To: Mr. William R. Bay
President
American Bar Association
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL, 60654

Dear Mr. Bay:

The ABA model ethics code requires a law firm’s name not be deceptive. Law firm names should now be descriptive, and for that reason, Quisling must be added to certain law firm names. Vidkun Quisling was the collaborating head of government for Norway when the Nazis were in control. The broadest definition of quisling is “traitor.” But more particularly, it’s a citizen who collaborates politically with an invading force. Winston Churchill with his characteristic sneer used the name of Quisling in many of his wartime speeches. The name itself is phonaesthetically apt, as a Times article of the period noted, conveying a “torturous and slippery” quality to its pronunciation. And because full descriptions now must be ethically required of law firms, certain firms must be required to enunciate “quisling” every time their law firm name is mentioned.

Nine law firms—you know who they are—immediately caved to the government when President Trump issued executive orders naming them, threatening them with denial of access to federal buildings (including courthouses!), and extorting money in the form of donated attorney hours, to escape this penalty. Nine law firms so threatened did in fact pay bribes totaling almost $1 billion.

Who would hire these law firms? As an in-house counsel told Business Insider, if these law firms cannot stand up for themselves, how will they stand up for us? A number of large clients, including Microsoft, have already changed counsel from one of the soon-to-be-named Quislings to a law firm that refused to bow to Trump’s ukase. There are other reasons why no one should hire such a firm nor work at such a firm.

Clients hire law firms seeking expert opinion on the law and how to comply with it. This frequently requires legal expertise in predicting what courts will do. It is painfully obvious to any first-year law student in constitutional law that executive orders threatening law firms because the president does not like the law firm’s clients are blatantly unconstitutional. Apparently these nine law firms lack the rudimentary legal knowledge to arrive at that conclusion. Or, perhaps, giving in to Trump’s extortion, they have intentionally misled their clients (themselves) what they know the law to be. Take your pick. Neither clients nor law students would want to work with or for such law firms. And in fact, the media is full of former partners, law students, and others who are fleeing from these nine quislings.

As of the writing of this letter, four federal courts have already granted injunctions barring the implementation of these executive orders. The idea that the president of the United States could prohibit a law firm and all of its attorneys from entering federal courthouses to defend their clients without first paying bribes to the president in the form of donated attorney hours was “chilling” to one federal judge. The result was a permanent injunction because such orders are, on their face, unconstitutional.

Fortunately for those of us who cherish the rule of law and the Constitution, four firms subject to executive orders—Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey—immediately sued. Susman Godfrey was probably targeted by Trump because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in a blockbuster defamation suit against Fox Corp. In that case, the media company agreed to pay a $787.5 million settlement. Fox had knowingly and falsely accused Dominion Voting Systems of helping to “steal” the 2020 election. Apparently, the president of the United States believes that a law firm that pursues a defamation case should not be allowed in any federal building, should not be allowed any federal contract, nor be allowed to counsel any entity that has a contract with the federal government (unless they pay a bribe).

No one at Susman Godfrey talked to anybody at the White House about cutting a deal. It took the law firm no more than two hours to make the decision to sue. In my previous life as a litigator, I had the professional joy of being co-counsel with Steve Susman in several early cases. He never wavered in his fierce pursuit of our clients’ interests, which he did ethically, intelligently, and very successfully. Steve went on to build one of the preeminent litigation law firms in the United States. Unfortunately, after being injured in a 2020 biking accident, he succumbed to Covid. When I contacted a partner at Susman Godfrey, he was quick to tell me while they all miss Steve, they knew that he would relish this fight.

American jurisprudence is based on English law, and in searching for how history will treat the Quisling Nine, we can turn to Shakespeare, who wrote in Henry V, “… gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves accursed they were not here and hold their manhoods cheap … .” These quisling law firms have abandoned a higher ethical calling and have at best, the morals of the marketplace. Fortunately for all of us, there are law firms that will defend the rule of law.

Sincerely,

Vance K. Opperman
Proud to be Attorney ID No. 0082703