"The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers."
Those foreboding lines from Shakespeare’s *King Henry IV* surfaced in the opinion of Senior District Judge Beryl Howell, appointed by Obama. This opinion addressed an executive order from Trump that would threaten law firm Perkins Coie for its involvement in the 2016 election.
Perhaps Howell would benefit from another line from the same play: “I don’t think I was.” Many who now oppose certain legal actions are the same individuals who targeted conservative lawyers, or worse, stayed silent while those attacks happened.
In response to Howell’s ruling, Perkins Coie expressed to NBC News that it upheld the “right to choose an attorney without fear of retaliation.” But this is a luxury that conservative lawyers have not experienced for years.
I was opposed to Trump’s executive order against law firms. Still, one must recognize that it takes more than the poetry of Shakespeare to cover the hypocrisy displayed by many lawyers, law schools, and bar associations.
In recent years, Democratic groups have initiated campaigns pressuring businesses to dismiss lawyers who represent Trump or conservative causes. This includes boycotts and targeted pressure on clients—tactics reminiscent of those employed against individuals, like Elon Musk, when he tried to change Twitter’s censorship policies.
The effectiveness of these campaigns is notable. I personally know attorneys who were urged to abandon Republican cases or seek new jobs, including partners who had to leave their firms after years of service.
Some of the letters signed by deans and law professors protesting Trump’s orders originated from institutions that had previously expelled Republicans or conservative figures. Only about 9% of law professors identify as conservatives, indicating a significant bias in most departments.
These movements have extended beyond law firms; a Trump accountability project was formed, led by former Obama staff members, with the intent of blacklisting Trump administration officials from job opportunities.
Such blacklists ultimately morphed into demands for the removal of numerous lawyers and members of Congress. While personal efforts closely mirror censorship campaigns on social media, they specifically target legal professionals, seeking to coerce them into not representing certain Republican clients or causes.
In 2021, I remarked on campaigns driven by well-funded efforts, like the Lincoln Project, which rallied followers to target attorneys supporting the Trump team in valid legal disputes. They sought to make those lawyers “famous” online, using hashtags featuring skulls and crossbones.
Notably, some of the lawyers identified as donors to the Lincoln Project have since become vocal against perceived “blackmailing” efforts. One such lawyer, Randall Eliason, historically supported campaigns that targeted other lawyers. Previously, he felt those campaigns could be justified, arguing that major firms should be held accountable by the public.
For fairness, we must distinguish between boycott campaigns and government actions, as they carry different legal implications. Yet, a contradiction persists in the underlying principles of both types of campaigns to intimidate lawyers. Boycotts can serve as valid expressions of public protest, but targeting law firms and placing lawyers on blacklists is misbehavior that poses a risk.
We’ve learned over decades that mere discussions around legal issues can amplify such campaigns. I experienced pressure from colleagues who tried to influence my school to silence me. Not long ago, democratic donors and partners from a major law firm even wrote a letter to my dean, warning of a boycott against them unless I was muzzled. This had a chilling effect on faculties already hesitant to hire conservative or libertarian scholars.
Ironically, lawyers from these firms now position themselves as champions of free speech, while for many conservatives, it feels reminiscent of a hypocritical performance akin to Macbeth claiming pacifism.
The media has also played its part in this hypocrisy. Recently, *60 Minutes* showcased Mark Elias as a victim of Trump’s orders without mentioning the complexities of his tumultuous legal history, portraying him instead as an emblem of all that’s wrong in American politics.
This narrative reflects accusations against Elias, who has faced criticism as a “dirty trickster” and for actions regarding the Steele dossier. He was, notably, involved as a legal advisor for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, funding the now-infamous documents that sparked considerable controversy.
Despite his denials, scrutiny remains around the connections between the Clinton Campaign and the document’s financial backers, including Perkins Coie. Over time, even the FEC sanctioned the Democratic National Committee regarding these financial dealings.
Continuing pressure on legal discourse has erased many opportunities for conservative lawyers in academic and professional circles. Again, while this shouldn’t justify the current targeting of law firms, we must recognize a longstanding trend of sidelining conservative lawyers by influential critics.
Trump could quote King Lear in saying, “The wheel is round, I’m here,” but perhaps it would have been wiser to stay above the fray. For some of his critics, this ongoing drama feels less like tragedy and more like a farcical turn of events.
