The concerns of Canada’s legal community were sparked recently by various calls from U.S. President Donald Trump and his allies to impeach judges who have not ruled in favour of the Republican administration’s actions, as well as by presidential executive orders and negative statements targeting individual lawyers and law firms, the immigration bar and so-called “Big Law” in the United States.
Canadian Bar Association president Lynne Vicars
The U.S. president’s March 6, 2025, executive order against Perkins Coie directs the suspension, “consistent with applicable law” of active security clearances of all employees of the Seattle-based international firm, “pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.”
Titled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP,” the order also aims to effectively bar the firm’s employees from access to federal officials and jobs, while also directing the heads of U.S. government agencies to review “all contracts with Perkins Coie or with entities that disclose doing business with Perkins Coie” and, “to the extent permitted by law,” take “appropriate steps to terminate any contract, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, for which Perkins Coie has been hired to perform any service.”
The 1,200-plus-attorney law firm is challenging the legality of the order in court.
And in the latest move by Trump against a leading U.S. law firm, on March 27 the president made a similar order against Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, including stating that federal officials “shall immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at WilmerHale.”
The unusual presidential executive orders aimed at specific law firms began Feb. 25, 2025, when Trump ordered federal officials to “suspend” the active security clearances of those members and employees of Covington & Burling LLP who had assisted former Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith in his criminal investigations into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol and Trump’s handling of government records.
That executive order, titled “Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts,” stated the suspension was “pending a review and determination of their roles and responsibilities, if any, in the weaponization of the judicial process” and also required federal agencies to “terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with the memorandum that shall be issued by the director of the Office of Management and Budget.”
Since then, the president has issued a March 25 executive order against Jenner & Block LLP, which formerly employed a lawyer who acted as a deputy to former Department of Justice special counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller investigated Trump in connection with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference.
And on March 14, Trump issued an executive order against Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, stating that in 2021, a then-firm partner and ex-prosecutor in the office of Mueller brought a pro bono lawsuit, on behalf of the attorney general of D.C., against individuals alleged to have participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol.
His executive order also alleged, among other things, that in 2022, Paul Weiss hired an “unethical” attorney — identified by name — who Trump alleged had previously “left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me.” (The named attorney has publicly denied any wrongdoing.)
Then, in a controversial move, announced March 20, that has sparked vigorous debate within the U.S. legal community and beyond, the chair of Paul Weiss struck a deal with Trump whereby the president agreed to drop his executive order — which included suspensions of security clearances and a ban on the firm’s access to federal buildings, officials and contracts — in exchange for several commitments, including that Paul Weiss would represent clients regardless of their political affiliation and also provide $40 million worth of pro bono legal work on initiatives “mutually agreed” with the president, such as fighting antisemitism.
In a memo to firm members explaining the firm’s decision to settle with the Trump administration, Paul Weiss chair Brad Karp said the executive order brought the full weight of the federal government down on the firm, its people and its clients. It could have “destroyed our firm,” he reportedly said, adding that a number of other law firms sought to “exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys.”
Trump’s explanation for making executive orders against particular law firms pointed to: their connections to individuals previously involved in investigating him; the firms’ allegedly politically partisan litigation; and their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) measures.
As well, the president and key allies, including Elon Musk, made derogatory social media comments about judicial review and judges who made rulings unfavourable to the Trump administration. Notably, Trump called for the impeachment of a D.C. federal judge who blocked the administration’s summary deportation of a group of Venezuelans, prompting an unusual public rebuke from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who admonished that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
And on March 22, the president issued a memorandum accusing the U.S. immigration bar at large of facilitating clients’ fraudulent asylum claims.
Even more broadly, the president’s memorandum, titled “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court,” also directs U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to root out — and seek sanctions against — any American attorneys and law firms engaged in “frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation” against the United States or its federal departments and agencies, including over the past eight years.
“Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable,” the president’s memorandum states.
“The immigration system — where rampant fraud and meritless claims have supplanted the constitutional and lawful bases upon which the president exercises core powers under Article II of the United States Constitution — is ... replete with examples of unscrupulous behavior by attorneys and law firms,” the president asserts.
“For instance, the immigration bar, and powerful Big Law pro bono practices, frequently coach clients to conceal their past or lie about their circumstances when asserting their asylum claims, all in an attempt to circumvent immigration policies enacted to protect our national security and deceive the immigration authorities and courts into granting them undeserved relief. Gathering the necessary information to refute these fraudulent claims imposes an enormous burden on the federal government.”
As well, in his executive order this week, titled “Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block,” the president states “my administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called ‘Big Law’ firms, that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests.”
The memo alleges, “many firms take actions that threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles. Moreover, law firms regularly conduct this harmful activity through their powerful pro bono practices, earmarking hundreds of millions of their clients’ dollars for destructive causes, that often directly or indirectly harm their own clients.”
Trump’s executive order states “lawyers and law firms that engage in such egregious conduct should not have access to our nation’s secrets, nor should such conduct be subsidized by federal taxpayer funds or contracts.”
He goes on to accuse Jenner & Block LLP of being “yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession’s highest ideals, condoned partisan ‘lawfare,’ and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.”
He alleges, “for example, Jenner engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex, and backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders. Moreover, Jenner discriminates against its employees based on race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws, including through the use of race-based ‘targets.’”
An accompanying White House “fact sheet” states, under the rubric “Addressing rogue law firms,” that “President Trump believes that lawyers and law firms that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests should not be subsidized by American taxpayers or have access to our nation’s secrets.”
In a statement reported by American media, Jenner & Block LLP said that the executive order naming the firm resembles one that has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge.
As reported by Reuters, Jenner & Block stated “we remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients’ interests with the dedication, integrity and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies.”
Canadian legal organizations expressed deep concern about the Trump administration’s targeting of U.S. judges and lawyers over the past few weeks.
University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes
As the president of the ICJ Canada, whose stated mission is (in part) “to promote the rule of law ... and to ensure the independence of the judiciary” and to “expose and denounce violations of justice and freedom whenever and wherever they occur,” Mendes urged Canadian lawyers and legal organizations to speak out for the preservation of the rule of law in the United States.
“The best thing that Canada can do — Canadian lawyers, Canadian law societies can do — is to show support for those in the United States who are promoting the rule of law and supporting the independence of judiciary,” he said, noting ICJ Canada plans to issue a formal statement, and is discussing with Canadian and U.S. players how it can best provide support to the American legal community at this time.
Teresa Donnelly, an Ontario Crown who is president of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada (FLSC), expressed Canadian law societies’ “grave concern over recent developments in the United States that threaten the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary.”
Teresa Donnelly, Federation of Law Societies of Canada president
Without naming President Trump or members of his administration, Donnelly said in the FLSC’s March 21 statement “recent actions and rhetoric targeting lawyers, law firms and judges pose a direct challenge to these foundational principles. The independence of the legal profession and the judiciary are essential to ensuring fair and impartial justice.”
Donnelly stressed that members of the public must be able to consult a member of the legal profession of their choice without fear that a lawyer or firm will face retribution for providing advice that may be in opposition to the government of the day.
“Judges must also be free to apply the law without fear of retribution or fear for their personal safety or that of their families,” she said.
Donnelly added, “We stand with our colleagues in the American legal community who continue to defend these principles in the face of unprecedented challenges.”
The Advocates’ Society, which represents Canadian litigators with the stated aim to “ensure the presence of a courageous and independent bar and the maintenance of the role of the advocate in the administration of justice,” is “watching challenges to the independence of the bar and the judiciary in the U.S. with great concern,” said the association’s president, Darryl Cruz of McCarthy Tétrault LLP in Toronto.
Darryl Cruz of McCarthy Tétrault LLP
“That said, sentiments do not respect borders,” Cruz added. “A strong justice system is vital for a strong country,” he stressed. “Our organization and Canadian lawyers and judges are alive to these issues, and I am sure that we will all fight for a system that respects the rule of law.”
Vicars, the Toronto lawyer who leads the Canadian Bar Association, said the 40,000-plus-member national association “stands in firm support of the rule of law, judicial independence and the right to counsel — principles that are fundamental to any democracy.”
The Trump administration’s actions reverberate beyond the U.S., she said, noting democratic stability depends on respect for legal institutions and the ability of courts and the legal profession to function without undue influence or intimidation. “Any attempt to weaken these institutions not only threatens justice within a country’s borders but also has far-reaching implications for the global legal order and the shared commitment of democratic nations to uphold the rule of law.”
She said the CBA is committed to work alongside the American Bar Association and members of the U.S. legal community “who are working to uphold these foundational principles in the face of unprecedented challenges. We look forward to continued dialogue and co-operation with the ABA in our shared efforts to protect judicial independence, an independent legal profession and strengthen public confidence in the legal system.”
As reported by Law360 in the United States, on March 26 the ABA issued a statement signed by more than 50 state and local bar associations around the country decrying the president’s actions against the law firms and his call to impeach a judge over an unfavourable ruling.
The same day, the attorneys general of 21 states signed an open letter stating, “We cannot allow the president to scare law firms and lawyers into silence.”
“Recent actions by the Trump administration targeting individual law firms and attorneys and statements attacking, and calling for the impeachment of, federal judges represent a clear threat to our system of justice and our profession,” the states’ attorneys general said.
“Law firms must refuse to bow to illegal and unconstitutional threats of retribution for having the temerity to represent clients and cases opposing the administration,” the attorneys general argued. “To refuse to accept such clients would be to allow the executive to ignore legal constraints and limitations.”
They contended that Trump’s recent orders and statements, along with a March 17 letter sent to 20 major U.S. law firms from the acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — requesting information about the firms’ “DEI-related” employment practices — “lay bare the administration’s desire to silence and suppress opposition to its policies, including by making it harder for those who oppose the administration’s policies to secure legal representation.”
The acting chair of the EEOC said in a March 17 media release that “the EEOC is prepared to root out discrimination anywhere it may rear its head, including in our nation’s elite law firms” and “no one is above the law — and certainly not the private bar.”
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact Cristin Schmitz at cristin.schmitz@lexisnexis.ca or call 613-820-2794.