Retired Bay Area attorney blasts agreements between law firms, Trump administration
In downtown San Francisco, one man is speaking out against what he sees as a betrayal — not just by the government, but by the legal profession itself.
Kerry Gough, a retired civil rights attorney of 42 years, is staging one-man protests outside various big law offices in the Bay Area that struck deals with the White House. On any given day, his sign changes, calling out a different firm, but his message remains.
"Thumbs up. A lot of people will glance and look away, and I go, 'What are you afraid of?'" he told CBS News Bay Area one morning.
A federal judge this week blocked a Trump administration executive order against Susman Godfrey, the law firm that represented Dominion Voting Systems in 2020. It's the fourth such order halted by the courts as President Trump continues efforts to penalize legal firms that have represented causes or individuals opposed to him.
The executive orders sought to cut federal contracts with the firms, end security clearances, and block access to federal building, including courthouses.
The administration has issued orders targeting Susman Godfrey, Perkins Coie — which compiled the 2016 Russia dossier — Wilmer Hale, and Jenner & Block, both associated with Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Each firm has faced restrictions ranging from blocked access to federal buildings to termination of government contracts and suspension of security clearances.
Amid the ongoing legal challenges, nine other firms, including seven with offices in the Bay Area, have negotiated deals with the Trump administration to avoid similar penalties. In exchange, those firms agreed to provide $600 million worth of pro bono legal services for causes aligned with the White House.
Gough says the agreements signal a deeper threat to democracy.
"They sold out democracy. They sold out their old democracy to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. They take that oath. They're not defending it. They betrayed it," Gough exclaims.
His concerns extend to the attorneys working inside those firms — particularly those early in their careers.
"They are betrayed by their employers, because their employers are held out that they believe in the Constitution, they believe in the rule of law, and yet they betrayed the Constitution. They betrayed democracy, but they've also betrayed these associates," said Gough.
A growing chorus of legal voices are challenging the legality of the executive orders.
Bob Van Nest, of the San Francisco-based firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters, has emerged as one of the first to defend the targeted firms.
"We thought this was really alarming, right?" Van Nest said.
His firm was among over 500 nationwide to sign letters in support of Perkins Coie and other targets of the administration's actions.
"These [executive orders] were directly intended by the Trump administration to curtail that and to basically intimidate, to cow lawyers into staying away from that kind of work, because obviously, the Trump administration has an agenda that's lawless," he explained.
UC Law Professor Matthew Coles said the agreements fall within the scope of the law.
"It's the substance of the agreement that law firms say 'we'll do pro-bono work for the federal government, and we'll make some changes to our hiring practices are,'" Coles explained, "there's no reason why the law firms can't agree to that."
But he added that the executive orders violate the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the First Amendment.
"There's just no claim I can think of that there's anything in the Constitution or a law passed by Congress that authorizes this. It's lawless out of the box, no authority to do it."
For Gough, who returns each week to protest outside firm offices in San Francisco and Palo Alto, the legal arguments aren't the only thing at stake.
"They take that oath," says Gough. "They're not defending it. They betrayed it."
