro Airport, Makled — who is a U.S. citizen — attempted to pass through customs with his wife and children. The rest of his family was able to enter the country without issue. But when Makled’s turn came, he overheard one of the agents call for assistance from the ‘Tactical Terrorism Response Team.’ … Border agents pressured Makled to hand over his cell phone. He refused. After more than 90 minutes of back-and-forth, he eventually showed agents his contacts list. He was eventually released. Makled says he was never given a reason for his detainment. However, one of his current clients is a student who has been charged in connection to a pro-Palestinian protest at the University of Michigan. Makled does not think it’s a coincidence that he was targeted after deciding to represent this client following the Trump administration’s crackdown on visa holders who have expressed support for Palestine.” Read more and listen here.

#10 “If the Attorney General orders a DOJ lawyer to lie in court, should he refuse the order?” From David Kluft on LinkedIn: “NYC Bar Opinion 2025-1 addresses situations where a government lawyer is asked to lie or engage in other unethical conduct by a political appointee or other senior official. The Opinion states: ‘No obligation to a client—including one that happens to be a governmental entity—justifies a lawyer in violating the Rules. For that reason, a lawyer’s discretion to disobey a superior’s directives that would result in violations of the Rules may never be abridged, even if that superior accurately conveys the desires of the client governmental entity. It is especially true that a lawyer may not violate those Rules requiring candor and fair advocacy in the conduct of litigation in deference to the demands of a client, even if the client’s authorized representative is a high-ranking government official or one of its officers or agencies.’” Read more (including a link to the full NYC Bar Opinion) here.

#11 “NJ Justices OK Tech CLE And Reject Competence Proposal.” From Law360: “The New Jersey Supreme Court has approved a continuing legal education requirement for technology-related subjects but declined a proposal to add a comment to the competence section of the state’s Rules.” Read more here.

#12 Law Firms “Quietly Scrub DEI References from Websites;” Meanwhile “Hundreds” of Michigan Law Alumni Protest DEI Removal. Two headlines for #12. First, from The Guardian: “Nearly two dozen US law firms have quietly scrubbed references to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) from their website and revised descriptions of pro-bono work to more closely align with Donald Trump’s priorities, a Guardian review has found, underscoring the Trump administration’s successful campaign of intimidation against the legal profession. The changes, which have occurred at some of the nation’s most prestigious firms, include eliminating mention of pro-bono immigration work from firm websites and deleting sections entirely related to DEI. In some cases, firms appear to have dropped the word ‘diversity’ from descriptions of their work. In at least one case, a change included revising a quote from firm partners to eliminate mention of diversity and inclusion.” Read more here. Second, from MLive: “Hundreds of alumni from the University of Michigan Law School expressed their frustrations about the university’s cuts to its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in a recent letter. The Wednesday, April 9, letter was addressed to Law School interim dean Kyle Logue was sent on behalf of more than 250 alumni. Organizers behind the group, Concerned University of Michigan Law School Alumni, confirmed the letter now has over 330 signatures and counting.” Read more here.

#13 “An Uprising at a Big Law Firm Targeted by Trump.” From The Bulwark: “More than 500 associates and staff at a top global law firm sent a letter Friday morning urging the firm’s leadership not to enter into a consent agreement with Donald Trump as the White House ramps up its targeting of the legal profession. The effort being spearheaded by officials at Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP (A&O Shearman) was an attempt to stave off a deal first hinted at in a new report that the firm was among a group of big-name legal entities looking to craft a deal with the White House to avert restrictions on its business. But shortly after the letter was sent, Trump announced that the deal had been completed, with the firm set to provide $125 million in pro-bono legal services along with changes to its hiring practices.” Read more here.

#14 “Why One Lawyer Resigned When His Firm Caved to Trump.” From The Daily (a New York Times podcast): “Over the past few weeks, President Trump has used executive orders to wage war on law firms, specifically targeting those whose lawyers have investigated him or sued him, or have represented his enemies in court. Rather than fighting back, many of these elite law firms — including Paul Weiss and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — have struck deals with the Trump administration to avert the order, and top partners have closed ranks in support of the agreements. This has led to discontent, particularly among young lawyers, who feel that these deals have betrayed the principles of their firms. Earlier this week, The Daily podcast spoke to one associate who resigned: Thomas Sipp. A Columbia Law School graduate, Mr. Sipp, 27, opened up about why he had chosen to become a lawyer, and why he had decided to quit the law firm after less than two years.” Read the transcript and listen here (gift link).

#15 “Federal Judge’s Columbia Clerk Boycott Didn’t Harm Public Confidence in Judiciary, Judicial Council Rules.” From the ABA Journal: “A judge on the U.S. Court of International Trade did not violate ethics rules by refusing to hire law clerks who attended Columbia University, according to the judicial council of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago. In an April 8 decision, the council dismissed the complaint against Judge Stephen A. Vaden, one of 13 federal judges who participated in the boycott and explained why in a letter to the school.” Read more here.

Where’s the Rest of the Roundup?

Revisit the “Welcome Back Edition” for an explanation of the new format. And keep an eye out for next month’s “First Monday Edition” with reading recommendations, analysis, reforms watch, jobs, events, and much more.

Get Hired

Did you miss the 100+ job postings from previous weeks? Find them all here.

Upcoming Ethics Events & Other Announcements

Did you miss an announcement from previous weeks? Find them all here.

Keep in Touch

• News tips? Announcements? Events? A job to post? Reading recommendations? Email legalethics@substack.com – but be sure to subscribe first, otherwise the email won’t be delivered.
• Teaching Professional Responsibility or Legal Ethics? Check out the companion page for my casebook Professional Responsibility: A Contemporary Approach for teaching resources.

Renee Knake Jefferson holds the endowed Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics and is a Professor of Law at the University of Houston. Check out more of her writing at the Legal Ethics Roundup. Find her on X (formerly Twitter) at @reneeknake or Bluesky at legalethics.bsky.social. 

The post Legal Ethics Roundup: Trump Pro Bono Nears $1B, SCOTUS Takes Atty-Client Comms Case, Lawyer Detained @ DTW, Barrett Recusal Standard, DOJ Bans ABA, Judge’s Clerk Boycott OK Per Ethics Rules & More appeared first on Above the Law.