header-logo header-logo

Extending support to US colleagues

09 April 2025
Issue: 8112 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , International , Rule of law
printer mail-detail
The Law Society and Bar Council have endorsed a Europe-wide statement of support for US lawyers targeted by President Donald Trump’s administration.

Since March, President Trump has been putting pressure on certain law firms and lawyers he views as hostile to his policies. His administration has threatened to impeach and disbar judges whose decisions they don’t like, and issued executive orders and memorandums to limit or revoke law firms’ security clearances, and deny lawyers access to federal buildings and facilities.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also written to 20 law firms in March, informing them their diversity, equity and inclusion practices have been placed under investigation.

Last week, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), representing more than one million lawyers, collectively expressed their support for US colleagues.

‘The efforts of any government to use power to punish individuals and law firms based on their representation of clients or their legal positions are a clear violation of the core principle of legal independence,’ their statement read.

‘The CCBE echoes the American Bar Association's firm rejection of these practices. Lawyers have a duty to act in the best interest of their clients, and no lawyer should face retaliation for fulfilling this duty.’

Barbara Mills KC, chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘The political attacks on independent legal practitioners, the rule of law and the judiciary are abhorrent.

‘We offer our total support to the American Bar Association and our colleagues who are facing such unprecedented challenges and threats. The Bar Council of England and Wales condemns all acts of intimidation and the targeting of lawyers who are simply carrying out their work, often acting in the public interest and upholding our professional ethics.’

Some 500 law firms, including the US branch of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer—the only global elite firm to do so—have signed an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie, which is the subject of executive orders suspending its security clearance and reviewing its government contracts.

Washington-based top 50 firm Perkins Coie, along with Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, are suing the Trump administration. 

Issue: 8112 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , International , Rule of law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll