Scottish legal leaders warn of ‘chilling effect’ as they weigh in on Trump's law firm sanction battle

The Law Society of Scotland has joined regulators and legal bodies from across Europe to support American law firms facing executive crackdown from Donald Trump's administration.

Legal professionals from Scotland are acting alongside bar associations across the United Kingdom and Europe, filing an amici curiae brief in the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC.

The court is currently hearing a joint appeal from four American law firms (Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey and WilmerHale) against executive orders issued by President Donald Trump and subsequent sanctions.

The orders were part of a flurry of executive activity targeting big US firms when President Trump took office for a second time last year.

Scottish solicitors and European colleagues have branded the sanctions "chilling" in their brief and described the use of executive power as "a coordinated campaign to intimidate and punish law firms".

Several leading US law companies, including Paul Weiss, capitulated to Trump's demands. Many were targeted for apparently political reasons or their implementation of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Society President Patricia Thom said: "We are standing together with bar associations from across Europe and the UK in support of our American legal colleagues and the important principles that are a stake in this case.
 
“The rule of law and the independence of the legal professions are critically important to the proper functioning of democracy in the United States just as they are here in Scotland. Government actions designed to have a chilling effect on lawyers are unacceptable in any form.
 
“Our collective submission in this case will provide the court with global context on the importance of these values. It is right that we provide wider perspective and support in this case because of the United States’ long history as a beacon for the rule of law alongside Scotland, the UK and others.
 
“Lawyers around the world must stand up for the independence and integrity of our legal and public institutions and for the values and principles that underpin them. Democracy and the stability and prosperity it brings rest in no small part on their continuing relevance.”

German Federal Bar Association President, Dr. Ulrich Wessels, added: "Nothing less than the core values ​​of the independent legal profession are at stake in this case. Law firms must be able to operate freely and without political pressure to guarantee access to justice for everyone. Those colleagues who are unwilling to bow to pressure from the US government deserve our full support."

What is the background to Trump's law firm sanctions?

Firms have been targeted for a variety of reasons including 'partisan lawfare' and 'partisan representations'. WilmerHale, for instance, counted Robert Mueller among its partners. Mueller was the sixth director of the FBI, and was appointed special counsel to oversee the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election.

In his executive order of March 27, 2025, President Trump said: "Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) is yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States."

He added: "WilmerHale is also bent on employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice.  For example, WilmerHale rewarded Robert Mueller and his colleagues — Aaron Zebley, Mueller’s “top aide” and “closest associate,” and James Quarles — by welcoming them to the firm after they wielded the power of the Federal Government to lead one of the most partisan investigations in American history." 

When Mueller died last month, the President posted on social media: "Good, I'm glad he's dead."

Another of the targeted firms, Jenner & Block, has also been accused of 'partisan representations', and Perkins Coie was the focus on another executive order for representing Trump rival Hillary Clinton.

Finally, Susman Godfrey has been accused of 'efforts to weaponise the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections' due to its work on the 2020 election President Trump falsely claimed to have won.

What is an amicus brief?

The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights defines an amicus brief (amicus curiae) as: "An amicus curiae brief is a written submission to a court in which an amicus curiae (literally a “friend of the court:” a person or organisation who/which is not party to the proceedings) can set out legal arguments and recommendations in a given case."

In this instance, the Law Society of Scotland and the other authors of this brief are not formally a party to the cases being heard in Washington, however they are in a position of expertise on the broad issue of the rule of law.

Lord Justice of Appeal Cyril Salmon in Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd said: "I had always understood that the role of an amicus curiae was to help the court by expounding the law impartially, or if one of the parties were unrepresented, by advancing the legal arguments on his behalf."

What arguments are made in this brief?

Here is an overview of the argument's made in the brief:

• I. An independent legal profession is vital to the rule of law and a functioning democratic society
  • A. Courts recognise professional independence as fundamental to the rule of law
  • B. International and European legal instruments underscore the importance of an independent legal profession
• II. Attacks on the independence of the legal profession throughout history highlight its importance to the rule of law
  • A. Germany, 1933 to 1945: The erosion of an independnent legal profession and collapse of the rule of law
  • B. Russia: Reprisals against lawyers representing dissidents and opposition figures
  • C. Poland: Systematic attacks on judicial independence and lawyers committed to protecting it
• III. The Executive Orders threaten the independence of the legal profession and undermine the rule of law in the United States

Reactions

The Department of Justice has been contacted for comment.