When I was writing “The Moral Compass of the American Lawyer” a quarter century ago, I was concerned about the power and arrogance of lawyers, their focus on the bottom line, and their willingness to lie or at least mislead. After teaching legal ethics for over 20 years, I knew then that many lawyers — perhaps most — were not to be trusted beyond abiding by the clear “black letter” rules of the legal system.

But nothing back then prepared me for the Donald Trump-led attack on the rule of law that’s taken place at warp speed since he began his second term.

Today, with Trump launching a barrage of almost daily attacks on law firms and the courts, the issue is no longer about the moral compass of individual lawyers but whether the American system of law itself will retain its moral compass. When the dust settles, many of the legal system’s rules may be mere memories — thanks in part to powerful people who failed to stand up when it mattered.

The two most important principles protecting our democracy are freedom of speech and the rule of law. There are as many definitions of the rule of law as there are commentators. I’ll go with this one: Our laws, as determined by our legislatures and executives and interpreted by our courts, are sacrosanct. In other words, according to the old aphorism, “No one is above the law.” Not even a king, a principle dating from Magna Carta in 1215.

Our democracy is in the midst of an existential crisis. The question facing us today is whether the American rule of law, and our democratic form of government, will survive Trump 2.0. If the rule of law falls — if Trump and his minions are above the law — then freedom of speech is also in danger, with few left to protect it.

The Attacks

Trump set on his course of revenge and retribution against lawyers and law firms on the day he was inaugurated. His memo on ending the “weaponization of the federal government” claimed that the Biden administration “engage[d] in a systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents” that was “oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives.” Two weeks later, new Attorney General Pam Bondi created a “weaponization working group” focused on “restoring the credibility and integrity of the Department of Justice,” and singled out special prosecutor Jack Smith and New York prosecutors Alvin Bragg and Letitia James for “the pursuit of improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions,” specifically around the events of January 6, 2021.

Then Trump’s campaign to bring Big Law to heel began. In rapid succession, Trump filed five executive orders, each attacking a large national law firm for acting in ways he didn’t like: representing Smith pro bono, representing Hillary Clinton, having a law partner who investigated or prosecuted him. His order regarding the New York-based law firm Paul Weiss shows just how personalized — and narcissistic — his attacks could be: The firm hired “unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz,” whose offense was joining the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office “solely to manufacture a prosecution against me.” That order also warned that “nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm” engaged in behavior Trump claimed is wrong.

These orders ended the firms’ security clearances, access to federal buildings, and government contracts, and most of them said the government would end the firms’ clients’ government contracts as well.

© The Intercept