Law firms having a ‘constructive relationship’ with Trump is dangerous

When the venerable Paul Weiss law firm decided to capitulate rather than resist President Trump’s patently illegal executive order penalizing the firm, it issued a statement saying, “We look forward to an engaged and constructive relationship with the president and his administration.” Other firms entering into such settlements have issued similar statements.

Yet with all the appropriate criticism directed at the settling firms, not enough attention has been paid to these statements, which comprise one of the most questionable aspects of these deals.

What do these firms actually mean when they make these declarations? Do the statements imply, for example, that these firms were not just acquiescing to extortive demands from the president, but are willing to become his ally? And when the president, as he recently did, offers the legal services of the settling firms to coal companies, does that mean that he has the right to decide which clients they represent?

Let us hope that neither of these is the case. After all, is it really possible for lawyers who take an oath to support the Constitution to have “an engaged and constructive relationship” with an administration that regularly flouts the law and abuses its powers?

In under three months, Trump has turned the Justice Department into a partisan political agency staffed by ultra-loyalists who cheered him on when he called for investigations of his opponents and declared criticism of him by cable news networks to be illegal. He threatens judges who have the temerity to find his actions illegal. He seeks to stifle opposition to his illegal actions by threatening to penalize lawyers who represent clients challenging them and uses illegal executive orders to try to disable major firms from challenging his authoritarian agenda.

Trump makes personal loyalty to him, not qualifications, the requirement to hold critical national security positions. He is implementing an immigration crackdown aimed at punishing speech, and without due process makes a tattoo the basis for deporting someone to a notorious prison in El Salvador. He ignores the role of Congress by refusing to spend money it appropriated and dismantling agencies it created by statute.

The Trump administration is wrecking the international security and economic systems that have made America the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world. It is using the same extortionate tactics against universities that it is using against law firms. It routinely uses lies to justify its actions. The list could go on and on.

While lawyers often like to think of themselves as part of a profession operating under a strong moral and ethical code, the reality is that large law firms are also businesses. Numerous partners at these firms make many millions of dollars. The leaders of the settling firms made the decision that they would rather advance their business interests and preserve their enormous profitability by cutting a deal with Trump rather than by fighting these executive orders.

Hopefully, however, the “constructive relationship” described by law firms when they settled will not involve providing legal support for the patently illegal steps the Trump administration has taken and still continues to take. Indeed, we can hope that these firms are still willing to play their traditional role of representing those harmed by illegal government action. Whether they will do so, however, is far from certain, particularly if it angers a president they feared resisting.

Even if the settling firms’ future “constructive relationships” does not involve actively supporting Trump’s attacks on American democracy and security, when they made the business decision to go beyond acquiescing to specific terms, and declared that they wanted a positive ongoing relationship with Trump and his administration, they did something nearly as bad. They made it seem that what Trump was doing was just normal politics, and that being aligned with — rather than resisting — those who are undermining our constitutional system of government was acceptable.

The cost of these decisions is enormous. We now live in a world where Congress has abdicated its responsibility not only to protect their own powers, but to protect our constitutional democracy. Our normal system of checks and balances has disappeared, and our democracy is at risk. It is thus particularly important for leaders in the private sector — including businessmen like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Ackman and others — to recognize the extraordinary danger of what is happening in our country and not to acquiesce, and instead to use their available platforms to speak out against it. And it is especially important for lawyers — who have a special responsibility to respect the rule of law — to do so.

When democratic norms and constitutional systems are under attack, acquiescence and normalizing illegal and overreaching actions by the powerful only emboldens those seeking to undermine our system of government. Now is not the time for a “constructive relationship” with those threatening our freedoms. It is a time for resistance. That is certainly the lesson of Germany in the 1930s.

Let’s hope enough of our leaders in business and law recognize the danger before it is too late. And let us hope they understand that personal self-interest or maximizing profits is not more important than the future of our democracy.

Richard J. Davis is an attorney. He was assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Carter administration and an assistant Watergate special prosecutor.