Big Law Struggles Under Trump—It’s Affecting Hiring
Leatherwood Legal Recruiting is seeing that the legal industry is feeling the heat from the Trump administration’s aggressive stance on major law firms. With executive orders targeting firms like Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, and controversial settlements with others like Paul, Weiss, these pressures are sending shockwaves through the profession. But beyond the legal battles, a quieter yet equally profound shift is happening—how these firms hire and retain top legal talent.
Chilling Effect on Recruiting
Law firms thrive on their ability to attract the best and brightest. However, with the Trump administration directly attacking firms based on their past representations and political affiliations, potential hires are reconsidering where they apply. Junior lawyers and law students, especially those with progressive leanings, may hesitate to join firms that could be blacklisted by the government, fearing instability or career setbacks.
Conversely, some firms may feel pressure to prioritize hiring attorneys with more neutral or conservative backgrounds to avoid further scrutiny. This shift could subtly reshape firm cultures, leading to a chilling effect on pro bono work or cases that challenge government actions.
Retention Worries and Internal Conflicts
For firms facing government backlash, retaining top talent is becoming an uphill battle. Senior lawyers who rely on government contracts may seek to distance themselves from controversial cases, creating internal conflicts over firm direction. Some firms, like Jenner & Block, have chosen to fight back against these executive orders, but at the risk of losing business and causing internal divisions.
Meanwhile, associates and younger lawyers may feel disillusioned, questioning whether their firm will stand up for its values or make compromises, as seen with Paul, Weiss’ decision to settle with the administration in exchange for pro bono commitments.
Long-Term Implications
The legal profession has long prided itself on independence, but these recent developments suggest a future where firms must carefully navigate political landmines not just in their casework, but in hiring decisions as well. If government pressure continues, Big Law’s hiring practices may shift toward self-censorship—potentially reshaping the industry’s talent pipeline for years to come.
As law firms adjust to this new reality, the question remains: Will they prioritize stability over principle, or will they fight to maintain the independence that defines the legal profession?
