Big Law is facing a reckoning from within. Once-proud midlevel associates at some of the nation’s most powerful firms are now voicing a raw, unfiltered sentiment—shame. Deals struck with the Trump administration have left lawyers questioning their firms’ integrity, shaking morale, and sparking resignations. For a profession built on advocacy and principle, the fallout is forcing a hard conversation: What happens when survival collides with ethics?
What’s Driving the Shame
Law associates express profound regret over their firms’ actions. Many—once proud of their workplace—now question their values and feel deeply conflicted over their firm’s acquiescence to Trump’s demands. One anonymous voice summed it up bluntly: “I am ashamed to work here and won’t be here for much longer.”
The Trump Deals at the Center of the Storm
In early 2025, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders and memos targeting law firms perceived as opponents. These orders stripped security clearances, restricted federal access, and threatened to terminate government contracts.
Some firms—such as Paul, Weiss, Skadden, Willkie Farr, and Milbank—opted to strike deals rather than resist. In exchange, they pledged hundreds of millions in pro bono legal services and agreed to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
- Paul, Weiss pledged $40 million and paused DEI policies.
- Skadden committed $100 million and also modified its stance on DEI. $125 million, prompting the resignation of a protesting associate.
- Several others, including Willkie Farr and Milbank, similarly made concessions—culminating in close to $1 billion in pro bono pledges across firms.
How Lawyers Are Reacting
The fallout has been intense. At least one Simpson Thacher associate resigned, calling the deal “shortsighted” and likening their actions to “kissing the ring of authoritarianism”.
Similarly, at Skadden, more than 80 alumni publicly expressed “deep outrage”, denouncing the deal as a betrayal of legal ethics and accusing the firm of abetting anti-democratic tactics.
Externally, the reaction extended to universities. Law students at top schools—including Georgetown, Harvard, and Columbia—have begun boycotting recruiting events with these firms, pushing career offices to suspend or eliminate firm interviews entirely.
Why This Matters for You
- Culture Collapse: Associates’ shame erodes loyalty. Even costly and prestigious firms find themselves dealing with morale damage, and some staff departures.
- Recruitment Crisis: Firms that were once magnets for talent now face reputational backlash from the next generation of lawyers.
- Ethical Integrity at Risk: Choosing appeasement over principle may save short-term business, but risks undermining the Rule of Law and professional credibility.
JDJournal’s Call to Reflection
At JDJournal, we understand that law firm decisions resonate far deeper than bottom lines. Here’s what to consider:
- Firms must weigh not just survival—but legacy. Choosing to comply may cost invaluable moral capital.
- Associates and juniors must reflect on what values they hold, and whether their firm aligns with their ethical compass.
- Clients and law schools now more than ever are evaluating firms through the lens of integrity, not just competence.
What Comes Next
Going forward, expect continued polarization:
- Some firms—especially litigation-focused—might pursue courtroom battles over executive orders. Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale have already taken this route.
- Others, fearing existential risk, may continue seeking compromises with administrations, trading values for access.
- Younger lawyers and students are increasingly vocal and organized. Social pressure, resignations, and boycott tactics suggest a new era of accountability.
The legal profession stands at a crossroads. If integrity and principle matter in your career, don’t stay on the sidelines. Explore exclusive opportunities with firms that align with your values on LawCrossing. Take control of your future—choose a workplace where pride replaces shame.
