When Law Firms Become Political Targets

Jennifer Simpson Carr: Hello and welcome to Episode 167 of On Record PR, where we dive into the strategies and insights that matter most to law firm leaders. I’m Jennifer Simpson Carr, Vice President of Strategic Development at Furia Rubel Communications, and today, I am here with Gina Rubel.

Gina Rubel: Hi everybody.

Jennifer Simpson Carr: So, Gina, it is Monday, March 3, and we’re here to talk about a major story that has serious implications for lawyers, law firms, and the rule of law itself. The sitting President has recently signed an executive order targeting a single law firm, Covington & Burling, for representing Special Counsel Jack Smith. I thought we could talk a little bit about that and then dive into what happens when law firms become political targets.

Gina Rubel: So Jenn, when I was preparing for this call, I was really thinking about this order that revoked the security clearance of the attorneys of the Covington law firm, and it was, it appears to be, a punitive action arising from their representation of Jack Smith, who had led the two investigations against Donald Trump for his role on January 6, 2021, which is better known as the insurrection, and his handling of classified documents. And I just want our listeners to be clear that Jack Smith was the person whose investigations led to two indictments or various indictments in both cases. So it’s not just an investigator.

What’s really scary here is that this is unprecedented, and it raises huge concerns about government retaliation, Legal Ethics, and the future of independent legal representation. So I’m glad that we’re having this discussion. I think it was just last Monday or Tuesday. It was on, I think it was last Monday when the order came out, and I was down at a College of Law Practice Management conference in DC, and all I could think about was, “This is insane.” You know, I’m sure you’ve been hearing a lot from clients as well, but it’s so unprecedented, and it’s really, to some extent, invalidated everything I learned in law school, and I’m really struggling to wrap my head around this executive order.

Jennifer Simpson Carr: Yeah, it’s been scary from my perspective. I mean, watching the news and, you know, for someone who’s not an attorney, and my understanding of the rule of law and our legal system, I’ve been really curious and interested to talk to you, who has practiced law. As a third-generation attorney who has practiced law, who intimately understands the legal issues, and now advises law firms and legal leaders on communications and strategies around global and political issues, but now one who is really targeting the work that is done by these incredible professionals every day.

Gina Rubel: I’m going to have to say that as somebody who advises, as a member of a team who advises law firms globally, it’s really important that we stand up and say we do not at all support this executive order. In fact, I am a long-time member and have chaired many, many committees for the Philadelphia Bar Association, and I’ve been on the Board of Governors and their current president, Katayun Jaffari, came out with a statement that, if it’s okay, I’d like to read some of it, because it’s really where I think all bar associations should be standing up for the rule of law, but also all lawyers. So just, I’m going to say, I’m going to read this quickly, Jennifer, and I hope that we can put a link in the show notes.

The actions of Trump’s administration are directly in conflict with the mission of the Philadelphia Bar Association, and as far as I’m concerned with all lawyers and the values of our profession, which include respect for the rule of law, the importance of judicial independence and the need to advance the fair and equal administration of justice. As judges and attorneys, we commit to supporting and defending the Constitution. No judge or attorney should fear personal or professional retribution for the rulings they make or the clients whom they represent.

Let me repeat that no judge or attorney should fear personal or professional retribution for the rulings they make or the clients whom they represent.

These attacks are also dangerous in that they erode public trust in the justice system, which is essential to its ability to function effectively and or to society as a whole. This is so unprecedented. I was sitting at the dinner table this weekend, talking to some friends, and I said, “I don’t know how to advise law students. I don’t know how law schools are going to advise and educate law students about the current constitution and fairness, jurisprudence, equity because it doesn’t exist under this administration, and we were founded on a system of checks and balances to make sure that no single branch could go and pull a stunt like this.” Now, the administration is basically eroding the rule of law completely, which is under threat.

Jennifer Simpson Carr: So let’s talk about that for a minute because what we understand is a majority of our listeners are law firm leaders. People who have a seat at the table and make decisions within their firms, and they’re charged with really making some of the most important decisions their firm faces every day. And so, the understanding is that everyone in this country has the right to representation.

Gina Rubel: Fair representation. Everyone does.

Jennifer Simpson Carr: So, let’s talk about why this executive order matters and how the rule of law is under threat.

Gina Rubel: Well, so number one, the ability of lawyers to represent clients without fear of government retaliation is a fundamental pillar of democracy. It’s one of the reasons we go to law school. For those of us who have entered the practice. The executive order sets a really dangerous precedent by penalizing the law firm for taking on a client that the current sitting President dislikes. So it does appear as retribution, and regardless of political affiliation, we all need to be concerned when the government takes or targets legal professionals for simply doing their jobs. I mean, if you look at who Jack Smith was, he was in the United States Department of Justice as an Assistant US Attorney, and then he was the acting US attorney and head of the department’s Public Integrity section. He was appointed as special counsel to do these investigations. That was his job, and he did it, and he did it well. Now, he and the rest of the law firm that he works for are under scrutiny. My mind is blown on this one.

Jennifer Simpson Carr: Yeah, it’s been really hard to wrap my head around, and the coverage has been fairly consistent. It was nice to see the public statements that have come out, you know, in support of the rule of law. So, let’s pause here for a message from our sponsor, and then we get back, let’s talk about the effects on law firms, legal representation, and professional responsibility.

Jennifer Simpson Carr: So, Gina, we’re back from our sponsor message, and let’s talk a little bit about the effect on law firms and legal representation, particularly the role that law firms play in the public interest and in government accountability.

Gina Rubel: So Jenn, every size law firm, including big law, plays a crucial role in public interest litigation and government accountability. In fact, you know, even some smaller law firms, like, you know, one of our clients, Willig, Williams & Davidson, you know, their Managing Partner signed as a form, the first woman Chancellor the Philadelphia Bar Association, Deb Willig signed on the Philadelphia Bar Association statement, along with many former chancellors. These are, you know, as a small firm, and we have many big firms that we represent.

Many of them are very actively involved in public interest litigation. And so, the fear of losing government contracts, security clearances, or facing political retribution could actually cause some of these firms to refuse cases that challenge those in power. And what scares me, and the reason I say could, is because we’ve already seen a number of firms scale back their DEI programs. We’ve seen one law firm that I’m not going to mention come out and say they’re a MAGA firm. So, it does pose a risk, and especially if the executive committee decides to go that route, it’s also going to pose a risk to the law firms and the retention of great attorneys if they do that, and also could lead to fewer lawyers willing to defend politically targeted individuals or institutions, which, in and of itself, weakens the justice system. So it’s a huge problem.

Jennifer Simpson Carr: It’s really hard to comprehend that a law firm will now have to weigh, potentially, whether or not they will provide representation based on potential reality retaliation. I just, I’ve only been in the industry a little under 20 years and could have never, you know, could have ever anticipated that this is something that we would be dealing with in our industry.

Gina Rubel: No, and it’s not just limited to special prosecutors, for example. The reason why I’m somewhat careful of what I say is because we’ve actually had to counsel clients in matters that relate to those things, and whether or not they should take on those cases, and why they should or shouldn’t. And again, it comes down to, if we were to ever tell a client they shouldn’t, it’s because the firm itself doesn’t work in that area, particularly, as opposed to everybody deserves great representation. So I am being a little bit careful with my words because, you know, all of our cases and everything we work on has an NDA.

Jennifer Simpson Carr: You mentioned earlier a call to law firms and legal professionals to speak out. What do you consider professional responsibility to pushing back in such an area that really looks like a very slippery slope?

Gina Rubel: Well, the first thing I’m going to say is, I’m going to give a caveat here. And the caveat is, anything you say publicly, even if it’s just in your firm, just assume that it will be a public statement. The reason I said that first is because I believe that lawyers and law firms must defend the independence of the legal system even when it’s politically uncomfortable. It’s important that the first step be that law firm management, the leaders, need to say something to the lawyers and staff. An internal statement that we will continue to represent x, y, and z is very important. Because lawyers and staff, and when I say staff, I’m talking about professionals, legal professionals need to know that they can count on the law firms to do the right thing. The legal community, also including bar associations and law firm leaders, should continue to publicly condemn actions that undermine attorney-client relationships.

What’s interesting is, I said something on my personal Facebook, and there’s been a lot of conversation about it and a lawyer reached out to me and said, “Thank you for being public about your personal position on this matter because we know it’s as a PR and crisis agency, and some firms might not feel the same way.” My response to that individual, and thank you if you’re listening, but my response was that the law firms represent and believe in the rule of law and the current legal system and that I know for a fact.

Thirdly, if law firms remain silent now, they may regret it when the legal system no longer functions as a fair and independent check on power. And this is what this is all about. It’s about power, and it’s about intimidation, and it’s about bullying, and if we don’t stand up now, we’re going to be in big trouble.

Jennifer Simpson Carr: So, Gina, before we conclude our time together, are there any final thoughts you want to share with our listeners?

Gina Rubel: I think what’s most important is that lawyers and law firms speak out because silence enables further erosion of legal protections, and everyone deserves representation. I urge the bar associations, legal ethics boards, one of which I sat on for six years, and the judiciary to take a stand against intimidation of legal professionals. And I want to remind listeners that the rule of law is not self-sustaining. It requires constant defense, especially in moments like this. So you know, we’re always here to help draft any client statements and things like that. But this podcast isn’t about, you know, telling people to call us. It is about issues. It’s about what can be done differently and what should be done differently, and really protecting law firms and the industry.

Jennifer Simpson Carr: Yeah, I know that our goal is to show up every day and every conversation with integrity, and so I know that that was our goal for today’s conversation as well. I want to thank our listeners for tuning in today. You can find us wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also find us now on YouTube for the full video episode. If you have enjoyed this conversation, please consider leaving a review on iTunes, and please share your ideas for topics with us at podcast@onrecordpr.com.

Last week, we released an episode on public statements. As Gina mentioned earlier, if there are questions about public statements, we will link to that episode. It is a wealth of information about how to consider public statements and how to craft them. And then Gina, you also mentioned something that we’ll be covering next week, which is how law firms should be considering the attack on DEI. So next week’s episode on Monday will cover assessing risk tolerance and also an internal impact assessment. So tune in next week for more information on that. Thank you to our listeners, and we’ll see you next week.