t has been a tumultuous start for US law firms under the Trump spotlight. Ben Girdlestone explores the reputational challenges.
Normally, leaving the drafting of an article to the last minute before the deadline will only result in giving both the author and their editor some unnecessary stress. However, when we consider the cataclysmic political events of the last month, an accelerated drafting timetable going right to the wire was the only option.
Early in February, the week after Donald Trump’s inauguration, I was in Washington DC and New York seeing several Big Law clients and prospects.
I spoke to numerous law firm leaders and senior communications professionals to ask them what impact Trump would have on Big Law. Broadly, views fell into four camps:
Law firms were probably going to stay out of the immediate Trump firing line, so aside from turning down the volume on announcements around new initiatives, there is no real reason to worry.
DEI just needs a bit of a rebrand – ie. call it something else in your firm – and again, there is no cause for too much concern.
This is an issue, and firms are going to have to start scaling back on DEI initiatives and, potentially, DEI professionals.
One firm told me they were prepared, if necessary, to litigate against the government to protect their DEI programmes.
These measured points of view appear pretty dated just a couple of months on because nobody anticipated what happened next; the speed, severity and impact on the legal profession has been seismic following these conversations.
It is extraordinary that in the weeks that followed, Trump issued aggressive executive orders against Covington, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss and WilmerHale. And it is not just these major firms that have been in the firing line. Numerous firms were named in a letter sent by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requesting information about firms’ diversity, equity and inclusion-related employment practices as part of Trump’s wider blitz of corporate DEI. Even Disney is in the firing line.
Perhaps most startling and visceral of all were comments by Trump’s notorious strategist Steve Bannon, who said: “They’re not going to be walking around making four and five, six million bucks a year because he’s going to put those law firms out of business. Let me repeat this. There’re major law firms in Washington, D.C. and … what we are trying to do is put you out of business and bankrupt you.”
Law firm responses have ranged from publicly stating robust intentions to litigate to defend the firm’s position and values to backing down completely.
Paul Weiss is perhaps the most high-profile example of the latter, with Chair Brad Karp admitting that Donald Trump would have “destroyed” his firm if it had not agreed to offer free legal advice to the White House. He said: “We are gratified that the President has agreed to withdraw the Executive Order concerning Paul, Weiss. We look forward to an engaged and constructive relationship with the President and his administration.”
Culture wars
The deep impact of what Trump has done is to create a culture war within law firms. This can be boiled down to a straight-out battle between idealism and realism. A Skadden associate has resigned over her firm’s perceived climb down over DEI, whilst elsewhere, groups of associates have mobilised to call out their law firms for acquiescing to Trump and not standing up for DEI-related values and targets.
What is absolutely true is that certain firms were, and will continue to be, concerned about a perceived risk to their business of maintaining the status quo in respect of DEI.
In addition to Paul Weiss, Skadden, Freshfields and others have made moves to either make deals with Trump or soften DEI-related language on their websites and other public-facing materials. We can call this a dose of realism.
Law firms face a challenging choice from a communications perspective. Decisions they make now may secure the short-term future of the firm but at what cost over the longer term?
If the Democrats, with their more inclusive agenda, win the next election in 2028, how will the actions that firms are taking now be assessed and judged? What will the reputational risks be in respect to client attrition and even the desire of talented graduates to sign up for training contracts?
There are other important points to consider too.
We saw last year some firms with a significant presence in the Middle East opting for a two-tier approach to LGBTQ+ community engagement. Will we start to see that approach replicated around DEI more broadly, with US and UK versions carrying very different language around diversity? That might be perceived, at best, as confusing and, at worst, highly problematic from a brand consistency perspective.
Law firms have historically adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach to issues management and, specifically, communicating internally and externally around emotive issues.
It would appear from the tumultuous month of March that internal pressure from an engaged associate base for their firms to categorically reaffirm their commitment to DEI will be incredibly strong.
Brad Karp may have stabilised his firm in the short term thanks to the deal with Trump, but what will the reputational cost be for Paul Weiss and other firms that have publicly backed down? Those firms that have stood up to Trump will undoubtedly take a hit in terms of losing some nervous clients and even some of their people, but the halo effect of staying strong and standing up for your values may ultimately keep a vocal associate base onside, thus securing the future of the firm in the medium and long term.
Ben Girdlestone is the Joint Managing Director of Byfield, a leading communications agency for the legal sector which has a roster of AmLaw top 50 firms among its clients. Ben is the former Head of Communications at Slaughter and May.
Members only: if you want to add this reading to your CPD, please log in and complete the evaluation
Log in
