Trump Targets Lawyers with "Frivolous" Litigation in Latest Executive Directive.
President Donald Trump has escalated his attacks on the legal industry with a new executive directive targeting lawyers and law firms involved in “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious” litigation against the U.S. government. The president, on Friday, ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to sanction attorneys who engage in what he considers misconduct, particularly those involved in immigration cases. Trump’s memo, titled “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court,” has drawn significant attention for its focus on law firms challenging his administration’s policies.
What the Executive Directive Involves
In the directive, President Trump calls for stricter accountability for attorneys and law firms that violate U.S. laws or professional conduct rules. His memo emphasizes the importance of holding these lawyers accountable, especially when their actions could threaten national security, public safety, or the integrity of elections.
Trump specifically targets immigration lawyers, alleging that many have coached clients to lie or conceal past actions in an attempt to circumvent U.S. immigration laws and gain undeserved asylum relief. He has instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to prioritize enforcement of regulations that govern attorney conduct, focusing on those who have litigated against the federal government in the last eight years.
Trump's Broader Push Against Law Firms
Trump’s directive extends beyond individual cases and targets entire law firms, some of which have represented individuals critical of his administration. Recently, the president has focused on firms like Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and Perkins Coie, accusing them of playing a role in litigation that opposes his administration’s policies. He has threatened to revoke security clearances and reconsider government contracts for these firms.
However, Trump’s scrutiny of law firms has sparked backlash, especially after he rescinded an earlier order against Paul Weiss. This decision came after the firm agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services for Trump-aligned initiatives.
What’s at Stake for Attorneys and Law Firms
The memo orders a review of all law firms involved in litigation against the federal government over the past eight years. The review will focus on cases related to asylum litigation, with Trump arguing that legal aid and pro bono work by large firms have weakened U.S. immigration laws.
As part of the directive, Trump has also called for a review of any “misconduct” that could result in sanctions, including the potential revocation of security clearances or termination of federal contracts. Critics argue that this could effectively prevent lawyers from representing clients who oppose the administration, sending a strong message of deterrence.
The Legal and Ethical Debate
Keker, Van Nest & Peters, while not directly targeted, has taken a stand in defense of the legal profession’s independence. In a statement from John Keker, Robert Van Nest, Elliot Peters, Laurie Carr Mims, and the partnership, they expressed the following:
"Trump’s new Executive Order underscores how far removed this President, Attorney General and Administration are from our nation’s Constitution and bedrock values.
Our liberties depend on lawyers’ willingness to represent unpopular people and causes, including in matters adverse to the Federal Government. An attack on lawyers who perform this work is inexcusable and despicable.
Our profession owes every client zealous legal representation without fear of retribution, regardless of their political affiliation or ability to pay. We encourage law firm leaders to sign on to an amicus effort in support of Perkins Coie’s challenge to the Administration’s executive order targeting the firm, and to resist the Administration’s erosion of the rule of law."
Political Ramifications: A Threat to Legal Independence?
Trump's actions have sparked significant concerns about the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession. Critics argue that these measures could lead to political retaliation, undermining the fairness of the legal system. Legal experts have pointed out that the distinction between "frivolous" and "failed" litigation is not always clearly defined, making it challenging to apply sanctions fairly, especially in politically sensitive cases.
At the same time, several prominent lawyers have pledged to continue challenging Trump in court despite his efforts to target their firms. They view the directive as an attempt to silence opposition and deter lawyers from taking on high-profile legal battles, particularly those related to the 2020 election.
Critics argue that Trump's actions are part of a broader strategy to weaken the legal system. They contend that the ultimate goal is to "disable the adversary system" by limiting the ability of well-resourced law firms to represent clients in cases that oppose the Trump administration.
The DOJ’s Review of Law Firms and Lawyers
Following the president’s order, the DOJ has begun an immediate review of law firms that have engaged in what the administration considers "inappropriate activity" or "weaponized lawfare." The DOJ’s review will examine cases dating back to 2015, including those related to immigration and national security.
Trump's decision to target major law firms underscores his broader strategy of using executive power to influence the legal profession and protect his administration from legal challenges. While the president has framed this as a necessary step to protect national security, critics argue it could have far-reaching consequences for the legal industry and the fundamental right to legal representation.
Trump’s Focus on Legal Aid and Asylum Cases
In addition to his criticisms of law firms, Trump’s directive particularly singles out the role of legal aid groups in asylum litigation. The president claims that these organizations are undermining the integrity of U.S. immigration laws by offering free legal services to asylum seekers. His memo claims that this practice makes it easier for clients to manipulate the legal system, ultimately jeopardizing national security.
Impact of Trump’s Directive on Lawyers and Legal Representation
Trump’s memo has sparked a heated debate about the balance between government authority and legal representation. While the administration argues that it is taking necessary steps to prevent abuse of the legal system, others believe that it could discourage lawyers from taking on important cases, particularly those involving human rights or political opposition.
Final Thoughts: A Dangerous Precedent for Legal Reforms?
As Trump’s DOJ review continues, it remains to be seen how the administration will apply Rule 11 sanctions and other legal measures against firms and attorneys it deems responsible for "frivolous" litigation. While the president has framed his directive as a safeguard for national security and public safety, many legal professionals fear it could become a tool for silencing legal opposition and weakening the integrity of the judicial system.
By expanding the scope of federal investigations into legal misconduct, Trump’s administration risks setting a dangerous precedent that could erode the legal protections guaranteed to all U.S. citizens. As the legal community responds, it’s clear that the fallout from this directive will be felt for years to come.
Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
March 22, 2025
SUBJECT: Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court
Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable. Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.
Recent examples of grossly unethical misconduct are far too common. For instance, in 2016, Marc Elias, founder and chair of Elias Law Group LLP, was deeply involved in the creation of a false “dossier” by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election. Elias also intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier.
The immigration system — where rampant fraud and meritless claims have supplanted the constitutional and lawful bases upon which the President exercises core powers under Article II of the United States Constitution — is likewise replete with examples of unscrupulous behavior by attorneys and law firms. For instance, the immigration bar, and powerful Big Law pro bono practices, frequently coach clients to conceal their past or lie about their circumstances when asserting their asylum claims, all in an attempt to circumvent immigration policies enacted to protect our national security and deceive the immigration authorities and courts into granting them undeserved relief. Gathering the necessary information to refute these fraudulent claims imposes an enormous burden on the Federal Government. And this fraud in turn undermines the integrity of our immigration laws and the legal profession more broadly — to say nothing of the undeniable, tragic consequences of the resulting mass illegal immigration, whether in terms of heinous crimes against innocent victims like Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, or Rachel Morin, or the enormous drain on taxpayer resources intended for Americans.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 prohibits attorneys from engaging in certain unethical conduct in Federal courts. Attorneys must not present legal filings “for improper purpose[s],” including “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” FRCP 11(b)(1). Attorneys must ensure that legal arguments are “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” FRCP 11(b)(2). And attorneys must ensure that their statements about facts are “reasonably based” on evidentiary support, or a belief that such evidence actually exists. FRCP 11(b)(3)-(b)(4). When these commands are violated, opposing parties are authorized to file a motion for sanctions. FRCP 11(c). The text of the rule specifically addresses and provides for sanctions for attorneys and their firms as well as for recalcitrant parties given the solemn obligation that attorneys have to respect the rule of law and uphold our Nation’s legal system with integrity. Furthermore, Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides that, “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”
Unfortunately, far too many attorneys and law firms have long ignored these requirements when litigating against the Federal Government or in pursuing baseless partisan attacks. To address these concerns, I hereby direct the Attorney General to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.
I further direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize enforcement of their respective regulations governing attorney conduct and discipline. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. 292.1 et seq.; 8 C.F.R. 1003.101 et seq.; 8 C.F.R. 1292.19.
I further direct the Attorney General to take all appropriate action to refer for disciplinary action any attorney whose conduct in Federal court or before any component of the Federal Government appears to violate professional conduct rules, including rules governing meritorious claims and contentions, and particularly in cases that implicate national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity. In complying with this directive, the Attorney General shall consider the ethical duties that law partners have when supervising junior attorneys, including imputing the ethical misconduct of junior attorneys to partners or the law firm when appropriate.
I further direct that, when the Attorney General determines that conduct by an attorney or law firm in litigation against the Federal Government warrants seeking sanctions or other disciplinary action, the Attorney General shall, in consultation with any relevant senior executive official, recommend to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, additional steps that may be taken, including reassessment of security clearances held by the attorney or termination of any Federal contract for which the relevant attorney or law firm has been hired to perform services.
I further direct the Attorney General, in consultation with any relevant senior executive official, to review conduct by attorneys or their law firms in litigation against the Federal Government over the last 8 years. If the Attorney General identifies misconduct that may warrant additional action, such as filing frivolous litigation or engaging in fraudulent practices, the Attorney General is directed to recommend to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, additional steps that may be taken, including reassessment of security clearances held by the attorney, termination of any contract for which the relevant attorney or law firm has been hired to perform services, or any other appropriate actions.
Law firms and individual attorneys have a great power, and obligation, to serve the rule of law, justice, and order. The Attorney General, alongside the Counsel to the President, shall report to the President periodically on improvements by firms to capture this hopeful vision.
