Lean to the Left is a progressive media platform offering political commentary, fact-based news analysis, and expert interviews that expose threats to democracy and hold leaders accountable. Lean to the Left is an independent, evolving media platform. Member benefits will grow and adapt over time. Founded in 2017 as Not Fake News and rebranded in 2021, Lean to the Left brings together the work of journalist and author Bob Gatty and a talented team of contributing writers who deliver sharp, insightful content on the issues affecting Americans today.
Our podcast—launched as NFN Radio News before becoming The Lean to the Left Podcast—features weekly interviews with authors, activists, experts, and political insiders, with hard-hitting commentary on the challenges facing our nation. What began as a podcast has grown into a community of listeners and readers who care deeply about democracy, accountability, and civic engagement.
Lean to the Left: Stay Informed. Speak Up. Join the Conversation.
Prominent Law Firms Bend to Trump’s Will: Wise or Gutless?
Donald Trump is bullying law firms that he perceives as enemies. What recourse do they have?
Prominent Law Firms Bend to Trump’s Will: Wise or Gutless?
by Mark M. Bello
Reports have surfaced that President Trump uses his office to retaliate against law firms that sued, opposed, or challenged him before the 2024 election. Trump issued several executive orders requiring reviews of these firms’ government contracts and canceling security clearances for some firm employees.
These orders make it harder for the firms to continue conducting business as usual. Several firms allege in lawsuits that the president’s orders chill free speech and deter clients from doing business with them. Several law firms have struck “deals” with the president, and there are significant legal and constitutional implications.
Paul, Weiss, a prominent Manhattan law firm, agreed to end its DEI policies and provide $40,000,000 in pro bono legal services to causes the administration supports. Skadden, Arps, another major Manhattan firm, agreed to provide $100,000,000 in pro bono work. The deals allow the firms to avoid sanctions imposed by Trump’s executive orders, including revocations of government security clearances held by their lawyers and prohibitions on entering federal buildings.
Shame on Paul, Wiess, and Skadden, Arps. What happens if Trump decides he wants them to defend the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, or Putin? What if he wants to contest a legitimate political victory on behalf of a corrupt politician? While it is difficult to fight the federal government, an unhinged president, and a lackey attorney general who doesn’t understand that an AG works for the people, not the president, there are ways for law firms to fight back. Some law firms, like Perkins, Coie, and Jenner & Block, have filed lawsuits challenging the executive order.
Here’s a breakdown of how firms might respond and what legal consequences Trump might face:
Legal Challenges in Court:
The firms could sue the government, alleging abuse of power, violation of due process, and First Amendment retaliation (since punishing firms for their past legal work could be seen as infringing on their rights). They could also seek injunctions to prevent government agencies from acting on Trump’s directives. These executive orders smack of extortion by a public official, a crime under federal law. The Justice Department’s public guidance has used this law against multiple public officials “serving on the federal, state and local levels.”
Ethics Complaints and Bar Association Involvement:
Lawyers and firms could file ethics complaints against government officials who carry out unlawful orders, potentially leading to disciplinary actions. Further, these “deals” are akin to law firms “paying” for government cases, a no-no under most state bar association rules. Competitor firms might file bar grievances against those negotiating these deals with Trump. It would not surprise this writer if various grievance administrators find these transactions unethical and punish lawyers on both sides.
Government officials who witness or feel pressured into retaliatory actions might turn whistleblower. If an opposition party controls Congress, members might hold hearings and subpoena records related to the alleged abuse.
Media & Public Pressure:
Exposing these actions in the press could create public backlash and discourage further abuse of power.
Potential Legal Consequences for Trump:
Post-Presidency Criminal Charges Facing Trump or Bondi:
Both could face Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503) charges if they interfere with ongoing legal cases or Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) if they coordinate government action to punish law firms for protected activities. If government officials like Bondi carry out actions under Trump’s legally improper orders, they might also face charges for Honest Services Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346).
Impeachment:
The president cannot face charges while in office. Still, recent experience tells us that his abuses of power might qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the standard grounds for impeachment. I doubt, however, that our current gutless Congress would use this tool or the 25th Amendment to remove Trump or Bondi from office.
Civil Lawsuits:
Individuals or firms harmed by retaliation might sue Trump personally, especially after he leaves office.
State Prosecutions:
If Trump’s actions involve state bar associations or state law violations, local prosecutors could investigate and, if appropriate, pursue charges.
There are historical precedents to pursue justice against presidential corruption. U.S. presidents have been accused of abusing power for personal or political retribution. Here are a few key examples and their consequences:
Richard Nixon & his “Enemies List”
Nixon and key members of his administration kept an “enemies list” of political opponents, including journalists, business leaders, and law firms. They used the IRS to audit these “enemies,” the Justice Department to investigate them, and federal agencies to deny contracts.
After the Watergate scandal, the abuse of power became part of the articles of impeachment against Nixon. He resigned before being removed, and his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him. However, many of Nixon’s aides, including Attorney General John Mitchell, were convicted of crimes.
Andrew Johnson & the Post-Civil War Retaliation
Johnson tried to remove government officials who opposed his Reconstruction policies and vetoed protections for freed slaves. Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act to prevent him from firing certain officials without Senate approval. When he fired War Secretary Edwin Stanton, Congress impeached him.
While the House impeached Johnson, he narrowly avoided removal by one Senate vote. The impeachment precedent weakened the presidency for decades. The Supreme Court later ruled the Tenure of Office Act unconstitutional.
Donald Trump’s Retaliation Against Lawyers During His First Term
Trump frequently attacked law firms and government attorneys who opposed him. He pressured the DOJ to prosecute political enemies and fired officials who did not act in his interest (e.g., FBI Director James Comey and U.S. Attorneys investigating his associates). Reports suggest he tried to use the DOJ to retaliate against firms involved in lawsuits against him.
The House and Senate conducted multiple investigations but filed no formal charges. Some lawsuits were filed against Trump and his administration for abuse of power; most were dismissed while he was in office. His post-presidency legal troubles stemmed more from personal actions than direct use of government power. He was convicted of 34 felony counts in the Stormy Daniels hush money case.
How This Precedent Relates to Trump’s Potential Actions in 2025:
If Trump were to use the government to punish law firms, history suggests that legal challenges would block most, if not all, of his actions. Courts have consistently ruled against politically motivated prosecutions and retaliation. In addition, Congress could investigate or impeach if Democrats win control of the House.
After Trump leaves office, prosecutors could investigate whether he directed government agency heads to violate the law. Criminal charges could follow if they find that his behavior violated the law. Donald Trump continues to break the law, providing legal bloggers like me with plenty to write about. Hopefully, his multiple unethical and illegal actions are curtailed by lawyers and legislators operating in our other two branches of government. Are the legislative and judicial branches of government our last best hope for a return to a government by and for the people? How about the voting booth?
About the Author
Mark M. Bello
Mark M. Bello is an attorney and author of the Zachary Blake Legal Thriller Series and children’s social justice/safety picture books. He also hosts the popular bi-weekly podcast, Justice Counts (https://www.spreaker.com/show/justice-counts_1). Mark’s books may be found at all online booksellers and on his website, at https://www.markmbello.com.
Prominent Law Firms Bend to Trump’s Will: Wise or Gutless?
Prominent Law Firms Bend to Trump’s Will: Wise or Gutless?
by Mark M. Bello
Reports have surfaced that President Trump uses his office to retaliate against law firms that sued, opposed, or challenged him before the 2024 election. Trump issued several executive orders requiring reviews of these firms’ government contracts and canceling security clearances for some firm employees.
These orders make it harder for the firms to continue conducting business as usual. Several firms allege in lawsuits that the president’s orders chill free speech and deter clients from doing business with them. Several law firms have struck “deals” with the president, and there are significant legal and constitutional implications.
Paul, Weiss, a prominent Manhattan law firm, agreed to end its DEI policies and provide $40,000,000 in pro bono legal services to causes the administration supports. Skadden, Arps, another major Manhattan firm, agreed to provide $100,000,000 in pro bono work. The deals allow the firms to avoid sanctions imposed by Trump’s executive orders, including revocations of government security clearances held by their lawyers and prohibitions on entering federal buildings.
Shame on Paul, Wiess, and Skadden, Arps. What happens if Trump decides he wants them to defend the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, or Putin? What if he wants to contest a legitimate political victory on behalf of a corrupt politician? While it is difficult to fight the federal government, an unhinged president, and a lackey attorney general who doesn’t understand that an AG works for the people, not the president, there are ways for law firms to fight back. Some law firms, like Perkins, Coie, and Jenner & Block, have filed lawsuits challenging the executive order.
Here’s a breakdown of how firms might respond and what legal consequences Trump might face:
The firms could sue the government, alleging abuse of power, violation of due process, and First Amendment retaliation (since punishing firms for their past legal work could be seen as infringing on their rights). They could also seek injunctions to prevent government agencies from acting on Trump’s directives. These executive orders smack of extortion by a public official, a crime under federal law. The Justice Department’s public guidance has used this law against multiple public officials “serving on the federal, state and local levels.”
Lawyers and firms could file ethics complaints against government officials who carry out unlawful orders, potentially leading to disciplinary actions. Further, these “deals” are akin to law firms “paying” for government cases, a no-no under most state bar association rules. Competitor firms might file bar grievances against those negotiating these deals with Trump. It would not surprise this writer if various grievance administrators find these transactions unethical and punish lawyers on both sides.
Government officials who witness or feel pressured into retaliatory actions might turn whistleblower. If an opposition party controls Congress, members might hold hearings and subpoena records related to the alleged abuse.
Exposing these actions in the press could create public backlash and discourage further abuse of power.
Potential Legal Consequences for Trump:
Both could face Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503) charges if they interfere with ongoing legal cases or Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) if they coordinate government action to punish law firms for protected activities. If government officials like Bondi carry out actions under Trump’s legally improper orders, they might also face charges for Honest Services Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346).
The president cannot face charges while in office. Still, recent experience tells us that his abuses of power might qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the standard grounds for impeachment. I doubt, however, that our current gutless Congress would use this tool or the 25th Amendment to remove Trump or Bondi from office.
Individuals or firms harmed by retaliation might sue Trump personally, especially after he leaves office.
If Trump’s actions involve state bar associations or state law violations, local prosecutors could investigate and, if appropriate, pursue charges.
There are historical precedents to pursue justice against presidential corruption. U.S. presidents have been accused of abusing power for personal or political retribution. Here are a few key examples and their consequences:
Nixon and key members of his administration kept an “enemies list” of political opponents, including journalists, business leaders, and law firms. They used the IRS to audit these “enemies,” the Justice Department to investigate them, and federal agencies to deny contracts.
After the Watergate scandal, the abuse of power became part of the articles of impeachment against Nixon. He resigned before being removed, and his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him. However, many of Nixon’s aides, including Attorney General John Mitchell, were convicted of crimes.
Johnson tried to remove government officials who opposed his Reconstruction policies and vetoed protections for freed slaves. Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act to prevent him from firing certain officials without Senate approval. When he fired War Secretary Edwin Stanton, Congress impeached him.
While the House impeached Johnson, he narrowly avoided removal by one Senate vote. The impeachment precedent weakened the presidency for decades. The Supreme Court later ruled the Tenure of Office Act unconstitutional.
Trump frequently attacked law firms and government attorneys who opposed him. He pressured the DOJ to prosecute political enemies and fired officials who did not act in his interest (e.g., FBI Director James Comey and U.S. Attorneys investigating his associates). Reports suggest he tried to use the DOJ to retaliate against firms involved in lawsuits against him.
The House and Senate conducted multiple investigations but filed no formal charges. Some lawsuits were filed against Trump and his administration for abuse of power; most were dismissed while he was in office. His post-presidency legal troubles stemmed more from personal actions than direct use of government power. He was convicted of 34 felony counts in the Stormy Daniels hush money case.
How This Precedent Relates to Trump’s Potential Actions in 2025:
If Trump were to use the government to punish law firms, history suggests that legal challenges would block most, if not all, of his actions. Courts have consistently ruled against politically motivated prosecutions and retaliation. In addition, Congress could investigate or impeach if Democrats win control of the House.
After Trump leaves office, prosecutors could investigate whether he directed government agency heads to violate the law. Criminal charges could follow if they find that his behavior violated the law. Donald Trump continues to break the law, providing legal bloggers like me with plenty to write about. Hopefully, his multiple unethical and illegal actions are curtailed by lawyers and legislators operating in our other two branches of government. Are the legislative and judicial branches of government our last best hope for a return to a government by and for the people? How about the voting booth?
About the Author
Mark M. Bello is an attorney and author of the Zachary Blake Legal Thriller Series and children’s social justice/safety picture books. He also hosts the popular bi-weekly podcast, Justice Counts (https://www.spreaker.com/show/justice-counts_1). Mark’s books may be found at all online booksellers and on his website, at https://www.markmbello.com.