Recent actions by the Trump administration have placed BigLaw firms and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs under intensified scrutiny. What began as critical commentary has evolved into a structured campaign targeting law firm independence, politically sensitive representation, and even the provision of pro bono legal services. These developments are having a growing ripple effect on the global legal ecosystem, including across the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region with many commentators across law firms, corporates, judiciary, regulatory bodies and academia joining the debates.
1. Targeting the Legal Profession: An Escalating Pattern
President Trump’s post-2024 election rhetoric has intensified against major US law firms, particularly those that declined to represent him or engaged in litigation perceived as oppositional. He has accused such firms of operating as a “legal deep state” and betraying the nation’s interests. This rhetoric has increasingly shaped executive and regulatory actions.
Firms involved in election-related litigation or DEI leadership have been publicly singled out and, in some cases, formally sanctioned. The cumulative effect is a climate where legal independence is subject to heightened political interpretation.
2. The DEI Executive Order: Regulatory Framing with Broader Impact
Executive Order 14173—“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”—instructed federal agencies to dismantle DEI initiatives deemed to conflict with anti-discrimination laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subsequently launched inquiries into the diversity-related practices of at least 20 major U.S. law firms.
This move has caused some firms to reconsider how they publicly position DEI efforts, particularly in cross-border practices. Others have legally challenged the inquiries, citing First Amendment concerns and the constitutional principle of legal independence.
3. Executive Mandates on Pro Bono Work: A New Frontier in Oversight
Beyond scrutiny of internal policies, the administration has extended its influence into the realm of pro bono work, raising questions about the boundaries between government oversight and professional autonomy.
One notable example involves Paul Weiss, a leading US law firm that became subject to executive restrictions tied to both its DEI programs and politically sensitive representations. In 2025, the firm reached an agreement with the administration to lift sanctions in exchange for:
- The cessation of DEI initiatives considered non-compliant under the executive order.
- A commitment of US$40 million toward pro bono efforts aligned with the administration’s specified priorities.
This resolution triggered internal dissent, including the resignation of the firm’s pro bono leader, who expressed concern that the arrangement blurred ethical lines and compromised the independence of public-interest legal work. Critics have argued that compelling firms to align pro bono commitments with executive preferences constitutes a form of political coercion. It introduces a precedent where voluntary, mission-driven service is transformed into a regulatory condition, potentially undermining the authenticity and impartiality of legal aid efforts.
This shift has generated concern within the broader legal community, with some firms quietly reassessing their public-facing commitments to avoid similar scrutiny.
4. General Counsel and Law Firm Responses: Managing Risk and Independence
Law firms and in-house legal departments have adopted risk-mitigation strategies, balancing public ethics with operational discretion, including:
- Reviewing client and representation strategies, especially in politically charged cases.
- Adjusting firm governance structures to ensure resilience amid reputational threats.
- Collaborating across legal, communications, and ESG teams to prepare for politically sensitive crises.
General Counsel (GCs) now face an expanded mandate, including:
- Reputational due diligence when selecting or retaining law firm panels.
- Internal education efforts to reaffirm legal neutrality and procedural integrity.
- Public and industry advocacy to reinforce the role of the legal function in upholding the rule of law
5. Professional Bodies and Global Reactions
In the U.S., the American Bar Association (ABA) and 55 other organisations issued a joint statement in March 2025 opposing the government’s targeting of law firms based on client representation. ABA President William R. Bay emphasised the importance of protecting due process and free speech, asserting that the rule of law requires an independent legal profession.
Across APAC, public institutional responses have been limited. The Law Council of Australia joined the ABA statement, but most regional bar associations have remained silent—possibly due to jurisdictional considerations and the desire to avoid entanglement in U.S. domestic politics. Nonetheless, legal leaders in APAC are closely monitoring the situation, particularly where global law firm offices operate across regulatory boundaries. The 2025 APAC Legal Congress in Singapore highlighted this as a topic of discussion, reflecting its relevance among multinational GCs and legal operations teams.
6. Implications for APAC Legal Leadership: A Strategic Reassessment
For law firms and GCs in APAC, the confluence of political pressure, DEI scrutiny, and mandated pro bono expectations creates a complex risk environment. Key considerations include:
- Ethical alignment vs. jurisdictional compliance: APAC offices must navigate between U.S. mandates and local values, particularly in countries where DEI remains a strategic business or governance priority.
- Cross-border operational coherence: Firms may need to revise firm-wide DEI strategies and pro bono policies to ensure consistent legal risk exposure.
- Stakeholder expectations: Clients increasingly evaluate firms not only on legal capability, but on ethical clarity, independence, and crisis preparedness.
These dynamics require a proactive approach—one that builds resilience without compromising values.
7. Looking Forward: Four Priorities for Legal Integrity
Looking ahead, four key priorities that the legal industry must assess include:
- Safeguard Ethical Autonomy: Legal institutions must resist external attempts to condition professional services—such as pro bono work—on political alignment.
- Build Institutional Defences: Firms and associations should strengthen governance frameworks to address politically motivated regulatory inquiries.
- Promote Transparent Dialogue: Legal leaders should engage in multi-jurisdictional conversations about the role of DEI and the ethics of compelled legal service.
- Advance Thought Leadership: APAC-based GCs and law firms are well-placed to contribute to global discourse on legal integrity by showcasing best practices rooted in independence, inclusivity, and client trust.
Reflection: A Defining Moment for Legal Independence
The Trump administration’s actions—ranging from investigations of DEI programs to conditions placed on pro bono work—represent a significant inflection point for the legal profession. While primarily focussed on U.S. political discourse, their impact is global. In the APAC region, the consequences are both practical and symbolic, prompting reassessment of legal operations, external counsel relationships, and leadership posture.
Law firms and legal departments that meet this challenge with transparency, strategic clarity, and a firm commitment to the rule of law will help shape a legal landscape that remains resilient, globally connected, and ethically grounded.
For further information, please contact:
Natasha Norton, Korum Legal
Natasha.Norton@korumlegal.com
