Kill all the lawyers
Attacks on attorneys are giant red flags for the state of our union.
Note: This is a revised and expanded version of an op-ed published in the Press-Citizen on March 8, 2025.
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
There are many jokes about lawyers, but this line, one of Shakespeare’s most famous, isn’t one of them. It’s a serious line from an enforcer-type character who is plotting a coup and doesn’t want the law between him and power.
Why start out by killing the lawyers? Because on the whole, the profession commits its members to supporting the rule of law even over their own interests and the interests of their clients. In order to practice law, lawyers must commit to:
Take oaths to support the Constitutions of the United States and their own States.
Follow strict ethics rules.
Bring only cases or claims that have merit.
Not lie to judges.
Not provide legal services that aid someone in committing a crime.
Quit cases that would violate ethics rules.
Zealously advocate for their clients.
All of this is a threat to a coup or any actor who is trying to overcome the rule of law. Right now, we are seeing unprecedented attacks on America’s attorneys, both inside and outside the government.
Government attorneys
Zealous advocacy for clients is especially important for federal government attorneys. Their client is the American people by way of the federal government, not any specific elected or appointed official. When they speak in court, they say they are appearing “on behalf of the United States.”
Attorneys’ duties to the rule of law mean that they, and especially federal attorneys, can tell exactly when the legal system is being twisted in ways that foster corruption, selective justice, and lawlessness. In other countries, lawyers even lead street protests against corruption and in support of the rule of law.
So we should listen to what America’s attorneys are saying right now.
Resignations
The loudest statements by attorneys for the United States are their resignations. Last month, a series of federal attorneys resigned rather than drop charges against New York City mayor Eric Adams. They were ordered to drop these charges, but not because they lacked merit. Instead, as Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, who had been sworn in only 3 weeks prior, described in detail in her resignation letter, the charges would be dropped as part of a trade, a quid pro quo: the Trump regime would withdraw the charges, and Adams would ensure New York City’s cooperation on immigration. Conveniently, the charges would be dropped in a way that would allow the government to revive them if Adams failed to cooperate or otherwise displeased Trump.
These attorneys resigned instead of dropping the charges partially because they thought the judge in the case would not allow it, partially because it would violate attorney ethics rules, and partially because they believed it was simply wrong. Sassoon’s letter is full of statements of the ideals of the Justice Department: impartiality, consistent application of the law, equality before the law regardless of station. Another resigning attorney, Hagan Scotten, put it succinctly: “No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.”
Firings
On the other end of the spectrum are the government attorneys whom the Trump regime is firing. Most prominently, the purge of top military officials included the leadership of the Judge Advocate General corps, more commonly known as JAGs. JAGs are the lawyers for the military. Their duties range from drafting wills for deployed troops to handling courts-martial to advising the heads of the military about when and whether military branches can legally act under the Constitution, international treaties, and federal laws.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters that the firings were necessary because he didn't want JAGs to pose any "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief." In other words, the firings were a way to ensure that the military will unquestioningly obey the orders of the President.
This has raised alarms among both serving and retired JAGS, who point out that this means that the military may follow any illegal orders that Trump issues, and that Trump has a history of making public statements about his desire to use the military illegally. They also say that Hegseth’s vagueness on the topic of who, exactly, will replace top JAGs is alarming: military law is a highly specialized area of practice, and appointing just any attorney off the street to replace these skilled and experienced attorneys could have devastating consequences for the entire military.
And the attacks have not stopped with attorneys who are part of the Executive Branch.
Attorneys in Private Practice
Privately practicing attorneys--meaning those in law firms--commonly join groups called bar associations. These groups are mostly optional and provide services to attorneys such as continuing legal education courses, advocacy for the profession, and opportunities to provide free legal services to those who need them.
Attacks on Professional Associations
The nation's largest such lawyers’ group is the American Bar Association (ABA). The ABA is also the organization that accredits law schools--that is, it decides which law schools have programs that are good enough that their graduates can practice law.
The ABA recently released a statement condemning attacks on the legitimacy of the courts. Apparently in response, the Justice Department has threatened to revoke the ABA’s accreditation authority if it does not revoke its diversity requirements–even though those requirements had already been suspended because of earlier executive orders. The regime has also threatened the organization’s funding and prohibited government employees from attending ABA events or renewing their memberships.
Attacks on Law Firms
As we mentioned, one of the primary duties of lawyers is to serve as zealous advocates for their clients. This does not mean that they always agree with their clients; defense attorneys, for example, do not believe that people should be free to commit crimes but do believe that everyone deserves a fair trial. Bear this fact in mind before judging attorneys who represent clients you dislike. Indeed, with President Trump appearing poised to follow through with his campaign promises to sic the Justice Department on his political enemies, many people will find themselves needing lawyers.
In that context, it is especially alarming that the Trump regime is punishing specific law firms for representing clients that he does not like.
The first victim was Covington & Burling, a so-called white-shoe firm, one of the long-established and prestigious large firms that provide services to wealthy clients. Such large firms are highly hierarchical: employees (attorneys and staff alike) work on matters that they are told to by senior attorney-owners (usually called partners). Like all law firms, Covington is exhorted by attorney ethics rules to provide some legal work for free (pro bono publico, for the public good). One of Covington’s pro bono clients is Jack Smith, the former government prosecutor who brought two criminal cases against Trump. Trump recently ordered federal agencies to review any contracts it might have with Covington & Burling and “align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States.” He also suspended security clearances for firm staff who assisted Smith--meaning that they are no longer able to work on Smith’s case or any other case that involves government secrets. This could easily result in an attorney or staff member--even one who did not choose to work on the Smith matter--having to switch to an entirely new practice area, not an easy thing to do in large firms that thrive on hyper-specialization.
More recently, Trump issued an order suspending all security clearances for the entire law firm Perkins Coie, a law firm that has strong ties to the Democratic party, in retaliation for its work for the Hilary Clinton campaign in 2016. According to that order, this work included hiring Fusion GPS, which in turn commissioned the Steele dossier. The dossier is best known for alleging connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and that the Russian government had compromising material on Trump.
The same order started Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations into 15 law firms, currently not publicly known, for their hiring practices that promote diversity. It is unclear why those 15 firms were chosen, but it seems unlikely to actually be for their hiring practices.
These attacks on law firms send a clear message: do not give legal help to those that the Trump regime considers its enemies--including political opponents. If you do, you will risk the administration taking whatever steps it can to make your life more difficult.
What’s Next
Despite these attacks, America’s lawyers are not yet showing signs of caving to the pressure. Like Nixon era lawyers, current government lawyers are resigning rather than carrying out illegal orders. Both Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie have responded that these attacks on their firms are illegal and they will challenge them in court. Thousands of lawyers have signed a statement warning about the risks of recent executive actions. State bar associations are considering how to best support the rule of law. The profession will not give up without a fight.
Terms like the “rule of law” or “system of ordered liberty” sound abstract, but they are the foundation of the American house of law. They mean that we apply our laws fairly to everyone, that we have the right to choose the people who make and enforce those laws, that our elected officials follow known procedures, laws, and traditions. America doesn’t always live up to those ideals, but our lawyers, both those who represent our country and those who engage in private practice, strive to fulfill them.
So when government attorneys raise the alarm by publicly resigning rather than following orders they consider illegal, immoral, or unconscionable, they are not doing so because of politics. When attorneys zealously advocate for those the administration considers its “enemies,” they are not engaging in politics. When lawyers make public statements about their concern for the rule of law, they are not siding with a political party. They swore oaths to protect the Constitution and are following those oaths as best they can. We should listen to them.
Kelcey Patrick-Ferree is a third-generation Iowa lawyer. Shannon Patrick is not a lawyer. They both live in Iowa.
This is a revised and expanded version of the op-ed published in the Press-Citizen on March 8, 2025.
Thanks for explaining the basic meaning of “rule of law”. Few citizens seem to grasp what rule by an outlaw is going to mean.
Incredible that the Administration is afraid of the ABA! Next the Republicans will be after our ISBA for maintaining our DEI programs (which are for the most part excellent).
An excellent summation of the most dangerous actions taken by trump and endorsed by the Republican Party: ending the rule of law. We love to say that the military is keeping us free, but it's not exactly true: what keeps us free is the rule of law, not people. With the purge of lawyers from the military, it will become easier to use the military against our own citizens. With the ongoing efforts to punish private lawyers who take cases that oppose illegal government actions, it will become harder to find anyone who will stand up for the rule of law. And that's all the United States really is, at core: a country of laws. When that is gone, our country is gone.