For fear of Trump, some law firms are refusing pro bono immigration cases

Hours after Donald J. Trump was sworn in a second term, he explained an executive order that laid the foundation for massive deportations of immigrants and refusing legal assistance.

Public interest groups focused on immigrant rights worked together to combat the order and called Gibson Dunn, a large law firm with the means to assume the White House. In January, Gibson Dunn, together with the groups, sued the Trump administration to restore legal assistance for immigrants who are confronted with deportation.

Two months later, Gibson Dunn changed his number.

Although lawyers from Elite New York’s law firm had already worked with the public interest groups to prepare another lawsuit, Gibson Dunn said that it could not give his name on this last case, according to five people with direct knowledge of the case that would only speak on condition of anonymity because they feared the alienation of Gibson Dunn.

Lawyers from Gibson Dunn that it was afraid to raise Mr Trump’s wrath when the company was publicly associated with a lawsuit who wanted to restore the legal representation for non -counseled immigrant children, the five people said. Gibson Dunn is not the only large law firm that shoves immigration shells.

Since March, Mr Trump has focused on countless large law firms with executive orders that would paralyze their companies by breaking them to represent customers for the federal government. Many of the large companies have chosen to reach deals with the White House to prevent Mr Trump from giving an executive order against them. Other companies have challenged the orders before the court.

Gibson Dunn has not received such an executive order or concluded a deal with Mr. Trump.

But Gibson Dunn’s restraint about the recent immigration discussion shows that even companies that are not directly directed by Mr Trump refuse to participate in legal work that challenges his agenda.

Michael Lukens, the executive director of the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, one of the public interest groups that collaborated with Gibson Dunn on the immigration cases, acknowledged that he “avoided industry to deal with immigration Pro Bono.” But he has credited Gibson Dunn for his support over the years.

Groups such as the Amica Center have long been familiar with large law firms to offer legions of young lawyers and paralegals that can prepare for free business. Traditionally, Pro Bono work is intended to help the poor and defenseless.

It is a dramatic change compared to Mr. Trump’s first term, when many Large law firms The administration often challenged. Skadden ARPs has a foundation that finances a Fellowship program that enables young lawyers to work for public interest groups. In June 2017, a placement on the website of the Skadden Foundation celebrated the work of a fellow who had helped Mr Trump’s order to perform people from various predominantly Muslim countries to enter the United States. In the same year, Skadode rolled out an online platform to quickly link immigrants with a low income to legal services.

Some public interest groups expected that Skadden would be a reliable partner for immigration cases during the second administration. But since Skadden A deal reached With the White House in March to avert an executive order, the law firm refused to become a member of a public interest group on a lawsuit that challenges one of Mr Trump’s immigration policy, according to two people with direct knowledge of the case.

Davis Polk was another large law firm that helped people accelerated in Mr Trump’s immigration policy during his first term. In January 2017, the company Some of the deployed The lawyers of Kennedy International Airport to help search for people whose family members were held as part of the Muslim ban.

But shortly after Mr. Trump re-election won, a prominent non-profit contacted Davis Polk to ask if the law firm would investigate the legality of one of Mr Trump’s immigration proposals. The company just said no, according to a lawyer at the organization who asked to speak without identifying her group.

The lawyer interpreted Davis Polk’s answer as ‘anticipatory obedience’, partly because the law firm had done similar work in the past. The company has not been the target of an executive order or are arranged with the White House.

Sirine Shebaya, executive director of the National Immigration Project, a non -profit organization that has adjusted and insists matters for immigrants, called the recent Pivots of the large companies ‘part of the horrifying effect’ of the executive orders of Mr Trump.

“It has become much more difficult to allow law firms to take on a case on Pro Bono,” said Mrs. Shebaya.

The White House did not respond to a request for comments.

Mr. Trump has made it clear that he does not want Elite Lawyers to do work that undermines his agenda. In his executive orders, he criticized for representing customers he does not like and perform ‘harmful activities through their powerful Pro Bono practices’.

Instead, he needs companies that settled with him to work Pro Bono on causes that are beneficial for his administration, such as veteran cases and combating anti -Semitism.

Last week, Mr Trump signed an executive order that the aforementioned law firms could be recruited to defend police officers accused of brutality.

Public interest groups, aware of the pressure with which large law firms are confronted, are wary of criticizing the companies that reject immigration cases. Officials with some of these groups said they hoped that law firms would again become partners with them when Mr. Trump’s pressure began to take.

“The fact that we are only 100 days later, and the Trump government has already been incredibly successful in taking part of his legal opposition of the playing field is really frightening,” said Deepak Gupta, a lawyer whose company has sued The Trump governance on behalf of a dismissed member of the National Labor Relations Board and a trade union that represents employees of the Bureau of Financial Protection of the Consumer.

For now, public interest groups are looking for new partners. One is David Zimmer, a lawyer in Boston, who recently started his own company with two other old lawyers. Mr. Zimmer, who left the great law firm Goodwin Procter, where he was a partner aimed at appeal, said he had already been approached by organizations of public interest that were looking for Pro Bono assistance in immigration cases.

“We opened our doors in March and approached to be able to handle cases that large companies no longer wanted to be associated,” said Mr. Zimmer.

Democracy Forward and Public Citizen, Two Great Public Interest Legal Groups, also said they tried to add staff to the interpretation of the gaps left by large law firms who refused to work on business. Democracy Forward recently hired a number of lawyers who previously worked for the Ministry of Justice and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Democracy Vooruit is one of the main lawyers about 59 cases against administration. Those cases belong to the approximately 350 lawsuits that have been brought, according to a Tally Tally Trump policy for Trump administration.

“Large law firms that were frequent defenders of the rule of law were not prepared and unable to record that cloak,” said Skye Perryman, the Chief Executive Officer of Democracy Vooruit. “We see exponential increase in the demand for our work and we are going to continue to encourage the private bar.”

Seamus Hughes has contributed reporting.