DESCRIPTION

Jenner & Block v. U.S. Department of Justice

Together with the Institution for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP), ELC filed an amicus brief on behalf of legal ethics professor s in Jenner & Block v. U.S. Department of Justice. On March 28, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14,246, targeting Jenner & Block for their pro bono work on immigration and racial justice, and for hiring a former member of Robert Mueller’s prosecutorial team. Instead of making a deal with the administration, Jenner & Block sued.  

The Executive Order places lawyers in an impossible ethical position. A firm that can only survive by staying in the President’s good graces bears incentives that conflict with its lawyers’ stringent fiduciary duty to remain loyal to the interests of their clients, exercise independent judgment, and be truthful and candid in all dealings with the courts. So, lawyers must choose between retribution for the causes and individuals they represent, or bar discipline for failing to fulfill their professional legal obligations to their clients. Independence and zealous advocacy cannot exist under that pressure.  

The President’s actions also violate traditional Federalism and Separation of Powers principles. “An informed, independent judiciary presumes an informed, independent bar.” Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 534 (2001). That is why, historically, States and not a centralized Federal entity have regulated the legal profession. What is more, the Federal judiciary can only hear cases and consider arguments that lawyers present. By redefining and penalizing “unethical professional conduct,” the President is likely to dissuade lawyers and firms from taking on politically unpopular or controversial cases—especially challenges to the Federal government. Article III Courts cannot check the Executive if lawyers do not bring cases challenging Executive action. Thus, attacking bar independence severely undermines our system of separated powers.  

Wilmer & Dorr v. Executive Office of the President

Together with ICAP, ELC filed an amicus brief on behalf of legal ethics professors in the Wilmer & Dorr v. Executive Office of the President. Executive Order 14,250 case. The amici argue this and other similar executive orders, pose a profound threat to the ethical rules and norms that govern the legal profession. If the sanctions imposed by the executive orders take effect, it will put pressure on the law firms subject to them to enter a settlement with the government to avoid the sanctions. Law firms threatened with similar executive orders may attempt to avoid sanctions entirely by entering into agreements with the administration, as many have already. But this creates another set of intractable ethical issues. A firm that can survive only by staying in the President’s good graces has incentives that conflict with its lawyers’ stringent fiduciary duties to remain loyal to the interests of their clients, exercise independent judgment, and be truthful and candid in all dealings with the courts.

Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice

Together with ICAP, ELC filed an amicus brief on behalf of legal ethics professors in the Perkins Coie v. Department of Justice Executive Order 14,230 case. The brief argues that this, and other similar executive orders, pose a profound threat to the ethical rules and norms that govern the legal profession.