How law firms targeted by Trump are responding to White House pressure | 60 Minutes

Summary

In recent times, former President Trump's aggressive actions against several law firms have raised significant concerns about the impact on the rule of law in the United States. Executing orders that have the potential to destroy these firms, Trump's measures have been seen as direct attacks on those challenging his authority. The story features insights from attorney Mark Elias, a known adversary of Trump, who underscores the threat to democracy when the legal profession is subdued by political pressure. This tense climate has divided the legal community, with some firms opting to negotiate while others fight back in court, emphasizing the delicate balance between power and justice in the American legal system.

Highlights

• Mark Elias, a fierce opponent of Trump, insists on defending democracy in court. 👨‍⚖️
• Several law firms face severe repercussions due to executive orders from Trump. 🚨
• The legal community is torn between standing up against or caving to political pressure. 🏛️
• Nine firms made deals with Trump, raising questions about legal independence. 🤔
• Professors and legal experts voice concerns over the erosion of the rule of law. 📚

Key Takeaways

• Trump's aggressive actions threaten the rule of law in America. ⚖️
• Mark Elias stands firm against political pressure. 💪
• Firms are divided between fighting back or negotiating under pressure. 🤝
• The legal community is concerned about maintaining independence. ⚖️
• This situation highlights the importance of a free legal system in democracy. 🇺🇸

Overview

In a bold and unprecedented move, former President Trump has issued a series of executive orders targeting several law firms that have dared to challenge his actions or affiliates. This has led to an uproar in the legal community, sparking debates over the preservation of the rule of law and the independence of the legal profession. Among those affected is Mark Elias, a seasoned attorney known for his unyielding stance on voting rights and fair elections, who has been a vocal critic of Trump's actions.

Elias, alongside several other lawyers, warns of the dangerous implications of Trump's aggressive stance, which he compares to organized crime tactics. While some firms have succumbed to the pressure, choosing to negotiate deals with the administration to safeguard their operations, others, including Elias, remain resolute in their commitment to fight back, defending their clients’ rights and the foundational principles of democracy.

The situation reflects a broader conflict within the American legal system—one that questions the scope of presidential power and its impact on the judiciary's independence. Legal experts worry about the long-term consequences of such actions, fearing that the legal system could be compromised by political agendas. This episode serves as a reminder of the essential role that an independent legal system plays in upholding democratic values and justice.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Fear in the Legal System This chapter explores the impact of fear on the legal system, particularly in light of recent actions by President Trump. Many law firms are reluctant to speak on camera due to the fear induced by these orders, which can potentially ruin them. The president's orders have directly targeted several law firms and attorneys, including Mark Elias, who has been a notable adversary. The chapter highlights how lawsuits have historically served as a check on presidential power, a balance that is now under threat due to these new orders.
• 00:30 - 01:00: Mark Elias' Stand In this chapter, Mark Elias, the only lawyer named by President Trump willing to appear on 60 Minutes, expresses concerns that Trump's actions are endangering the rule of law. Elias believes it all started with Trump's personal vendetta against him, illustrating the broader context of the president's contentious relationship with the legal community.
• 01:00 - 02:00: Legal Risks and Defiance This chapter focuses on the themes of legal risks and defiance, highlighting the importance of standing up for democracy, particularly in the context of the 2020 election. The speaker reflects on the challenges and potential dangers faced when fighting for free and fair elections, voting rights, and truth. Despite acknowledging the risks involved, the narrative emphasizes the necessity of actively upholding democratic values and the rule of law, rather than retreating in fear.
• 02:00 - 03:00: Trump's Long-Standing Grudge Mark Elias first crossed paths with Trump during the 2016 election as the top lawyer for the Clinton campaign. Elias played a significant role in 2020 when Trump and his allies contested the election results. He fought them in court and emerged victorious. Trump's disdain for Elias is evident, referring to him as a thug. The chapter highlights the deep-seated animosity between Trump and Elias, framing Trump as symptomatic of the flaws within the American political system, and illustrating Elias's reputation from Trump's perspective.
• 03:00 - 04:00: Legal Assault and Backlash In this chapter titled 'Legal Assault and Backlash,' the focus is on how Mark Elias and other legal figures have become prominent in legal actions against former President Trump. Trump expresses that such attention implies he must be doing something right, while also describing these figures as radical and bad people, underscoring his view of them as opponents threatening his vision of America.
• 04:00 - 05:00: Corporate Consequences In the chapter titled 'Corporate Consequences,' the narrative discusses an attempted transformation of America into a 'corrupt communist and third world country,' which ultimately failed. The storyline highlights a series of presidential orders starting in February, targeting law firms. Notably, six firms over six weeks were involved, including a prominent firm associated with Mark Elias, all of which had connections to investigations or legal cases concerning Trump or his affiliates.
• 05:00 - 06:00: Intimidation Tactics This chapter titled 'Intimidation Tactics' discusses various political investigations and issues, including Robert Müller's 2017 investigation into Russian election meddling, the subversion of the 2020 election, and alleged mishandling of classified documents. It touches upon a significant event where someone describes signing as a great honor despite the severity of the issues involved. The chapter also covers the impact on targeted firms, describing the president's actions as akin to a 'corporate death penalty,' emphasizing that such actions should not be repeated.
• 06:00 - 07:00: Deal with the White House The chapter title "Deal with the White House" suggests the focus is on negotiations or interactions with the presidential administration. The transcript describes a challenging situation involving attorneys and law firms, where there is a government strategy to bar attorneys from their workplaces, courthouses, and federal agencies, and to cancel the contracts of their clients. The transcript provides an example of an aerospace company that faced the risk of losing federal contracts if it continued to work with a particular firm. Additionally, a senior partner at a firm expressed that the president's orders were 'diabolical' and seemed designed to bankrupt law firms. It also mentions the immediate impact on the firm's major clients, indicating a significant and possibly aggressive legal or political maneuver by the White House.
• 07:00 - 08:00: Constitutional Concerns In the chapter titled 'Constitutional Concerns,' the discussion revolves around a situation where America's top law firms were under pressure from the White House. The firms felt threatened, not by a direct written order, but apparently by implications or messages hinting at a possible order. As a result, within days, nine major law firms went to the White House to strike a deal, highlighting the significant influence and intimidation tactics employed by the government in this scenario.
• 08:00 - 09:00: Firm Resistance The chapter titled 'Firm Resistance' depicts a scenario where a mob boss is intimidating neighborhood residents and seeking to extort protection money or engage in other illegal activities. The narrative shifts to describe how law firms are being threatened, with warnings that failing to cooperate could lead to adverse consequences. Although nine law firms do not admit to any wrongdoing, they collectively agree to provide nearly $1 billion in legal services to certain causes.
• 09:00 - 10:00: Historical Perspective In the chapter titled 'Historical Perspective', the transcript discusses the potential impact of Trump support on the American system of government. It features an argument presented by an attorney with significant experience, having previously argued before the Supreme Court and served as deputy attorney general under George HW Bush. Currently, he is a professor at Georgetown Law. The conversation includes a critical perspective on the use of executive orders by a president, especially when targeted at specific individuals or organizations, suggesting this practice is controversial and poses substantial legal and constitutional questions.
• 10:00 - 11:00: Dictatorship Warning The chapter titled 'Dictatorship Warning' discusses the unprecedented nature of individuals being punished for actions that are politically disapproved by those in power. It emphasizes that no one, including the president, has the right to nullify an individual's right to legal representation of their choosing. The discussion highlights concerns about political threats denying legal rights.
• 11:00 - 12:00: Personal Vendetta In the chapter titled 'Personal Vendetta,' the narrative discusses the divisions within America's legal community. There are contrasting views between those who wish to oppose and those who choose to settle, notably highlighting Scatteren Arps, a law firm that made a deal with Trump. Brena Frey, an attorney from the firm, resigned in protest of the agreement. The overarching message reflects on the influence of power, suggesting that those with power can wield it as they please.
• 12:00 - 13:00: Government Defense In this chapter titled 'Government Defense,' the narrative explores the question of why a legal system, law firms, or lawyers are necessary. The protagonist believed that their firm, Scatteren, would be fierce defenders of the law, fulfilling its foundational principle of being zealous advocates for legal justice. The protagonist felt compelled to resign after perceiving that the firm was conceding to the administration and not willing to fight in court over specific issues. This decision led to concerns over what other principles the firm might forgo if it wasn't willing to defend this particular stance in court.
• 13:00 - 14:00: Legal Profession's Dilemma The chapter titled 'Legal Profession's Dilemma' discusses the challenges faced by the legal profession when dealing with the federal government and high-profile clients like Trump. It highlights a deal made by Scatteren Arbs, which they described as 'extraordinarily difficult' but necessary to protect their stakeholders. Additionally, the chapter questions the naivety of believing that such agreements can completely resolve issues with the president, indicating that the legal complexities and potential confrontations remain unresolved.
• 14:00 - 15:00: Business and Law Intersection This chapter discusses a conflict at the intersection of business and law, involving an executive order perceived as a challenge to the judicial system. Four law firms are contesting the order in court, with judges issuing temporary restraining orders to protect these firms. A perspective from Block professor Donald Ayer is presented, arguing that Trump's executive orders infringe upon constitutional rights, including free speech, due process, and the right to counsel.
• 15:00 - 16:00: Judicial Blocks The chapter discusses the fundamental right of individuals to have legal representation and access to court. It highlights concerns about this right being under threat due to potential targeting of specific law firms by the president. This targeting is seen as a warning to other law firms about the possible consequences of providing zealous representation that leads to outcomes deemed unacceptable by those in power. The chapter focuses on the implications such actions have on the legal profession and the rule of law.

How law firms targeted by Trump are responding to White House pressure | 60 Minutes Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 It was nearly impossible to get anyone on camera for this story because of the fear now running through our system of justice. In recent weeks, President Trump has signed orders against several law firms. Orders with the power to destroy them. That matters because lawsuits have been a check on the president's power. Many firms and attorneys have been targeted. Among them, Mark Elias, a longtime opponent of
• 00:30 - 01:00 Trump, who is the only lawyer the president has named who was willing to appear on 60 Minutes. Elias and others are warning that Trump's assault on the legal profession threatens the rule of law itself. Elias says that for him, it began with the president's personal grudge. The story will continue in a moment. Donald Trump hates me because I fight
• 01:00 - 01:30 hard and I fight for free and fair elections. I insist on fighting for democracy in court, fighting for voting rights in court, and insist on telling the truth about what the outcome of the 2020 election was. Are there risks in doing the work that you're doing? I'd be an idiot not to be worried. The question, though, is what do you do, right? Do you just cower in the corner? Do you just try to disappear? Do you just leave democracy to fend for itself? or do you stand tall and do the best you can every day to represent your clients and try to preserve the rule of law?
• 01:30 - 02:00 Mark Elias first crossed Trump in 2016. He was the top lawyer for the Clinton campaign. Then in 2020 when Trump and allies challenged the election results. Elias fought in court and won. Trump calls him a thug. Donald Trump is the walking embodiment of everything that is wrong with the American political system. And so when Donald Trump says that I am unethical or that I am
• 02:00 - 02:30 undermining his vision of America, I say, "Boy, I must be doing something right." Elias was top of mind for Trump this past March. both he and another lawyer who had once investigated the president with the help of radicals like Mark Elias, Mark Pomerance, and these are people that nobody's ever seen anything like it. So many others, but these are people that are bad people, really bad people.
• 02:30 - 03:00 They tried to turn America into a corrupt communist and third world country. But in the end, the thugs failed and the truth won. Beginning in February, the president signed the orders attacking the law firms. Wait, I just want to savor this one, please. Six firms in six weeks, including Mark Elias's former firm. each had a connection to an investigation or legal case related to Trump or his allies,
• 03:00 - 03:30 including Robert Müller's 2017 probe of Russian election meddling, subversion of the 2020 election, and alleged mishandling of classified documents. This is an absolute honor to sign. What they've done is in just terrible. Targeted firms say what the president signed amounted to a corporate death penalty and it should never be allowed to happen again. The orders threatened
• 03:30 - 04:00 to bar attorneys from where they work, courouses and federal agencies and cancel the contracts of law firm clients. For example, an aerospace company could lose its federal contracts if it stayed with the firm. A senior partner at one firm told us the president's orders were quote diabolical, intended to bankrupt us. He said within hours his major clients were
• 04:00 - 04:30 threatening to drop his firm. It took only a matter of days before America's wealthiest and most powerful law firms buckled. In a shock to the legal community, nine major firms went to the White House to make a deal. Some say they were pressured not by a written order, but by a message from the White House threatening an order. It is trying to intimidate them. The way in which a
• 04:30 - 05:00 mob boss intimidates people in the neighborhood that he is seeking to either exact protection money from or engage in other nefarious conduct. I mean, the fact is that these law firms are being told, "If you don't play ball with us, maybe something really bad will happen to you." The nine firms did not admit wrongdoing, but altogether they agreed to give nearly $1 billion in legal services to causes that the firms
• 05:00 - 05:30 and Trump support. Our whole system of government is at stake. Attorney Donald should know. He argued before the Supreme Court for the Reagan administration. He was deputy attorney general for George HW Bush. And that's their argument. Today, he teaches at Georgetown Law. The idea that the president would issue executive orders aimed at any either specific person or organization and stating that they're
• 05:30 - 06:00 being punished because they're doing things that are politically disapproved by the people in power. That that is completely unprecedented. Nobody has that right, including the president. No, absolutely not. I think the president president's an elected person and he has the right to do a great many things, but he doesn't have the right to essentially cancel out your right to have a lawyer of your choosing represent you in court by scaring the lawyer through threats
• 06:00 - 06:30 that their personal livelihood will be destroyed. Now, America's legal community is torn between those who want to fight and those who made a deal. One firm that reached an agreement with Trump was Scatteren Arps where attorney Brena Frey resigned in protest. I think the message it sends to the country is power is what matters. If you have power, you can exercise that power however you want. And if that's true,
• 06:30 - 07:00 why have a legal system at all? Why have law firms or lawyers at all? You thought that Scatteren would fight. Absolutely. Why did you think so? Because that's a foundational principle of the firm that we are zealous advocates for the law. Why did this mean so much to you that you felt you had to quit? The law firm is tacitly saying, "We'll listen to the administration. We won't fight in court. If we won't fight over this, what else
• 07:00 - 07:30 won't we fight over in court against the federal government?" In a note to its staff, Scatteren Arbs called its deal with Trump extraordinarily difficult, but the best path to protect our clients, our people, and our firm. I think that they're naive if they think this makes the issue go away. Naive? What do you mean? There was nothing in these agreements that prevents the president from issuing
• 07:30 - 08:00 another executive order against the law firm in the future. Someone must stand up to this because it is a direct attack on the whole functioning of our judicial system. Four firms are standing up and fighting in court. Judges protected them with temporary restraining orders. Block professor Donald Ayer says in his view, Trump's orders violate the constitutional rights to free speech, due process, and the right to counsel.
• 08:00 - 08:30 Everyone's got a right to a lawyer. Everyone's got a right to go to court. And it's something we've always assumed to be true. And now it's threatened. So if the president targets a few specific law firms, the message to law firms across the country in a nutshell is what I think the message is that this can happen to you, but it's a real effort to prevent zealous representation of your client's legal interest when that results in something unacceptable to the
• 08:30 - 09:00 administration. You're at the mercy of the government and it it really it's like a protection racket. John Keker is a prominent attorney and Democrat in San Francisco. You're not suggesting that the president's running a protection racket. I am. I'm I'm I'm suggesting that he is uh violating the rule that says you can't offer a thing of value in return for an official act. That happens to be the definition of bribery. Anybody
• 09:00 - 09:30 else who came to Washington and said, "I will give you a hund00 million of free legal services if you do this for me," would be convicted of a bribe. Ker is helping recruit law firms nationwide to fight back. More than 500 firms, large and small, have signed up in support. We don't have to agree on politics, but we do have to agree that the legal profession has to protect the rule of
• 09:30 - 10:00 law in the United States, which means lawyers and judges need to be independent from the executive branch. If the president brings the legal profession to heal, what situation is the country in then? No rule of law. You're in a dictatorship. That's what happened in China. It happened in Russia. These are legal systems that look like legal systems, but in fact are controlled by a dictatorship. I just
• 10:00 - 10:30 think that the law firms have to behave themselves. Trump's attack on the law firms has been described by a federal judge as a personal vendetta. None of his targets is charged with any crime. Trump, however, was indicted by federal grand juries in cases about the 2020 election and allegedly concealing classified documents. He pleaded not guilty. Those prosecutions were dropped only because he was reelected. Last
• 10:30 - 11:00 year, a state jury convicted him of falsifying business records, making him the first felon in the Oval Office. I've been targeted for four years, longer than that. So, you don't tell me about targeting. I was the target of uh corrupt politicians for four years and then four years after that. Uh so, don't talk to me about targeting. In Trump's defense, government lawyers argue in
• 11:00 - 11:30 court that his orders against the firms ensure that tax money is not supporting unlawful or unsavory practices. Another filing says the executive branch is merely managing who it does business with, not punishing anyone. And the government argues that the orders are quote well within the scope of presidential prerogative. Well, the law firms all want to make deals. You mean the law firms that we're going after that went after me for four years
• 11:30 - 12:00 ruthlessly, violently, illegally? You mean are those the law firms you're talking about? They're not babies. They're very sophisticated people. Uh, those law firms did bad things. Bad things. They went after me for years. Uh, Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. All a hoax. What Trump means by a hoax were allegations in 2016 of shady dealings with Russia by Trump and his campaign. He's right that the FBI could not
• 12:00 - 12:30 corroborate what was described as rumor. At least one allegation was promoted to the media by Clinton campaign representatives when Mark Elias was general counsel. In this memo 6 weeks ago, Trump says Elias is an example of grossly unethical misconduct. The president directs the attorney general to seek sanctions against any lawyer anywhere for unreasonable and vexacious
• 12:30 - 13:00 litigation against the government. Unreasonable apparently in the eye of the president. Are we reaching a point where a person will go to a law firm with a case that is opposed to the president of the United States and the law firm will think, do we really want to take this case? We're already there. They are deciding not to take on certain kinds of clients that might upset the administration or not bring taking on certain kinds of causes that might put
• 13:00 - 13:30 them in the crosshairs of the administration. If lawyers give up their independence, what is lost? The rule of law and this is why the business community ought to care today. It might be that, you know, Donald Trump thinks he can take over the election system through one of his executive orders. Tomorrow, maybe it's the banking system. After that, maybe it's contracts. Maybe he decrees, I'm going to decide which contracts are binding and which contracts aren't binding. So the legal system is fundamental to how our society
• 13:30 - 14:00 operates, how capitalism operates, and everyone should have a stake in that. Conservative law professor Donald is optimistic the courts will strike down the president's orders. The question then he told us is whether Trump will obey. This is a very big deal. What's happening now is a very big deal. It's a whole another chapter in our history and we need to call upon the values that have brought us to where we are um in order to get through it. In a late
• 14:00 - 14:30 development Friday evening, a federal judge permanently blocked President Trump's order against one of the law firms, saying that the order is unconstitutional. No word yet on whether the administration will appeal.