Law Firms Under Fire As Trump’s DOJ Launches Probe

Man speaking at podium with American flags behind

President Trump ordered the Department of Justice to investigate law firms accused of engaging in “lawfare,” with prominent Democratic attorney Marc Elias specifically targeted for his involvement in the controversial Steele dossier that haunted Trump’s first term.

Quick Takes

President Trump’s DOJ has launched a review of law firms suspected of “grossly unethical misconduct,” with a specific focus on Marc Elias and his law firm
Attorney General Pam Bondi has been directed to refer attorneys for disciplinary actions if they violated professional conduct rules
The initiative aims to deter frivolous litigation against the government through enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11
Consequences for violators could include revocation of security clearances or termination of federal contracts
Critics argue the move threatens the rule of law and attempts to intimidate legal opposition

DOJ Launches Sweeping Review of “Lawfare” Practitioners

The Trump administration has initiated a comprehensive review of attorneys and law firms suspected of engaging in what officials describe as “lawfare” – the weaponization of legal processes against political opponents. The directive came directly from President Trump in a recently issued memorandum instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate lawyers who have allegedly engaged in “grossly unethical misconduct.” The investigation specifically mentions Marc Elias and his firm, Elias Law Group LLP, citing their connection to the Steele dossier that became a central controversy during Trump’s first term in office.

According to the White House memorandum, the Attorney General has been tasked with referring attorneys for disciplinary action if they have violated professional conduct rules. The document explicitly references Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which prohibits filing lawsuits “for improper purpose[s]” or “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” The directive enables Bondi to recommend serious consequences for violators, including the potential revocation of security clearances and termination of federal contracts with offending firms.

Specific Targets and Legal Foundation

The Department of Justice has already begun reviewing law firms in response to the presidential memorandum, focusing particularly on misconduct that may have occurred over the past eight years. Beyond Marc Elias, the initiative also targets Jenner & Block, a firm that previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor who was involved in investigations of Trump. The administration’s actions are grounded in established legal standards, including Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which stipulates that lawyers shall not bring proceedings unless there is a non-frivolous basis in law and fact.

“President Trump is attempting to dismantle the Constitution and attack the rule of law in his obsessive pursuit of retribution against his political opponents. Today’s White House Memo targets not only me and my law firm, but every attorney and law firm who dares to challenge his assault on the rule of law,” Elias said.

The DOJ directive has particular implications for lawyers involved in asylum litigation and claims against the government, which the administration views as undermining immigration laws. With Trump’s government facing over 100 lawsuits related to its operational overhaul, major law firms are finding themselves under unprecedented scrutiny. Some firms, however, have found ways to avoid becoming targets – Trump recently rescinded an order against Paul Weiss after the firm committed to providing pro bono services aligned with his administration’s initiatives.

Concerns and Criticisms

The administration’s investigation has sparked significant criticism from legal experts and targeted attorneys. Marc Elias, whose firm was explicitly named in the directive, has forcefully responded by accusing President Trump of attacking the rule of law and attempting to intimidate legal opposition. “He wants lawyers and law firms to capitulate and cower until there is no one left to oppose his administration,” Elias stated in response to the memorandum. This sentiment has been echoed by other legal advocacy organizations concerned about potential government overreach.

“The real question is, how effective is that investigation going to be and how much is it going to veer into what exactly it seems like, which is a threat against anybody who has dared to take a position opposed to the government,” said Rebecca Roiphe.

The administration’s use of Rule 11 has raised particular concerns among legal scholars, who note that the rule does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes “frivolous” litigation. This ambiguity has led to warnings about the potential misuse of the provision in politically charged contexts. Critics argue that the investigation, while presented as an effort to uphold legal standards, could effectively function as a mechanism to deter legitimate legal challenges to administration policies and actions. Despite these criticisms, the White House maintains that its aim is to hold lawyers accountable for misconduct that threatens national security and election integrity.