Lawyers, as guardians of justice and the rule of law, represent a significant barrier to those who seek to impose tyranny or disorder. To such individuals, the legal profession is not merely an inconvenience, it is a formidable defense against despotism. In other words, to those who seek chaos or absolute power, lawyers aren’t a nuisance; they’re a threat. 

One of the most frequently quoted-and frequently misunderstood-lines from Shakespeare is: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” While often interpreted as a disparagement of the legal profession, a closer reading within the context of “Henry VI, Part 2” reveals quite the opposite. Rather than expressing contempt, the line reflects a strategic recognition of the lawyer’s role in society. Lawyers, as guardians of justice and the rule of law, represent a significant barrier to those who seek to impose tyranny or disorder. To such individuals, the legal profession is not merely an inconvenience, it is a formidable defense against despotism. In other words, to those who seek chaos or absolute power, lawyers aren’t a nuisance; they’re a threat. 

Three months into the new administration’s second term, a chill has settled over Big Law. At the heart of the storm is a sweeping, aggressive strategy from the White House: targeting major law firms not only for their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices, but also for perceived ideological opposition. Firms that have represented individuals and institutions opposed to the administration-and firms whose former employees have worked on election integrity or the Mueller investigation -have also been targeted. What began as campaign trail rhetoric has evolved into formal investigations, executive orders, and litigation, all aimed squarely at firms viewed as political adversaries or out of step with the administration’s agenda.  

This isn’t just political theater-it’s having real-world consequences. Hiring, retention, and reputational dynamics across the legal industry are already shifting under the weight of this new pressure campaign. Current and prospective clients are increasingly concerned about how they’ll be represented by these firms. Will their counsel continue to advocate for them without hesitation?  

In an article for Politico, Ankush Khardori notes that firms may begin evaluating new clients through a different lens: “Law firms will be less willing to take on political clients. The second is that law firms may prove less willing to hire former government lawyers involved in politically controversial cases-or even lawyers who they think may go on to do that sort of work.” He also suggests that firms could retreat from pro bono work that might be seen as politically charged by the current administration or the broader political parties depending on who has the majority. 

These are not abstract concerns; they carry real consequences that could have long-term ripple effects throughout the legal field and beyond. 

The Firms Under Federal Microscope 

In mid-March 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sent letters to 20 of the nation’s most prominent law firms, initiating inquiries into alleged discriminatory hiring practices linked to DEI policies. Those firms include: 

• Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 

• Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 

• Willkie Farr & Gallagher 

• Milbank 

• Perkins Coie 

• A&O Shearman 

• Debevoise & Plimpton 

• Cooley 

• Freshfields 

• Goodwin Procter 

• Hogan Lovells 

• Kirkland & Ellis 

• Latham & Watkins 

• McDermott Will & Emery 

• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 

• Morrison Foerster 

• Reed Smith 

• Ropes & Gray 

• Sidley Austin 

• Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 

• White & Case 

• Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (WilmerHale) 

These inquiries go well beyond DEI policy reviews. In the EEOC’s letter to Perkins Coie, the agency demanded a searchable Excel spreadsheet of every attorney applicant since 2019, including name, sex, race, law school, GPA, hiring outcome, compensation and promotion history-an unprecedented level of granularity that signals a fishing expedition, not a fact-finding mission.  

In stark contrast to this concern about “out-of-control DEI” within the nation’s leading law firms is the reality that diversity at these firms is incredibly low. It is widely acknowledged that the legal profession in the United States is among the least diverse professions. Our data shows that overall ethnic diversity numbers in Big Law just hit an all-time high of only 20%, and within the partner class, it stands at 13%. The National Association for Law Placement noted that the number of equity partners from underrepresented groups is just 10%, and 25% for women. These are hardly numbers that could underpin any credible charge of bias. (Please note that in 2023, the U.S. population self-identified as 42% nonwhite.)  

Why attack firms on DEI if this is the case? It sends a chilling message to other professions and corporations that DEI efforts will be targeted. If these firms will not defend these practices, how can anyone else? 

Executive Orders and the ‘Weaponized Lawfare’ Firms 

In tandem with the EEOC blitz, Trump signed Executive Order 14173 on Jan. 21, 2025, banning DEI practices in any job funded by a federal contract. On March 6, a second, more targeted order followed, aimed directly at Perkins Coie, citing the firm’s history of litigation against Trump-era policies and even implying national security concerns.  

Eight firms were immediately forced into a high-stakes decision: comply quietly-or fight back: 

Yielding: 

• Milbank 

• Paul Weiss 

• Skadden 

• Willkie Farr 

• A&O Shearman 

• Kirkland & Ellis 

• Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 

• Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 

Filed Suit: 

• Perkins Coie 

• WilmerHale 

• Covington & Burling 

• Jenner & Block

Legal Pushback and the Battle for the Courts  

Perkins Coie struck first, filing a suit in Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00716-BAH, challenging the constitutionality of the executive order. The case quickly drew two waves of amicus briefs: 

• 346 former judges, arguing the order undermines the judiciary’s independence and chills fair legal representation. 

• 504 law firms, voicing concern that the order violates core constitutional principles, including the right to counsel, freedom of association and professional independence. 

Their central argument: no administration should use executive power to punish law firms for representing politically unpopular clients. While the amicus brief was signed by over 800 law firms, only 16 firms in the Am Law Top 200 signed in support. 

A Growing Price Tag: Attrition, Recruitment and Reputation 

The fallout may not remain confined to the courtroom. Some attorneys have resigned and made high-profile public statements explaining their decisions. These resignations, however, have been limited, and the attrition tracked in our proprietary Leopard Solutions database has not yet shown alarming trends.  

Firms that have reached an understanding with the Trump administration have not experienced a dramatic reduction in headcount. This group is down 53 attorneys during this period in 2025, slightly more than the 42-attorney decline recorded during the same timeframe in 2024 (March 6 to April 29). While overall churn is higher this year, with 347 departures and 305 hires, those numbers are also elevated compared to the same period in 2024, which saw 251 exits and 210 new hires. For those expecting a wave of mass resignations, the data suggests they may be waiting a while longer.  

However, the full impact-particularly the consequences following settlements and resignations-may not be immediately visible. Ripple effects are already surfacing, especially in recruitment. Multiple recruiters report increasing difficulty attracting lateral hires and retaining diverse talent at firms perceived to have compromised their values. Even when attrition numbers remain stable, the feedback suggests a shift: candidates are becoming more cautious about joining firms that appear to “bend the knee” or fail to stand firm under pressure.  

A recent Linkedln post from a prominent legal recruiter urged others not to intentionally poach lawyers from firms fighting back against the order.  

Our 2024 Gen Z survey found that 74% of respondents cited “culture” as the primary reason they chose their firm. This generation is the most racially diverse and places a strong emphasis on social justice and inclusiveness. In our survey, “reputation” (67%) was second only to culture in importance. So, what happens when that culture undergoes a dramatic shift? What happens if their firm suffers a reputational hit? Will Gen Z prioritize their principles-or a padded paycheck?  

The agreement brokered by Paul Weiss involved providing $40 million worth of “pro bono legal services” to support the administration’s initiatives-significantly less than what some firms were reportedly asked to commit, in some cases more than double that amount. These initiatives include assisting veterans, promoting fairness in the justice system, and other mutually agreed-upon projects.  

However, it’s important to note that the terms of such “deals” can shift at the discretion of the sitting president. What begins as seemingly neutral or noble work could easily evolve into assignments that many attorneys find ethically troubling or fundamentally opposed to their principles. For some, being asked to contribute to such efforts could be the breaking point. 

An associate at Kirkland & Ellis publicly explained their decision to speak out upon departure, framing it as an act of solidarity: “For others who feel similarly, but might need to know they are not alone before speaking up.” It was less a resignation than a rallying cry-and a signal that the pressure isn’t just external but coming from within. For many attorneys, the calculus has shifted: it’s no longer just about compensation or prestige, but about whether a firm’s values-and actions-align with their own. The political pressure is real, and it’s reshaping the talent pipeline, firm culture, and the profession’s long-term trajectory.  

The Unspoken Problem: Law Firms as Political Targets  

What’s emerging is a new axis of influence in the legal profession: ideological alignment versus institutional integrity. Under increasing political pressure, law firms are being punished from both ends of the spectrum. Some face backlash for embracing DEI initiatives. Others are scrutinized-or penalized-for defending clients and causes that powerful figures oppose.  

Regardless of the stance, the message from the Trump-era political ecosystem is disturbingly consistent: compliance is expected, and deviation is costly.  

This is not a debate about which side is right. It’s about what happens when legal representation-a core function of democracy-becomes politicized. 

For clients, this raises a chilling question: Can I trust my law firm to stand with me if the political winds shift? Or will they choose the administration over me to protect their own interests?  

Steven Brill, founder of The American Lawyer and Court TV, said in Bloomberg’s “Big Law Must Stop Caving to Trump’s Demands“: 

“Defending democracy from authoritarianism depends on three pillars: the press, the courts, and the legal profession. If the government tries to rein in the press from reporting what the people need to know, the courts must be there to protect the press. If the government tries to act beyond its authority, the courts must be there to protect the victims. But the courts cannot do any of that if there are not competent, willing lawyers to press the case. Lawyers are the lynchpin of everything that protects our society.” 

Future Classes 

Law students entering Big Law today face several disadvantages in the race to succeed. As The New York Times’ Noam Scheiber noted, “In years past, Big Law traditionally cultivated talent from within, hiring young lawyers out of law school or clerkships and promoting the very best to partner after several years. While that convention still exists, it has been eroding over time, as firms increasingly view their peer firms as a recruiting pool.”  

Leopard Solutions data supports this. In 2012, these firms hired far more entry-level associates than lateral hires. That changed in 2018, when lateral hires surpassed entry-level hires for several years. The trend flipped again in 2023 and 2024, with entry-level hiring once again edging ahead. 

The hiring pattern is interesting, but so is the road to partnership, with both groups seeing it as a goal. Looking at the growth pattern, you can see that today’s law students face a daunting path to the top and are promoted far less than their lateral counterparts. This data supports Schreiber’s argument that the ‘loyalty’ factor in law firms is in shorter supply today, as the top firms focus on a ‘free agent’ philosophy to increase profitability. Lateral hires are always closer to the money, and rainmaking partners are in high demand. Salaries for the top rainmakers can exceed $20 million or more.  

In this high-stakes game for talent who can produce big dollars for the firm, the ‘free agent’ philosophy can help individuals reach great financial heights-but it could also damage a firm in the long run. According to Schreiber, “When prominent law firms largely promoted from within, most partners stayed put for much of their career. But when a firm’s biggest moneymakers feel empowered to come and go, they have little incentive to ride out adversity. 

Schreiber reminds us that “Large law firms are distinctly for-profit enterprises, and the biggest and most profitable ones got that way by following business imperatives, not political principles.” This is true, but many-Paul Weiss among them-have been lauded for their more liberal, high-minded efforts. Today, however, the world sees mainly silence from this group in the face of the assault on their profession and fellow firms.  

The Washington Post reported that former Biden administration officials are having trouble finding lawyers to represent them-and they are not alone. Williams & Connolly have taken the opposite approach, agreeing to represent Perkins Coie in their important case against the executive order. According to the article, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell (presiding over the case) said she had “enormous respect for them taking this case when not every law firm would.” She herself was targeted for granting Perkins Coie a temporary restraining order, as the Justice Department sought to remove her from the case for being “insufficiently impartial.” 

Conclusion: Fight, Fold, or Fade  

The legal industry has long stood as a gatekeeper of justice and a guardian of principle. But in 2025, it finds itself under siege-not just by disillusioned clients and employees, but by an increasingly overreaching federal government. How law firms respond to this moment could define their legacy. If, in effect, we “kill all the lawyers” by forcing them to represent only those deemed acceptable, or to hire based on ideological alignment, we dismantle one of the last remaining pillars of a free society. And when that pillar falls, the risk is not just to the profession-but to all of us.  

Laura Leopard is the founder and general manager of Leopard Solutions, a legal intelligence provider for all types of businesses that provides detailed legal market research and competitive intelligence designed to serve the legal industry, including law firms, corporate counsel, legal search professionals and law schools. 

Reprinted with permission from the 04/29/2025 edition of the The American Lawyer © 2025 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.