1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ‘Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era?’…

Law Firms

‘Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era?’ Judges consider injunction bids by firms targeted in Trump orders

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 24, 2025, 10:57 am CDT

Two federal judges sharply questioned a government lawyer Wednesday as they considered bids by Perkins Coie and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr to permanently enjoin executive orders that target them and their clients.

“Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era, the Red Scare era?” asked U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., in the Perkins Coie case. Howell was questioning Department of Justice lawyer Richard Lawson, according to Law360.

Publications with coverage, in addition to Law360, include the New York Times, Reuters, Bloomberg Law and Law.com (here and here).

Lawson argued for the government in the cases before Howell and U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, both of whom are located in the District of Columbia.

Perkins Coie and WilmerHale are among four law firms that filed lawsuits to challenge the executive orders that typically seek the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances; restrict their access to government buildings; and call for termination of government contracts for which the firms were hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Targeted firms have represented clients and worked on causes opposed by President Donald Trump.

Howell asked the “throwback” question after noting a declaration from a former Department of Defense official who oversaw security clearances. He said a blanket suspension of clearances, as called for in the executive orders, “harkens back to the repudiated and discredited programs,” including the Red Scare.

Arguing for Perkins Coie, Dane H. Butswinkas, a partner at Williams & Connolly, said Trump’s actions stem from “the playbook of authoritarianism,” according to Bloomberg Law.

“This is exactly the kind of conduct the Constitution forbids,” Butswinkas said.

Butswinkas said the executive orders targeted lawyers who are no longer with the firms, according to Law.com.

“It sounds more like national insecurity than national security,” he said.

In the hearing before Leon, Lawson said the orders are a valid exercise of executive function rather than punishments for First Amendment activities.

Leon questioned that assertion, Law360 reports.

“It’s pretty clear it’s retaliation,” Leon said, “at least to this court.”

Arguing for WilmerHale, Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy said the executive orders “are a direct and lethal threat to an independent bar,” according to Law360.

“The signal it sends to the whole bar is, ‘Watch out,’” Clement said.

Nine firms have reached deals with Trump to avoid executive orders. The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

Above the Law has created a list of firm actions in response to the Trump administration in its “BigLaw Spine Index.”

See also:

Revoking security clearances includes due process, which is not being followed, says whistleblower lawyer

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Did 9 firms making deals with Trump violate…

Law Firms

Did 9 firms making deals with Trump violate bribery, anti-fraud laws? Democratic letters seek answers

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 24, 2025, 2:26 pm CDT

Sixteen Democratic lawmakers have sent letters to nine law firms that ask them to disavow deals with President Donald Trump and to answer questions about their legality.

Among the 16 Democrats are two lawmakers leading the effort: U.S. Rep. Dave Min of California and U.S. Rep. April McClain Delaney of Maryland, who are both lawyers, according to an April 24 press release and ABC News.

HuffPost reporter Jennifer Bendery posted a link to the documents on X, formerly known as Twitter.

The nine firms getting the letters are Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

Firms making the deals pledged to devote millions of dollars in pro bono hours to issues supported by the firms and Trump. Their agreements allowed them to avoid executive orders that, among other things, call for the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances and imperil their clients’ government contracts.

According to the letters, continued performance under the agreements may be unenforceable under contracts law, would have negative effects on the legal system, could expose the firms to civil and criminal liability, and creates potential ethics violations with respect to conflicts of interest and limits on future law practice.

Agreements of this kind “signal acquiescence to an abuse of federal power, raising serious questions about how or whether your firm would represent clients or take on matters that might be seen as antagonistic to President Trump or his agenda,” the letters said.

The letters asked firms to explain whether the deals open themselves up to liability for:

  • Violating federal bribery laws by offering something of value to influence official acts.

  • Aiding and abetting violations of the Hobbs Act, which makes it a crime to affect commerce by extortion.

  • Violating federal anti-fraud laws that prohibit schemes to defraud the public of the honest services of public officials.

  • Violating the federal law that prohibits participation in a racketeering enterprise.

  • Violating state statutes that ban providing public servants with benefits to influence actions.

The April 24 letters follow inquiries sent to firms from U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who are both Democrats, according to Reuters and an April 22 press release.

The first batch of letters by Blumenthal and Raskin sought more information on attempts made to poach lawyers and clients from one of the targeted firms and asked six firms to retain records pertaining to the executive orders. A second group of letters asked five firms for more information while asserting that their “capitulation” allowed Trump to suppress their speech.

“Your agreement makes you complicit in efforts to undermine the rule of law and to turn private attorneys into President Trump’s personal law firm, ready to do whatever he decides,” Blumenthal and Raskin wrote.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Gone are the days of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. law firm receptionists chained to their desks, limited to answering phones and taking messages.

Modern consumers in search of legal guidance expect more, including 24/7, responsive service and immediate answers to their questions. Office hours have become an obsolete concept, with potential clients often seeking to research firms and retain legal services at their convenience and from the comfort and privacy of their homes.

As technology advances, lawyers have more lead management options available, including virtual receptionist services, online intake forms or generative artificial intelligence-powered chatbots designed to meet consumers where they are and adeptly address their concerns. Firms that rely on these tools, rather than on staff employees alone, are far better positioned to thrive in today’s highly competitive legal marketplace.

The good news is that reception and intake are some of the easiest firm functions to offload. In-house staff can’t answer calls around the clock, but virtual receptionists and chatbots can, offering prospective clients the flexibility and convenience of full-time after-hours coverage. By outsourcing call handling and intake processes, you can increase your firm’s availability to new and existing clients while reducing administrative burdens and costs.

Choosing the right tools for your firm

There’s no shortage of virtual receptionists and intake tools for firms. The right fit will depend on your firm’s priorities, including cost, features and whether you want a legal-specific provider. Some companies focus exclusively on firms; others serve a broader market. However, don’t automatically discount the generalists.

Depending on your firm’s needs, they may very well check many of the boxes at a much more appealing price.

Before choosing a service, it’s essential to understand that outsourcing requires sharing your firm’s data with third parties, which in turn triggers certain ethical duties. These include the obligation to preserve confidentiality by vetting how and when your firm’s information will be accessed, used and stored by the provider.

With that in mind, let’s review some of the more widely used, stand-alone virtual receptionist services and client intake tools for firms. Information about pricing will be provided unless it’s not listed online.

Virtual legal intake and receptionist options

LexReception offers virtual receptionist services tailored for firms. They include handling calls, client intake, appointment scheduling and payment collection. LexReception differentiates itself by focusing on the legal industry, offering 24/7, bilingual availability and integrating with a wide range of legal practice management and payment processing tools.

Smith.ai combines live virtual receptionists with generative AI to manage calls, web chats, texts and Facebook messages while also handling lead qualification and customer relationship management integration. It also offers chatbots powered by generative AI to respond to online, social media and text messages. The standout feature is an “AI-first” receptionist, which streamlines intake workflows, provides multilingual support and transfers to human virtual receptionists when needed for follow-up. Pricing for each offering is available on the website.

LawDroid offers AI-powered legal automation tools that handle tasks, such as virtual intake, document drafting and client communication. LawDroid stands out for its early adoption of generative AI to support LawDroid Copilot, a legal assistant. The company’s forward-thinking approach makes it especially relevant for solo and small firms operating virtually. You can find pricing details on the website for various tools.

Ruby provides live virtual receptionists and chat services for small businesses, including firms, with an emphasis on friendly, human-first client interactions. The company consistently receives high marks for customer service quality and has strong brand recognition in solo and small firm markets. It integrates with some legal tech tools, and the website offers pricing information, including bundled options for live web chat and virtual receptionist services.

Back Office Betties delivers virtual receptionist and legal intake services staffed by receptionists trained exclusively in legal terminology and workflows. A number of integrations with legal products are available. The company’s flat-rate pricing stands out and is listed on the website.

Answering Legal is a 24/7 live answering service built specifically for lawyers. It offers features, such as call forwarding, new client intake and bilingual support. What sets it apart is the ability to customize call protocols and live call transfer capabilities that allow qualified leads to be quickly patched through to the firm.

Intaker offers AI-powered website chat tools designed to capture and qualify leads for firms through customizable, conversation-based interfaces. It integrates with many popular customer relationship management systems and legal software platforms. Its visually engaging, video-enabled chat experience, along with its focus on lead conversion, are notable.

The bottom line

Firms that take advantage of virtual receptionists and intake tools are simply more responsive and efficient. By ensuring that calls are promptly answered, leads are captured, and clients receive immediate attention—day or night.

Modern intake tools, whether AI-powered, human-staffed or a mix of both, reduce overhead and free up time for more analytical and nuanced legal work. This benefit can be particularly impactful for solo and small firms, enabling them to better compete with larger practices by offering scalable, professional client service without the cost of full-time staff.

Outsourcing reception and intake is one of the easiest and most impactful ways to improve the client experience and streamline operations. With so many options available, there’s a solution to fit nearly any budget or workflow. Invest in these tools now, and your firm will be better positioned to thrive and grow.

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Skadden improperly limited lawyer access…

Law Firms

Skadden improperly limited lawyer access to email distribution lists, group claims in NLRB filing

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 1:19 pm CDT

A workers’ rights group alleges that Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom improperly interfered with protected employee discussions about the law firm’s deal with President Donald Trump when it restricted email distribution lists.

The National Institute for Workers’ Rights filed an unfair labor practice charge with those allegations last week with the National Labor Relations Board, report Bloomberg Law, Law360 and Reuters.

Skadden’s deal, announced March 28 on Trump’s social media platform Truth Social, calls for the firm to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services to support causes favored by Trump and the firm. The agreement also said Skadden will not engage in illegal discrimination based on equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Skadden reached the deal to prevent becoming a target in a punitive executive order.

The charge said “associates used firm email to discuss these changes, submit resignations, plan coordinated rejections of recruitment activities, and express concerns about the impact on what they do, with whom they work, and their ethical obligations.”

A letter sent to the NLRB, along with the labor charge, cited an anonymous Skadden employee who said the firm “turned off firm email lists to silence people” before announcement of the deal.

Curtailing access to email lists interfered with employees’ ability to engage in mutual aid and protection outside of a union, the letter said.

The National Institute for Workers’ Rights submitted the charge because of its concerns about worker rights and was not acting on behalf of Skadden employees, according to the letter. Generally, the National Labor Relations Act allows anyone to file a charge for unfair labor practices, according to Bloomberg Law.

Jeremy D. London, a Skadden executive partner, did not immediately reply to the ABA Journal’s request for comment.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 59 partners leave A&O Shearman outside Asia…

Layoffs

59 partners leave A&O Shearman outside Asia since decision to trim 10% of equity partnership

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 3:19 pm CDT

Twenty-five U.S. partners are among the 59 partners who left A&O Shearman since its decision last year to trim 10% of its global equity partnership, according to a count by Law.com.

The count does not include 15 partners who left A&O Shearman in Asia, as previously reported by Law.com. Butit does include partners who left in the United States, London, Europe, Africa and Australia.

A&O Shearman said last year the partner cuts were “a difficult but necessary step forward” following the merger between Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling. About 45 partners who left joined other law firms.

A&O Shearman said it currently has around 800 partners worldwide, which is about the same number that it had when it announced the cuts. It is unclear why the current number isn’t lower, according to Law.com.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Attrition rate is ‘markedly higher’ for associates…

Careers

Attrition rate is ‘markedly higher’ for associates of color, NALP Foundation says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 9:19 am CDT

The attrition rate for associates in law firms was 20% in 2024, up from 18% in 2023 but still lower than the historic high of 26% in 2021, according to the NALP Foundation for Law Career Research and Education.

The attrition rate was slightly higher for females than males, at 22% and 20% respectively, and was “markedly higher” for associates of color, at 24% compared to 19% for white associates, according to selected findings from the NALP Foundation’s newest annual Update on Associate Attrition, a detailed report on firms’ associate hiring and departures for 2024.

An April 24 press release summarized the findings.

More associates are leaving in a shorter time frame than in the past, according to the data from 119 reporting firms in the United States and Canada. In 2024, 74% of associates left their firms within four years of their hiring, up from a high of 72% in 2023. That is a departure from the five-year historical pattern for departures.

The survey also found an increase in hiring and departures at the surveyed firms. In 2024, 6,092 associates were hired by reporting firms, up from 5,236 in 2023. The number who left—4,125 associates—was also higher than in 2023, when 3,875 associates left firms.

Fifty-five percent of new associates were hired at the entry level, rather than laterally. The difference is even more pronounced in the largest firms of more than 1,000 lawyers, where 61% of associate hires were at the entry level.

Fiona Trevelyan Hornblower, the president and CEO of the NALP Foundation, sees some trends in the findings.

“This new data shows shifts in the talent market are emerging, with the rise in entry level recruiting, as well as earlier departures by associates,” Hornblower said in the press release.

More larger than smaller firms responded to the survey. Only 17% of responding firms had 100 or fewer lawyers. Thirty-seven percent of the firms had more than 500 attorneys.

Law.com covered the results.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Firm failed to honor exit package after retaliating…

Law Firms

Firm failed to honor exit package after retaliating for bias complaint, former BigLaw partner alleges

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 10:53 am CDT

A former salaried partner at Womble Bond Dickinson has filed a lawsuit alleging that the law firm cut her pay by half and offered her an exit package—which it didn’t honor—after she complained about a hostile work environment.

The April 25 suit filed by Wilka Toppins alleges race and gender discrimination, retaliation, misrepresentation and breach of contract.

Law360 has a story on the suit, filed in Harris County, Texas.

Toppins, who is Hispanic, said she accomplished “a great deal of origination and a large book of business” after she began work at the firm’s Houston office in November 2021, despite receiving inadequate support.

For a majority of her time at the firm, Toppins “had no associate help and no secretarial help,” the suit said. She was also subjected to a “very hostile work environment” by firm members and support staff in her corporate and securities practice group, according to the suit.

“The disparity in treatment included not providing sufficient support, attempting to take away plaintiff’s immigration clients and business, speaking to plaintiff in a derogatory and condescending manner, and failing to fulfill basic promises to her,” the suit said.

Toppins was the only Hispanic female in the entire firm at the time of her hiring, according to the suit.

After Toppins complained, the firm said it would investigate. Eventually, Toppins was told that the firm found that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, but it was not because she was a member of a protected class.

A pattern of retaliation followed, the suit said. Toppins’ pay was cut from $350,000 to $175,000, and she was told that if she did not like the new salary, the firm would be happy to “transition her off,” according to the suit.

After Toppins sought restoration of her pay, Womble Bond Dickinson offered her an exit package consisting of a 10% referral agreement, a contract position for immigration work and a severance agreement. Relying on the agreement, Toppins resigned in January 2024.

The firm then failed to honor the agreement under the exit package, the suit said.

A spokesperson for Womble Bond Dickinson did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s request for comment made in an email and a voicemail.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Executive orders against firms threaten rule…

Law Firms

Executive orders against firms threaten rule of law, Susman Godfrey says in suit against Trump administration

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 14, 2025, 12:39 pm CDT

Updated: Susman Godfrey has alleged in a lawsuit filed Friday that President Donald Trump’s campaign of executive orders targeting the law firm and other well-known firms is an unconstitutional threat to the rule of law.

“The president is abusing the powers of his office to wield the might of the executive branch in retaliation against organizations and people that he dislikes. Nothing in our Constitution or laws grants a president such power,” according to the April 11 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “If a president can with impunity seek to destroy a law firm because of the clients it represents, then the rule of law itself is in grave danger.”

If the executive orders against Susman Godfrey and other firms are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they retaliate against different perceived enemies, the suit says.

“Put simply, this could be any of us,” the suit says.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law are among the publications with coverage.

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C., granted a temporary restraining order Tuesday to block sections of the executive order denying access to government property and calling for an end to government contracts in which the firm provides services.

“The executive order is based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm,” AliKhan said during the hearing, according to a report by Reuters. “And, frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would view it as a shocking abuse of power.”

Publications covering the ruling, in addition to Reuters, include Law.com and Law360.

Three other firms that sued over executive orders have also obtained TROs.

Susman Godfrey, a firm with 235 attorneys, describes itself as “the nation’s foremost trial firm” in the suit, Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President. Susman Godfrey is represented in the suit by a legal team at Munger, Tolles & Olson headed by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who was the U.S. solicitor general in the Obama administration and also was a former Jenner & Block partner.

The April 9 executive order targeting Susman Godfrey alleged that the firm “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.” Susman Godfrey is one of the firms that filed a defamation suit against Fox News for false claims that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems were used to help former President Joe Biden win the 2020 election. The case settled for $787.5 million.

The executive order against Susman Godfrey seeks the suspension of security clearances issued to any of the firm’s lawyers; restricts access to government buildings for firm employees; bans the government from providing resources to Susman Godfrey, including compartmentalized information facilities; bans government hiring of Susman Godfrey employees; and calls for termination of government contracts for which Susman Godfrey has been hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Trump’s executive order “effectively seeks to create a new condition of government contracting—that contractors not work with Susman Godfrey,” the suit says.

That is an unconstitutional condition that interferes with a First Amendment right to associate and a due process right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, according to the suit, which also cites other alleged constitutional violations.

Susman Godfrey is the fourth firm to sue over executive orders. The others are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie.

Firms that have reached agreements with Trump to avoid executive orders are Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

See also:

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

Updated April 16 at 8:45 a.m. to include information on the temporary restraining order.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyers will seek stipulated dismissal of…

Law Firms

Lawyers will seek stipulated dismissal of fired associate’s bias suit against Kirkland & Ellis

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 14, 2025, 2:35 pm CDT

A fired associate and Kirkland & Ellis plan to ask a court to toss the lawyer’s federal lawsuit against the law firm alleging gender bias and retaliation, according to an April 8 docket entry.

The former associate, Zoya Kovalenko, had alleged in an October 2022 suit that male associates in the intellectual property litigation group at Kirkland & Ellis were treated better and paid more money than women. Kovalenko claimed that she was fired in September 2021 after complaining about disparate treatment and was then falsely told that poor performance was the reason that she was let go.

U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California ruled in September 2024 that Kovalenko could sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, violation of California anti-discrimination law and violation of the Equal Pay Act. But Gilliam tossed a defamation claim based on a performance review.

Law360 reported earlier this month on Kovalenko’s plan to seek a stipulated dismissal, revealed in a case management statement.

Kovalenko did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email seeking comment.

Kirkland & Ellis is represented by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe lawyers, who did not immediately reply to the Journal’s email request for comment.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. McElroy Deutsch settles suit claiming over…

Law Firms

McElroy Deutsch settles suit claiming over $3M embezzlement by former executives

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 15, 2025, 9:32 am CDT

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter has reached a settlement in a lawsuit accusing its former chief financial officer and his wife of stealing more than $3 million from the law firm.

McElroy Deutsch notified the court in Union County, New Jersey, that the case had settled in an April 11 letter, Law360 reports. A stipulation of dismissal said the suit and all counterclaims would be dismissed.

The settlement follows former CFO John Dunlea’s May 2024 guilty plea to embezzling more than $1.5 million from the firm over a six-year period and to failing to pay $22,000 in state income taxes. Dunlea was sentenced to five years in prison in July 2024 and ordered to pay more than $1.5 million in restitution to McElroy Deutsch.

The firm’s suit had claimed that Dunlea paid himself unauthorized bonuses of at least $1.6 million, and that he and his wife, Nicole Alexander, treated themselves to lavish vacations in “business-card abuse” totaling more than $1.6 million.

Alexander was the firm’s former director of business and professional development. She had filed a countersuit alleging that McElroy Deutsch retaliated against her for her complaints about alleged legal violations and made unwarranted assumptions by wrongly accusing her of being aware of her husband’s alleged embezzlement.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.