Some of Big Law’s most prominent firms suddenly have an image problem. The firms—the nine that struck deals with U.S. President Donald Trump to reverse or fend off the filing of against them—are no longer seen by clients or recruits in the same positive light, even if they are still profitable, boast highly respected partners, and sit comfortably near the top of the Global 200 and Am Law 100 rankings. Their reputations have been sullied—not just in the U.S. but also overseas. The deals were questioned by some from the start. But now that three of the firms that chose to fight Trump’s executive orders rather than strike a deal have won permanent injunctions, all within two months of the orders being signed, more lawyers are saying the nine were too hasty in their decisions to strike deals, in which they collectively committed to provide nearly $1 billion in pro bono and "free legal services" to causes the administration supports. They should have known, lawyers say, that the executive orders were a lost cause. Indeed, the federal judges overseeing the cases against Perkins Coie, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr, and Jenner & Block, who come from across the political spectrum, issued scathing opinions against the government as they ruled the executive orders unconstitutional. (The fourth firm that sued the government, Susman Godfrey, still awaits a decision on its summary judgment motion.) In Europe, the criticism goes even further, with lawyers in Germany and the Netherlands—countries where U.S. firms have invested heavily in offices and have hired top lawyers—receiving stern reminders of their obligations under the respective country’s legal code of conduct to remain independent of government interference. The warnings apply to all lawyers, including those who work for firms that struck deals with Trump. Last month, the Dutch Bar Association issued a memorandum reminding lawyers registered in the Netherlands that they are obligated to follow the country’s law governing the legal profession, which includes rules of professional conduct. Lawyers must act without interference from governments, and are not permitted to make any promises or statements, or enter into agreements that compromise or threaten to compromise their independence, the memorandum said, noting that the rules apply to all foreign lawyers registered in the Netherlands, to Dutch lawyers who work abroad, and to lawyers who provide legal services from the Netherlands to clients abroad. The German Bar Association has also issued a warning to lawyers that they could be found in breach of their professional obligations if they work at or with any of the nine U.S. firms that made deals with the Trump administration. The law requires lawyers “to maintain independence from the state and to avoid any contractual or other binding agreements that would compromise their freedom to act solely in the interest of their client,” the association wrote in a formal position paper. While the firms that struck deals with Trump have insisted to U.S. lawmakers that they maintain complete independence in their operations and client representation, the German Bar doesn’t see it that way. The agreements “include or imply a commitment not to act against the Trump administration,” it said, adding that lawyers at those firms may be viewed by opposing counsel and the courts as “nothing more than a hired mouthpiece.” “It appears possible, and perhaps even probable, that the respective firms have violated the duty of independence by concluding these deals,” the Bar Association wrote. Whether this affects mandates or interferes with revenue from European clients remains to be seen. But reputations matter... | 