(Washington) Before Donald Trump’s punitive decrees against large law firms, some have folded and others hesitate to defend causes of public interest at no cost that would put them in the administration.
But when opponents of the White House policies organized disputes in court, they quickly found that they did not need large firms. On the contrary, an army of independent lawyers, former government lawyers and small law firms offered to represent them “pro bono” (from the Latin phrase Pro Bono Publico : “For the public good”), that is to say for free.
“I do not know if the administration knew how many small players in the field of law,” says Michael H. Ansell, independent lawyer in Morristown, New Jersey, who joined this year at Pro Bono Litigation Corps, recently created by Lawyers for Good Government.
He responded to the call of this legal OSBL who was looking for lawyers ready to devote at least 20 hours per week to a cause. Over 80 volunteers.
Contest or fold
At the beginning of the year, Trump published a series of decrees and threatened with large law firms having defended customers or causes he does not like.
Photo Julia Demoree Nikhinson, Associated Press Archives
Among the hundreds of presidential decrees signed by Donald Trump, some are targeting firms that had opposed him in the past by prohibiting them access to federal documents and buildings.
Some firms have successfully challenged these decrees before the courts, but others hastened to capitulate, agreeing to devote 1 billion dollars in resources to causes dear to the administration. Among those who stood up to Mr. Trump, some hesitate to get it back by accepting causes aimed at his administration.
Me Ansell and other colleagues are in a hurry to do battle. He questioned complainants to prepare for a prosecution in late June in the Federal Court of the Columbia District against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
About twenty community, environmental and indigenous groups as well as three cities in Massachusetts and California demanded the funds which had been granted to them by EPA, but which they lost after the cancellation of subsidies for environmental and climatic justice.
“The final line of defense is us, it seems”, notes Mr.e Ansell.
Me Ansell generally represents small businesses: “So, I am not likely to lose big customers who do business with the government,” he said.
At the “pro bono” forehead
The tsunami of prosecution against the administration – more than 400, according to the count New York Times – convinced him to get started. He is particularly motivated by cases of violation of the right to be heard in court, “where the administration declares:” It is prohibited “or” this person is a criminal “, and where nobody can challenge these claims,” he explains.
Professional liability insurance and other necessities are supported by Lawyers for Good Government, which is funded by donations, including 1.6 million dollars paid by Atlanta liters.
The Pro Bono Litigation Corps is the new one in the fight against measures of Mr. Trump’s program, led by Grands Osbl as Democracy Forward, Democracy Defenders Fund, Protect Democracy, Citizen Public and the American Union for Civil Liberties (ACLU – The American equivalent of the League for Rights and Freedoms).
He is led by John Marks, founder of the OSBL Search for Common Ground, and Gary Dibianco, ex-associated with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who had retired before the cabinet united M. Trump by committing to give for 100 million dollars in services to his causes.
Small firms and independent lawyers took over immigration, causes which, during Mr. Trump’s first mandate, were often taken from Pro Bono by large firms.
This month, rights defending groups have opposed the expulsion of eight migrants to South Sudan.
Photo Blake Fagan, Archives Agency France-Presse
Descent of the federal immigration police in a farm in Camillo, California, on July 10
Several groups have launched prosecution after the decision of the Supreme Court in June preventing the judges of the lower courts from blocking executive policies on a national level, in a judgment on the cancellation by Mr. Trump of the Law Law1.
A New Hampshire judge then blocked the presidential decree on this subject after having authorized collective action, one of the few means that the lower courts still have to overcome the draconian limits imposed by the highest court.
“If each immigrant who had a child in the United States must go to court to obtain citizenship, we are ready to create an army of lawyers to represent these people,” promises Mr. Dibianco.
The strength of the number
After the Grand Cabinet Perkins Coie brought legal action against the Department of Justice in order to block Trump’s presidential decree targeting him, 504 firms signed a brief in his favor.
Among these signatories ready to publicly oppose Mr. Trump, very few large firms: only 8 of the 100 largest firms have signed.
And among them: Wilmerhale, Susman Godfrey, Jenner & Block and Covington & Burling, four big names targeted by Trump’s decrees and having brought prosecution to block them.
Most are much more modest. Karen C. Burgess, lawyer specializing in commercial disputes in Austin, Texas, says she signed because she is “overturned” by presidential decrees, which remind her of the black lists of the McCarthy era. “They have the expected dissuasive effect. »»
When Mme Burgess learned in March that the Trump administration’s investigation into diversity, equity and inclusion programs in universities had affected Rice University, where it did its right, it contacted the management to represent it if the case resulted in court.
Mme Burgess points out that out of the 1.3 million American lawyers, very unsuitable in large firms.
Photo Ilana Panich-Linsman, The New York Times
Karen C. Burgess, lawyer specializing in commercial disputes in Austin, Texas
Wherever there is a court, there is a lawyer. We are small, but many and ready to fight if necessary.
Karen C. Burgess, lawyer specializing in commercial disputes in Austin, Texas
A handful of large firms joined the battle. Cooley, a cabinet on the 100 best, represents Jenner & Block in his trial against Trump’s decree. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan represents Harvard, a favorite target of Mr. Trump in his assault against universities.
The co -owner of the cabinet, William A. Burck, advised Trump Organization in terms of ethics. After he agreed to represent Harvard in April, the Trump sons dismissed him.
“Small and medium -sized cabinets have more than filled the void,” says Norman Eisen, former official of the Obama administration who founded the Democracy Defenders Fund.
This OSBL has dealt with many highly publicized cases questioning the administration, which prompted Trump to include namely Mr. Eisen in a decree prohibiting various firms “access without escort to the buildings of the American government” and the classified information consultation.
1. Read “the Supreme Court limits the power of judges to block Trump’s decrees”
This article was published in the New York Times
Read the original version (in English; subscription required)
