Left: President Donald Trump speaks at an event at the General Motors Proving Ground Monday, July 27, 2026, in Milford, Mich. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya). Right: U.S. District Judge Amir Ali (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia).
An elite law firm suing the Trump administration on Monday resisted the government's motion to disqualify it from representing the American Bar Association, suggesting that the DOJ go brush up on the rules of professional conduct.
Susman Godfrey, like the firms Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, has so far successfully challenged what have been described as Trump's "unprecedented and uniquely dangerous" executive orders, which aimed to bring Big Law to heel under the threat of tearing up government contracts and security clearances.
The president's "unlawful policy of intimidation against lawyers and law firms" is likewise the focus of the ABA's lawsuit in Washington, D.C., where Susman Godfrey represents the premier lawyers' organization.
Two weeks ago, as the Executive Office of the President and the ABA were "at an impasse" in discovery, the DOJ asked U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to oust Susman Godfrey from the case.
In support of that demand, the DOJ cited its recent subpoena of Susman Godfrey's managing partner Kalpana Srinivasan. The subpoenas for depositions were controversially issued to top lawyers with nine firms that chose to placate the administration and to individuals with firms that fought back.
The DOJ claimed that, in light of the subpoena of a Susman Godfrey lawyer, the firm's continued representation of the ABA violates both the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct's prohibitions on a lawyer "serving as both advocate and witness."
"Susman cannot serve as both advocate for the ABA and a fact witness in the same matter under Rule 3.7 of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. That rule—and even the ABA's own Model Rule 3.7—contains a bright line rule prohibiting a lawyer from serving as both advocate and fact witness in the same matter with narrow exceptions, which do not apply here," the DOJ argued.
Ali, a Joe Biden appointee, responded by ordering a Monday response. Then, Susman Godfrey answered that the DOJ is "trying to weaponize the Rules of Professional Conduct to deprive the ABA of its chosen counsel," and not doing so in a precise or convincing manner.
Rather, the motion is "meritless" and the rule inapplicable, the firm said.
"By its terms, D.C. Rule 3.7 applies only to a situation in which (1) an individual 'lawyer' (2) acts as an 'advocate at a trial' (3) where that same lawyer is 'likely to be a necessary witness,'" the filing said, noting the disqualification motion targeted the whole firm and there has not been a trial (emphasis in original).
Importantly, a footnote said, Srinivasan "does not represent the ABA" and the DOJ "does not explain why any lawyer from SG—let alone one who is representing the ABA in this case—is likely to be a necessary witness at trial."
"The ABA brought this case to stop the Administration from continuing its Intimidation Policy against ABA lawyer-members who would speak for clients or causes that offend the President. It is ironic, then, that the Government now seeks to silence lawyers who speak in this case on behalf of a client and cause the President disfavors," the opposition filing said. "Relying on the existence of subpoenas that the Government itself issued, the Government seeks to disqualify SG under the rationale that those affected by the Intimidation Policy cannot represent a client in challenging that Policy."
"Such reasoning would not only disqualify SG—it would disqualify any of the other firms whom the Government already targeted and indeed any other firm whom the Government might later target," the filing added. "It would effectively make the ABA's choice of counsel subject to the Government's veto."
The firm urged Ali to allow no such result, especially considering that the DOJ "has not identified a single case in which a party even sought disqualification of a law firm under circumstances like these—where no substantial discovery has been served; no depositions have been taken and no witness lists exchanged; and no attorney for the firm sought to be disqualified has even been identified as the basis for the disqualification—let alone a case in which such a motion was granted."
Ali has ordered that a discovery conference be held Friday.