Statement By General Counsels United On the Filing of Its Amicus Brief in Perkins Coie LLP v U.S. DoJ

General Counsels United, a nationwide, non-partisan collective of more than 800 general counsels, filed an amicus brief in support of the targeted law firms in Perkins Coie LLP v U.S. DoJ, the Administration’s consolidated appeal against four law firms that successfully challenged its Executive Orders. To help the Court understand the real-world impact of the Orders, General Counsels United conducted an anonymous survey of its members and hosted a members-only town hall discussion. The amicus brief reports the learning from these activities as well as arguments based on the unique perspectives of its members. General Counsels United said:  

“By sending the message that the federal government will target lawyers and organizations who take positions adverse to this Administration, the Orders deprive companies of access to their counsel of choice, suppress constitutionally protected speech, and undermine the rule of law.”  

Specifically, Amicus’s survey and town hall make clear that – 

• “For many general counsels, it would not be viable to retain, or even maintain current engagements with, the targeted firms, if the Executive Order were allowed to take effect… a present harm that undermines the government’s claim that the targeted firms’ challenges are not ripe.   
• “By forcing law firms to either settle with the federal government or be threatened with an Executive Order, the Orders have put general counsels and their companies in a challenging bind as they consider who to retain as outside counsel, especially for matters involving the federal government. 
• “By targeting law firms because they represented clients that took positions adverse to the Administration’s policy priorities, the Orders have deterred both law firms and companies from engaging with the legal system in ways that may displease the Administration out of fear of federal retaliation.  

 “The Orders have already distorted the lens through which general counsels must make outside-counsel decisions, even before any agency has implemented any part of these Orders,” the brief argues. “If allowed to take effect, the Orders would require federal government contractors to report every matter in which they have engaged a targeted law firm; require federal agencies to review all federal government contracts with companies that hired the targeted firms; limit all federal employees from ‘engaging’ with employees of the targeted firms; bar every employee of the targeted firms from accessing ‘Federal Government buildings’ (including, presumably, the federal courts) and suspend all security clearances for attorneys who work at those law firms.”