Donald Trump follows one of the top law firms in the United States. Its counterattack decision took only two hours.
When President Donald Trump issued an executive order this month, the road ahead was clear against Susman Godfrey, one of the outstanding American law firms.
The company's attorney on behalf of the company said at a court hearing that the order was “the blue total bolt.” According to two people familiar with the matter, no one on Susman Godfrey talked about making a deal.
The company is ready to fight.
The partners unanimously agreed that the company would sue the U.S. government for blocking executive orders within two hours of review, the two said.
In Trump's political campaign against big laws, nine companies reached deals with the president, jointly pledging $940 million in unpaid work. Four – Perkins Coie, Jenner and Jenner & Block, Wilmerhale and Susman Godfrey – chose to fight the government in court.
In more than a month in Trump’s war on big laws, there is little evidence that the four companies suffered serious consequences when choosing to fight.
In each of the four lawsuits, a federal judge quickly blocked the most important factor in each executive order and said they later ruled in favor of the law firm.
According to sources familiar with the matter, the judge's swift order caused potential losses to Jenner & Block. It said in the lawsuit that 40% of the company's revenue comes from companies with government contracts. Sources said that although the client was nervous, there was only one type of contact that was represented on a free basis, cutting back.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Perkins Coie's biggest clients, including Amazon and Boeing, stick with the company despite losing some of Honeywell's jobs. William Malley, the company's managing partner, told U.S. lawyers that his average profit at the company grew nearly 16% this year in 2024, and he saw “momentum” in his business this year.
It is not clear that Wilmerhale or Susman Godfrey have lost any clients. Both parties said in court documents that Trump's executive order would harm his business, but they did not provide any examples of clients leaving or refusing to do business.
Trump was beaten in court
In court, the fighting law firm is winning.
They believe that the executive order violates the Constitution, is an example of textbooks for the government to illegally target people and companies, and violates the lawyer rights of clients.
Law firms have carried out discriminatory DEI programs, some of which pose a national security threat because they hired lawyers who previously investigated Trump, the executive order said.
Justice Department lawyers argue that Trump's power is too broad to stop orders and that the judiciary cannot even force the White House to explain itself.
At a hearing on April 23, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who oversees the Perkins Coie case, seemed incredible on the government's arguments. She has put Justice Department attorney Richard Lawson in some ironic questions about the scope of the executive order, abandoning some of his positions as “a hypertechnical legal argument that may not have any merit.”
At the same time, on the case file, the government was surpassed.
The two attorneys representing the administration are Chad Mizelle, chief of staff of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who worked for the first Trump administration and a pair of elite law firms, Lawson joined the Justice Department after a conservative nonprofit, founded by Aide Stephen Miller.
Two other professional Justice Department officials have previously been in the Perkins COIE case, one of whom has retired.
Representatives from the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment.
Companies that sued the government are working with legal heavyweights. Perkins Coie chose Williams & Connolly; Cooley LLP stands for Jenner & Block; Conservative legal superstar Paul Clement stands for Wilmerhale. Susman Godfrey hired Munger Tolles, an elite law firm that organized earlier legal summary against Trump’s executive order.
Each lawsuit also attracted summary of various courtroom documents (supportive legal arguments) from law professors, former judges, bar associations, press freedom advocates, and more.
Judge Loren Alikhan quipped Lawson in Lawson’s case earlier this month when he attended the hearing alone in Susman Godfrey’s case, “You’re a little exhausted here.”
Will the trade last?
Trump's executive order could have revoked the government contracts of various companies and the security permits of lawyers. They may also ban company employees from entering government buildings, and the judge said Trump's order means lawyers will not be able to access the court or the post office.
Brad Karp, chairman of Trump’s first company, described the executive order as a “survival crisis” that “it’s easy to destroy our company,” explaining why he chose to reach a deal with the president.
Companies that deal with the White House – Paul Weiss, Skadden, Milbank, Wilkie Fal, Cardvalard, Kirkland and Ellis, A&o Shearman, Simpson Thacher and Latham & Watkins – are in Trump's good charm in Trump's grace.
However, their agreement may be unstable and the terms of each transaction remain blurred. It is not clear whether there are more detailed underlying agreements to clarify the responsibilities of each company. If any company challenges the Trump administration in court or raises a client that Trump opposes, he can issue a new executive order.
“If his explanation is different from the company’s explanation, he can line it up by issuing executive orders,” Nate Eimer, an attorney for more than 800 companies opposing the executive order, said of Trump. He said the settled companies “put themselves in a very, very difficult position.”
The White House has not answered questions about whether there is a non-public agreement. None of the companies that concluded the deal responded to requests for comment. Wilmerhaal's representative declined to comment. Perkins Coie did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump openly pondered his use of law firms for various purposes. In a television-spread cabinet meeting a week after he announced the full tariffs, they said they could negotiate a trade deal.
Mike Howell, who runs the oversight program, is a group that stands out from the Conservative Legacy Foundation, who has letters to many law firms, including Trump (including Trump) yet to target, asking them to spend $10 million in time to help litigate the “Blue State” Freedom of Information Litigation against “Blue State” institutions.
“I'm dealing with management partners and some of them react quickly,” Howell said. “Some people say in the best way, 'buzzing.'”
An atmosphere of fear
The decision to fight or make a deal opens a huge rift in the legal profession.
Differences arose between litigators and traders, between equity partners and idealistic colleagues, and between large corporations with centralized decision-making processes and smaller, more democratic partnerships.
“Paul Weiss – If they don't surrender, we might have a chance,” said Sean Burke, a legal headhunter with Whistler. “It's like straw breaking the camel's back and even starting.”
Paul Weiss is the head of the free practice exercises, although he says his career changes have begun for months. Perkins Coie's senior government contract lawyer moved to another company. Several employees of the company that signed the deal exited and blew up their employers on LinkedIn.
Some lawyers left more quietly. “I am the main breadwinner of my family,” said a company that reached a deal with Trump. “I don't have generations of wealth to restore it. I'm not one of those that can catch a fire and leave.”
A former federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office in southern New York said the deal with big laws has caused chills in the upper class of the legal community.
The former prosecutor said some of the big legal partners were proud of their fight. Others who understand why the company has reached a deal are still unhappy.
“Everyone is afraid, period,” the man said. “It's not each other, but general. This culture of fear I've never seen in the big law.”
The company's internal lawyers were also nervous. They want to make sure their outside lawyers are willing to fight the government when necessary. An attorney working in the office of the company's general counsel told Business Insider that her company's consultant at a law firm that reached an agreement with Trump said it was necessary to maintain an impact on regulators.
“It feels cynical,” said the in-house lawyer, who wanted to redirect his work to other companies. “If you plan to get into trouble before the government, I will be uncomfortable and you will represent me before the government.”
Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert and Brent Griffiths contributed the report.
Read original articles about business insiders
