In today’s guest commentary Peter A. Gold addresses issues raised by the Trump Administration’s executive order targeting the Seattle law firm Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. Peter raises questions for every American to think about.
Peter A. Gold, Esquire, is a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Two years ago, he founded the Rule of Law Discussion Community, which is a group of national and international thought leaders who hold the view that adherence to the rule of law is very important to economies, quality of life, and democracy. The members, mostly non-lawyers, are from real estate, financial services, banking, central banking, the military, health care, higher education, entertainment, insurance, and other fields. Gold has brought these distinguished thinkers and doers together in a nonpolitical nonpartisan discussion group.
This what he recently circulated to the Discussion Community about President Trump’s March 6th Perkins Coie Executive Order. Gold can be reached at pagoldesq@gmail.com. He invites your comments.
Hi, all.
Since its issuance on March 6th, I have been focused on the Trump Administration’s Perkins-Coie Executive Order (“E.O.”). Please see: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/.
I summarize the E.O.’s provisions as relating to the law firm and their attorneys as follows. It is intended to a) suspend security clearances, b) limit access to federal government buildings, c) prevent transfers of dollars to federal contractors who have contracts with Perkins Coie, and d) to terminate those contracts.
The Administration says it is doing this because the firm is “dangerous” and “dishonest.” Others say it was because the firm represented Trump’s adversaries and political competitors. I speculate that maybe it might be both?
I do not know the specific facts (actual or alleged) of any alleged wrongdoing by the Perkins Coie firm. Further, I don’t know what limitations, if any, are on the power of the President to take such actions. However, it feels and looks to me like the E.O. is an attempt to interfere with the “right” of private entities to select counsel of their own choosing, long believed to be a core principle of American jurisprudence.
At a minimum this E.O. creates further instability in the commercial sector and markets, limits rights, and is straining the vitality of rule of law if not outright abandoning it. This seems to me to be particularly so since there are already existing procedures and rules governing federal contractors and subcontractors. There are also rules of ethics which govern the practice and conduct of lawyers and law firms. In addition, there are criminal and civil laws applicable to “dishonest and dangerous” firms and individual lawyers. However, such procedures typically have constitutional safeguards of due process which are absent from the text of the E.O. This leaves me asking isn’t this action really the epitome of the weaponization of government that the Administration’s E.O. framers are complaining about?
Although this E.O. applies to one firm today, what type of precedent does it set regarding other law firms, businesses, and individuals? I respectfully submit that this should concern every American.
If you want a 4-minute listen to the current ABA President’s take on the E.O. and other actions I invite you to listen to the NPR interview: “American Bar Association president speaks out against attacks on judges and lawyers,”
https://one.npr.org/i/nx-s1-5317656:nx-s1-5385368-1” [ Thanks to the ABA’s Task Force on Democracy for forwarding.]Respectfully,
Peter A. Gold
