Biglaw Exodus: Top Firms Slash Immigration Casework by 51% Post-Trump Criticism

The stately offices of America’s elite law firms fell silent on immigration justice in 2018. When then-President Donald Trump labeled their pro bono work a “disgrace” and “dis-service to America,” a chilling effect rippled through Biglaw. New data reveals a stark retreat: Top 100 firms handling immigration cases plummeted from 90 to 44 within a year of Trump’s attacks—a 51% collapse in representation during a border crisis.

How Did Political Pressure Reshape Biglaw’s Pro Bono Landscape?

Trump’s June 2018 rally condemnation marked a tipping point. Firms like Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis—once stalwarts of immigrant defense—scaled back work amid client backlash fears. Reuters’ 2019 analysis of National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) data quantified the retreat: Pre-criticism, 90% of top firms took immigration cases; post-criticism, just 44% did. The vilification made firms risk-averse,” notes Harvard Law professor Deborah Anker (2021). “Corporate clients threatened to walk if firms continued ‘controversial’ immigration work.”

The impact was catastrophic for due process. NIJC reported a 63% spike in unrepresented detainees by 2019. Without Biglaw’s resources, nonprofits like RAICES struggled with 300+% caseload surges. “We saw mothers deported because no lawyer could secure their asylum evidence in time,” said RAICES Advocacy Director Erika Andiola (Texas Tribune, 2020).

Can Ethical Commitments Withstand Political Firestorms?

Despite the retreat, firms like Paul Weiss and Simpson Thacher reaffirmed their commitments. Paul Weiss chair Brad Karp publicly declared, “Pro bono isn’t optional—it’s foundational.” Yet internal firm memos obtained by The American Lawyer (2020) revealed intense debates. One Am Law 50 partner admitted: “We advised associates to avoid detention center visits. The optics endangered client relationships.”

The American Bar Association condemned the chilling effect, emphasizing Model Rule 6.1: Lawyers must provide 50+ annual pro bono hours. But compliance dropped 28% in immigration work among top firms (ABA Journal, 2021). “When presidential rhetoric paints lawyers as traitors, it weaponizes patriotism against justice,” argued ACLU Legal Director David Cole (NYU Law Review, 2022).

The collapse in elite legal defense for immigrants exposes justice’s fragility when law firms bow to political pressure. As border petitions hit record highs in 2024, Biglaw’s retreat has left thousands voiceless in courtrooms. Rebuilding this pillar requires firms to prioritize ethics over expediency—before more lives hang in the balance.

Must Know

Q: What triggered Biglaw’s retreat from immigration cases?
A: Trump’s 2018 public attacks, calling immigrant defense “un-American,” sparked client backlash fears. Reuters confirmed a 51% drop in top-firm participation within a year.

Q: How did reduced representation impact immigrants?
A: National Immigrant Justice Center data shows unrepresented detainees surged 63%, lowering asylum success rates from 48% to 13% (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, 2020).

Q: Did any firms resist the trend?
A: Yes. Paul Weiss, Davis Polk, and Simpson Thacher maintained programs, but their cases covered under 7% of the gap left by retreating firms (The American Lawyer, 2021).

Q: Could this happen again in 2024?
A: Legal ethics experts warn campaign rhetoric targeting “open border lawyers” may again pressure firms. ABA President Mary Smith urges “vigilance against ethical erosion” (2024 statement).