The EEOC’s Acting Chair Andrea Lucas has announced that she sent letters to 20 law firms stating that she is “concerned” about their diversity and inclusion (DEI) employment practices, is seeking responses to certain questions, and is instructing them to “please also preserve all relevant records.” She appears to cast aspersion on the fact that several of the firms have “publicly touted” their diversity goals and programs.

Lucas’s letters explain that she is “concerned that [the law firm’s] ‘diversity and inclusion’ or other employment programs, policies, and practices may entail unlawful disparate treatment in terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, or unlawful limiting, segregating, and classifying based – in whole or in part – on race, sex, or other protected characteristics, in violation of Title VII.

“The EEOC is prepared to root out discrimination anywhere it may rear its head, including in our nation’s elite law firms,” Lucas continued. “No one is above the law – and certainly not the private bar.”

Lucas requested initial responses to a lengthy list of inquiries regarding the firms’ DEI policies, programs, and practices, including: 

• participation in internship, fellowship, and scholarship programs targeting underrepresented groups;
• demographics, pay data, and selection criteria for applicants, associates, and partners;
• client “diversity requirements,” “diversity preferences,” and any “demographic-related” requirements for matters;
• firm DEI goals or plans; and
• information on affinity groups.  

The firms’ initial responses are due April 15, 2025. 

Law firms targeted

The law firms that have received the letters are (to date):

• A & O Shearman;
• Debevoise & Plimpton LLP;
• Cooley LLP;
• Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP;
• Goodwin Procter LLP;
• Hogan Lovells LLP;
• Kirkland & Ellis LLP;
• Latham & Watkins LLP;
• McDermott Will & Emery;
• Milbank LLP;
• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP;
• Morrison & Foerster LLP;
• Perkins Coie LLP;
• Reed Smith;
• Ropes & Gray LLP;
• Sidley Austin LLP;
• Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP;
• Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP;
• White & Case LLP; and
• WilmerHale

The release states that the EEOC has established an email with which whistleblowers can submit information to the EEOC about potentially unlawful DEI practices at law firms.

And the letter reminds employees that, for public employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Civil Rights Division. More specifically, the EEOC is responsible for investigating public sector charges before referring them to the DOJ for potential litigation.

White House targets Perkins Coie

The White House issued an executive order specifically targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, stating at the top of it that the “dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP has affected this country for decades.” It goes on to allege that the firm, while representing then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016, hired Fusion GPS, a firm that “manufactured a false “dossier designed to steal an election.”

The order then targets Perkins Coie for its supposedly unlawful DEI practices. “Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change,” it states.

The order suspends the security clearances for the firm’s employees, stating that the White House will assess whether such security clearances (giving Perkins Coie lawyers’ access to federal buildings and officials) remain in the national interest. It also cut off the firm’s government contracts.

The law firm is suing the administration, alleging that the order targeting the firm is unconstitutional and purely aims to punish it for representing clients and causes that are opposed to the administration. In the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, DC, attorneys for Perkins Coie call the executive order “an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice.”

Perkins Coie claimed that the order had caused at least seven clients to stop working with the firm, including a major government contractor.

Earlier this month, a federal judge temporarily blocked Trump’s order against the firm, citing constitutional concerns.

As a matter of background, Trump lost his last fight against this law firm. He filed a lawsuit in 2022 against it, Hillary Clinton and others, alleging a conspiracy against him, and the case was dismissed by a federal court.

White House targets Paul Weiss

In another executive order, President Trump targets the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, saying that in 2021, a Paul Weiss partner and former leading prosecutor in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. (The special counsel was appointed to do so on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General.)

The order similarly suspends the security clearances for the firm’s employees.

The law firm is known for its ties to high profile Democrats, including former US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, all of whom Trump has criticized over probes into him and his conduct.

A spokeswoman for Paul Weiss told the WSJ that the executive order is focused on Mark Pomerantz, who has not been affiliated with the firm for years, and Pomerantz didn’t respond to the news outlet’s requests for comment.

The order goes on to say (referring specifically to Trump in the first person) that in 2022: “Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me.”

And then it goes into its allegations of unlawful DEI programs existing at the law firm.

Covington & Burling

A separate executive order last month revoked security clearances for two lawyers from Covington & Burling, “and all members, partners, and employees of Covington & Burling LLP who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith during his time as Special Counsel.”

Biglaw should prevail

It’s clear from the list that there is likely no firm too big or powerful to be off-limits from attack.

But how these presidential orders can survive as written when faced with arguments grounded in the US Constitution’s First and Fifth Amendment protections remains to be seen.

Those protections against government abridgment of speech and the guarantee of due process, respectively, are squarely implicated in these actions, especially given that the White House did not use traditional legal processes, as those targeted had no notice and opportunity to challenge the claims. And the documents’ own wording expresses viewpoint-oriented reasons for these executive actions that the firms contend have already caused damage to them.

Challenging the termination of security clearances will be a bit more difficult (but far from impossible) for the firms to argue against; the Attorney and Director of National Intelligence have the authority to restrict access to federal buildings and end security clearances.

But even those restrictions were enacted without the traditional due process of law. And the restrictions around the firms’ government contracting work need a firmer legal basis – outside of the partisan and viewpoint-oriented ones articulated, and, again, a notice period and legal process, to be legally acceptable.

At the end of the day, some of the firms might have been harmed in the last several weeks simply by all of the negative attention. (Indeed, one prominent client facing foreign bribery charges has requested new representation over concerns he could be negatively affected if he continues to retain the firm.) 

In the longer term, though, the firms are likely to prevail in their arguments in court and have the last word on what is acceptable executive action in the face of displeasure over which clients a firm chooses to represent.

That prediction might be buttressed by the court in the Perkins Coie case; the court’s order states that Trump’s executive order “appeared to violate core constitutional principles, including the ability of clients to obtain adequate legal representation.”