Trump Attorney for Big Law Attacks Says Little as Losses Rack Up

The lawyer for President Donald Trump’s vendetta against law firms returned to court Wednesday with what has become his hallmark strategy: a merry-go-round of non-answers.

Do law firms need to make deals with Trump, Judge Beryl Howell asked, to avoid executive orders? “I can’t speak to that,” attorney Richard Lawson replied.

Are the deals written down anywhere? “I have not been privy to this,” Lawson answered. Has the president achieved $1 billion in deals yet? “I do not know.”

Like Drew Ensign, the Justice Department lawyer representing the government in closely-watched court battles over deportations, Lawson has largely been left to fend for himself in court with little information to ward off a barrage of legal attacks. The Trump administration so far is 0-4 in the cases, as judges temporarily blocked orders targeting Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey.

“It can easily appear that Lawson was sent out there as a sacrificial lamb to incur the wrath of judges by himself,” NYU legal ethics professor Stephen Gillers said.

Judges hinted more losses are coming during two hearings Wednesday, where Perkins Coie and WilmerHale were seeking to permanently toss Trump’s executive orders. The orders target the firms for their ties to lawyers who investigated Trump or went up against him in court. Trump instructed agencies to revoke firm employees’ security clearances and bar lawyers’ access to federal buildings, while threatening their clients’ government contracts.

“Pretty clear this is retaliation, at least in this court,” Judge Richard Leon said of Trump’s order targeting WilmerHale. “We remain confident the court will permanently block the order,” the law firm said after the hearing.

Howell questioned whether the Perkins Coie order targeting security clearances was similar to the McCarthy era. She also called the administration’s views on diversity, equity and inclusion “jarring and puzzling.”

Trump’s only victories so far have come outside the courtroom. Nine top law firms including Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis, Willkie Farr and Latham & Watkins reached agreements with Trump to provide at least $940 million worth of pro bono services collectively to avoid executive orders.

Lawson declined to answer questions when approached by a reporter Wednesday. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sitting Alone

Lawson in the Wednesday hearings sat alone at the defense table, across from a team of lawyers from powerhouse Williams & Connolly in one courtroom and facing off with conservative legal superstar Paul Clement in another three hours later. In his staple black suit and bright orange tie, Lawson rubbed his eyes and held his face in one hand while Dane Butswinkas and Clement attacked the government’s arguments.

Lawson being on his own at hearings could be a sign that many in the Justice Department don’t support the orders, said Temidayo Aganga-Williams, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at Selendy Gay.

“The fact that no one else is willing to sign briefs or stand up in court may reflect that they don’t have a deep bench of people who are willing to publicly stand behind these arguments,” Aganga-Williams said.

Lawson met Howell’s questions with the type of rejoinders that have become common for him across several courtrooms. “I’m not briefed on it.” “I’m not able to say right now.” “I have no further information.” “I don’t have it handy.” “Anything I say would be pure speculation.”

At one point he told Howell he was sorry. “I apologize for the lack of granularity to the details the court is looking for,” Lawson said.

He’s in a tough position as a political appointee leading the administration’s defense, according to Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor at the Justice Department.

“Lawson may feel compromised because he is a political appointee, he serves at the pleasure of the president,” Butler said. “So even though Trump is not his formal client, he may be wary of making representations in court that the administration does not like, even if those arguments are correct on the merits.”

Bondi Ally

Lawson is a longtime ally to Attorney General Pam Bondi, as they worked together as local prosecutors in Tampa and later when Bondi became the state’s top lawyer. He then joined Bondi at America First Policy Institute, the group founded to help drive the president’s agenda after his first term.

At America First, Lawson led a Georgia voting lawsuit during the run up to the 2024 election and represented Colorado parents challenging a local school district’s transgender student policy.

“He’s a very good lawyer,” said John P. Coale, a veteran litigator known for taking on the tobacco industry and an AFPI adviser. “He’s a very ethical, decent guy.”

Coale worked with Lawson on Trump’s 2021 “free speech” suits against Google, Facebook, and Twitter. “Whenever I needed someone to do a really thorough dive into an issue, he would be the first person I asked.”

The companies turned to massive law firms to defend those cases.

“It doesn’t scare him and it wouldn’t scare me to go up against those guys,” Coale said. “All Big Law firms know how to do is count how much time they talk to their clients so they can bill them.”

Lawson, now deputy associate attorney general, is a former partner at Manatt Phelps & Phillips, one of over 500 law firms that signed onto an amicus brief backing Perkins Coie in its lawsuit against Trump.

It is unusual for a political appointee from the associate attorney general’s office to handle cases such as Trump’s orders against law firms, said William Yeomans, who lectures on law at Columbia University after serving 26 years at the Justice Department.

“Usually, it would be handled by career lawyers in the civil division,” Yeomans said. “What it means is they can’t find people to make the arguments, or they don’t trust career people to make the arguments.”

Nonanswers won’t help Lawson win the cases, Aganga-Williams said.

“If you cannot advocate effectively in court on behalf of your client and you can’t put forward facts or law to defend your position,” he said, “then you’re going to lose.”