A legal dispute involving President Donald Trump’s administration, the American Bar Association, and several major law firms has widened after the Department of Justice issued subpoenas connected to settlements between the White House and nine prominent firms.

The nine Big Law firms collectively agreed to pay almost $1 billion in connection with arrangements intended to resolve conflicts with the Trump administration. Critics of the agreements have argued that the firms compromised their professional independence in an effort to avoid further confrontation with the White House. The controversy reaches beyond the firms themselves because lawyers’ ability to represent unpopular clients or causes without government retaliation is a core premise of the legal profession.

In June 2025, the American Bar Association sued the Trump administration, alleging that it had targeted those nine firms and five others. The ABA claims that Trump sought to intimidate lawyers from representing clients and causes he opposed.

After a federal judge denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the ABA’s complaint in April, the ABA subpoenaed files belonging to Trump adviser Boris Ephsteyn. Ephsteyn has been described as a key liaison in negotiations between the nine firms that reached agreements and the White House. The Department of Justice moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the confidentiality of presidential communications is protected as a constitutional safeguard.

The government’s position faces several contested issues. Ephsteyn is personal senior counsel to Trump; he does not hold an official position in the White House or the administration; and Trump has not asserted executive privilege.

The dispute could eventually reach the US Supreme Court. Any appellate ruling could affect how courts treat communications involving private advisers who interact with the presidency but do not hold formal government roles.

On July 2, the Justice Department served subpoenas on the nine firms that reached agreements with the administration, as well as four firms that challenged Trump’s executive order and prevailed. The department also subpoenaed one firm that took no public action. The subpoenas sought some of the same information that the ABA had requested from Ephsteyn.

The subpoenas requested: “All communications on or after January 20, 2025 that [each firm] sent to Boris Epshteyn, received from Boris Epshteyn, or participated in with Boris Epshteyn.”

They also sought all communications related to the negotiation, implementation, enforcement, and monitoring of the agreements.

The Justice Department presumably already has access to communications between the law firms and Ephsteyn. That has raised questions about why the department subpoenaed the firms for some of the same material, including documents it did not want the White House to provide in response to the ABA’s subpoena.

One possible explanation is that the DOJ wants the 14 subpoenaed firms to pressure the ABA into withdrawing its subpoena seeking Ephsteyn’s files. In April, the ABA filed an amicus brief with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on behalf of its 400,000 members, supporting the four law firms that successfully challenged the constitutionality of Trump’s executive orders.

Another possibility is that the department does not trust Ephsteyn or the White House to provide all relevant materials in Ephsteyn’s possession.

The subpoenas also preceded the DOJ’s next move: an attempt to disqualify the ABA’s outside counsel, Susman Godfrey, one of the four major firms that successfully challenged Trump’s executive orders in court. Disqualification motions can materially affect litigation because they may force a party to replace counsel, delay proceedings, or narrow the legal team handling sensitive facts.

On July 17, the Justice Department moved to disqualify Susman Godfrey from representing the ABA. The motion relies on the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.7, which states: “A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness….” [Emphasis supplied]

The Justice Department argues that the rule “contains a bright line rule prohibiting a lawyer from serving as both advocate and fact witness in the same matter….”

That interpretation is disputed for several reasons.

First, Rule 3.7 does not apply to all fact witnesses. It applies to necessary witnesses. Susman Godfrey lawyers became potential witnesses only after the DOJ subpoenaed documents from the firm as a whole.

Second, the rule applies to individual lawyers within a law firm and, except in special circumstances not applicable to the ABA case, not to every member of an entire firm. The DOJ has sought to depose as potential witnesses only the chairpersons of the 14 firms.

Third, the rule is focused on the interests of the client, in this case the ABA, rather than the interests of the opposing party, the White House. The official commentary to Rule 3.7 states: “If the only reason for not permitting a lawyer to combine the roles of advocate and witness is possible prejudice to the opposing party [the White House], there is no reason to disqualify other lawyers in the testifying lawyer’s firm from acting as advocates in that trial.”

Finally, the rule bars only an advocate who is likely to be a necessary witness at trial. The case may not reach trial, and Susman Godfrey may continue representing the ABA unless and until that stage is reached. DC Bar Ethics Opinion 228 has addressed that point since 1992.

The nine firms that reached agreements with the Trump administration now face a difficult position. If they comply with the DOJ’s subpoenas, they will disclose some of the information that the Justice Department is attempting to block by objecting to the ABA’s subpoena.

Federal judges generally scrutinize arguments that misread governing law or disregard precedent that conflicts with a party’s position.

The subpoenas to Susman Godfrey and the other law firms that resisted Trump’s executive orders may also become evidence supporting the ABA’s claims of presidential intimidation and harassment.

For the nine firms that settled, and for other institutions that have reached accommodations with Trump, the episode underscores the continuing legal uncertainty surrounding the agreements. The next key developments are likely to come through rulings on the competing subpoena disputes and the government’s effort to remove the ABA’s chosen outside counsel.