Big Backlash at Big Law Democrats

Major law firms have bent the knee to Trump—yet the influential Democratic attorneys who work at them keep collecting lucrative paychecks.

Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff on October 7, 2024 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

Money over morality

THE FRUSTRATION THAT DEMOCRATIC OFFICIALS have felt as some of the country’s most prestigious law firms have cut deals with Donald Trump to avoid his retribution is quickly morphing into anger that top Democrats at these firms won’t quit in protest.

That anger has been directed at a cadre of individuals, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, as well as recent second gentleman Doug Emhoff—all of whom continue to hold posts at firms that have cut deals with the White House. Democrats argue that their refusal to leave those cushy posts is an act of selfishness that has undercut the party’s argument that the country is facing an existential crisis and that institutions and their leaders must be compelled to stand up to Trumpism.

“I think people of principles should quit these law firms,” said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and a former senior official in the Biden White House.

“If you are a lawyer who makes $20 million a year, I appreciate the sacrifice that you might make less money because you might lose some clients. But how do you look at yourself?,” said Tanden, who once worked at one of the firms (Paul, Weiss) that settled with Trump. “Everyone’s grandchildren are going to ask them what they did in this moment. What were you doing? People have to look at them with a straight face and ask what they did. Signing off on a $40 million or $100 million payout strikes me as pretty pathetic.”

The ire directed at big-name lawyers for not resigning from their firms is the latest fissure to erupt inside Democratic circles over what type of protest this moment calls for. Only in this case it’s not about whether Joe Biden should drop out in order to save democracy or whether Sen. Chuck Schumer should support a Republican funding bill to avoid a government shutdown. It’s about whether party leadership can continue to preach to voters about the importance of fighting fascism—all while some prominent figures in the party refuse to trade a multimillion-dollar annual paycheck for a not-quite-as-comfortable (but still multimillion!) paycheck at a firm not kowtowing to Trump.

“Make no mistake: Any Paul Weiss lawyer who leaves now, or soon, will not only be blameless but celebrated for standing on principle. But those who choose to stay and make peace with this betrayal of democracy will either be fools—for thinking this will pass—or cowards—for accepting their firm’s role in undermining the legal profession,” Marc Elias, the prominent Democratic lawyer, wrote this week in his Democracy Docket newsletter.

Polls show Democratic voters are frustrated with party leadership. They feel like Democratic leaders’ actions are too often disconnected from their rhetoric about the existential stakes for democracy: that they’ve been talking the talk but not walking the walk. And they’ve watched in horror as institutions they once thought were philosophically aligned with them (including academia and Big Law) have, instead, maneuvered to avoid Trump’s ire rather than confront it.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher, where Emhoff works, recently agreed to a deal with Trump to end its diversity programs and provide $100 million in legal services to the White House to “represent the full political spectrum, including Conservative ideals,” according to a Truth Social post from the president. Paul, Weiss—home to Johnson, Lynch, and Karen Dunn, who led Kamala Harris’s debate preparation for her matchup against Trump—similarly agreed to $40 million in pro bono legal work that Trump said in an executive order would support “veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism; and other similar initiatives.” And just this week, Milbank LLP, where Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, is a partner, agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work to causes supported by Trump.

None of those principals has resigned, even though they had previously encouraged Democrats to take strong moral stands against Trumpism. Katyal is a fierce and frequent cable-news Trump critic. Johnson urged those in the legal profession to fight against rising authoritarianism in the weeks before the election. Lynch also warned in the leadup to the election that Trump threatened the future of democracy.

“The whole episode is just as pathetic as it is dangerous. We’re going to be paying for the cowardice of these law firms for years,” said a Democratic strategist. “It’s a time for choosing, and we need the firms to feel internal pressure for their gutlessness. I don’t see how anyone who cares about the basic foundations of democracy could stay on at any of these places.”

The pressure to resign may be most acutely felt for Emhoff, in part because of his wife’s future political ambitions. Harris is reportedly looking at a run for governor in California. And Democratic strategists in the state said Emhoff’s continued presence at Willkie could complicate matters if it persists into 2026. He will almost certainly be peppered with questions about the pro bono cases his firm takes up on behalf of the Trump administration and be repeatedly asked if he feels like he has a responsibility to publicly resist Trump’s shakedown of the legal community.

“Whatever Doug’s answer is, it will never hold water while still being employed at his firm. He will become a distraction for Kamala as well. She will have to answer these questions for him on the campaign trail,” said Michael Trujillo, an LA-based Democratic strategist. “Doug can get another good deal at another firm. His leaving is only good politics for him and Kamala—staying at his firm seems like the worst idea of any option.”

Speaking at a charity gala dinner Thursday night in Los Angeles, Emhoff said that he told Willkie leadership he wanted to fight Trump but was overruled, according to CNN. A person familiar with the situation told The Bulwark that hours before the deal was announced on Tuesday, Emhoff spoke at an event at Georgetown Law School and warned students: “The rule of law is under attack. Democracy is under attack. And so, all of us lawyers need to do what we can to push back on that. . . . Us lawyers have always been on the frontlines, fighting for civil rights, for justice. . . . I love being a lawyer, this is what we do: We fight for people. We fight for what’s right.”

Requests for additional comment about Emhoff’s future at the firm were not returned.¹

---

PRIVATELY, TOP OFFICIALS AT THESE FIRMS argue that the anger being directed at them is overblown. They insist that they have given up relatively little in exchange for Trump not entirely decimating their practices, as they believe his executive orders would have done. Several have argued that the threat of the president’s actions had a chilling effect on their business, and that competing firms were already trying to poach clients by using Trump’s executive order as leverage.

But the legal community, writ large, has widely agreed that Trump’s actions are blatantly illegal. They’ve noted that law firms that have challenged Trump’s actions in court have been successful. In an attempt to demonstrate some resolve, more than 500 law firms signed on to an amicus brief on Friday in support of Perkins Coie—one of the firms targeted by the Trump administration.

Still, as long as prominent Democratic figures keep their comfortable perches in law firms that have acceded to Trump, nagging questions will remain.

“It definitely individually calls into question their integrity. This is why I think so much of the Democratic base is upset with its leadership. The Democratic base believes that the leadership was right when they said democracy was on the line,” said Jeff Hauser, the founder and executive director of the Revolving Door Project. “It’s not like anyone who was expressing those alarms during the campaign has had reason to calm down and say this is all going nice, stable, and law-abiding. So you have that hypocrisy; you have that disconnect.”

🫏 Donkey Business:

— I’ll admit, when organizers first started hitting me up about the “Hands Off” day of action planned for April 5, I was skeptical that they were going to get a big turnout. After all, the #Resistance this time around has been much more subdued compared to Trump’s first term. But yesterday’s protests were a clear indication that a vital opposition does, in fact, exist. Organizers estimate that over a million people showed up at the 1,200 events held around the country to protest Trump’s policies and Elon Musk’s DOGE.

“I think it’s a pretty defiant statement about whether or not the opposition is alive. The opposition re-entered the chat this weekend,” one of the organizers texted me on Saturday, adding that they were most impressed by the number of people turning up in small and mid-sized cities, like Huntsville, Alabama.

My open tabs:

— I will read anything our Will Sommer writes, especially when the headline is: “The Hip-Hop Loving, Adult-Filmmaking Podcaster Whom Dems Keep Spurning.”

— Can cowboy fever help bull riding become the next UFC?

— Maybe Democrats don’t actually need to fight over Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s Abundance?

1. The irony of a law firm bowing to Trump when it still has in its name a former partner who famously put country before party during a moment of crisis is almost too rich to believe.