Umith Azad, a junior economics major on the pre-law track, never worried about job security until now.
Some of the nation’s largest law firms continue to be targeted for retribution by President Donald Trump in his trail of executive orders, with the support of the Department of Justice behind him. Azad said he fears the integrity of corporate law firms may be harmed in the long run as some firms give in to the administration’s pressure to provide free legal services to the government or face punishment.
“It’s hard for a young person to break into [the industry], so when I see he’s signing executive orders that completely change the structures of how corporate law firms run, it makes me have less faith in my job security,” Azad said.
A memo released Friday, titled “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court,” outlined Trump’s crackdown against firms that he believes weaponized their practices against his administration. In the directive, Trump urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to sanction law firms and lawyers that “engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States.”
The memo threatens to revoke federal contracts and security clearances if firms are found to be complicit in what the administration considers “unethical conduct.” This includes diversity, equity and inclusion hiring policies.
Trump had already begun enforcing these punitive measures against law firms that represent clients challenging the federal government. The enforcement is also retroactive, with the memo directing Bondi to review practices over the past eight years.
Covington & Burling was the first firm to be publicly addressed by the White House, and was soon joined by several more. The latest was Susman Godfrey, which became the fourth firm to sue Trump’s administration for violating the rule of law.
Other firms had a different approach to deal with the attacks.
This past Friday, five firms — Kirkland & Ellis, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher, Latham & Watkins, Cadwalader and Wickersham & Taft — cut deals with Trump in an effort to sidestep targeted executive orders. The first three firms are set to each offer $125 million in free legal services to the president and the latter two will provide at least $100 million, as reported by Trump’s post on his personal Truth Social account.
Like these five, Paul Weiss caved when their managing partner, Brad Karp visited the Oval Office in hopes of de-escalation but left pledging $40 million in pro bono legal work.
Karp defended the deal he made with Trump in a letter to his firm’s staff and attorneys, saying it “could have easily destroyed [their] firm” given that other firms began soliciting their clients and recruiting their attorneys.
Many legal professionals fear that these orders violate attorneys’ First Amendment rights to exercise freedom of speech and advocate for their clients against government interference. They are also concerned about the potential chilling effect and dangerous precedent this will create for unnamed firms who may choose to reject clients challenging the federal government.
Another firm targeted in an executive order in late March, Wilmerhale, described the administration’s actions as “a plainly unlawful attack on the bedrock principles of our nation’s legal system — our client’s right to counsel and the First Amendment” in a statement shared with Annenberg Media.
Shortly after Wilmerhale brought this to court, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia Richard Leon temporarily blocked Trump’s order, writing “There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm.”
The legal community did not stop there.
The Society for the Rule of Law and Democracy Forward, legal groups that litigate ongoing client cases against the new administration, organized a letter urging Bondi to take action. They urged her to defend the independence of attorneys and law firms’ work.
The March 23 letter has more than 700 signatures from lawyers across the country.
On April 4, 500 firms signed a brief denouncing Trump’s escalated measures attacking law firms like Perkins Coie.
But what do future lawyers think?
Similar to other universities, USC does not have a set pre-law track, and undergraduate students interested in pursuing a career in the legal profession come from all 23 of USC’s schools. USC Dornsife’s Pre-Law Advising Department reports that 277 USC students and alumni enrolled in law school in Fall 2024.
Political science sophomore Ava Keshavarzi said corporate law is the path for her, as “it’s a segment of law that enables you to dip your toes into a lot of different industries, work with a lot of different people in different industries, and also have a say on cases that are impacting companies worldwide.”
She said she questions the legality of Trump’s actions.
“It shouldn’t be happening in the first place because most law firms are private entities,” Keshavarzi said. “They are not affiliated with the government even though they might do government work, send contracts to the government or have the government as their clients…lawyers are privately hired…I don’t think there should be overlap there.”
Unlike Azad, Keshavarzi said she’s not worried about the Trump administration’s actions’ impact on her future career.
“I would not say it deters me because from my understanding and my assumption, most of the lawyers at these firms that are being called out are people that are higher ranked. So I don’t think being a first-year associate, it would really come into my mind when I’m going through the recruitment process for these large firms.”
Eleanor Xie, a sophomore legal studies major, said she does not blame the firms that appeased Trump.
“The major legal forces in our country have conformed to what Trump wants,” Xie said. “On an individual level, a lot of people will just go about their business. [These firms] operate off revenue, so I think it’s really hard to persuade them to take actions against Trump.”