When Retaliation Becomes Policy: The Impetus Behind Lowell’s Firm
Imagine building an illustrious legal career, only to have the rules of the game upended not by legislation, but by executive decree. This is the scenario facing many of America’s attorneys as former President Donald Trump’s administration sought to shift the ground beneath the legal profession. The headlines aren’t hyperbole—this is the new reality for those who represent, or even associate with, Trump’s most outspoken critics.
In response, renowned criminal defense attorney Abbe Lowell, whose client roster includes figures from Hunter Biden to Senator Bob Menendez, has launched a new firm—Lowell & Associates—precisely to defend those whom he calls “unlawfully and inappropriately targeted” by Trump-era policies. The roster of clients already includes New York Attorney General Letitia James, whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid, and Miles Taylor, a former Homeland Security official who faced the revocation of his security clearance after publicly criticizing Trump. Lowell is joined by other legal high-flyers—Rachel Cohen and Brenna Trout Frey—both of whom resigned from Big Law firms over what they described as “. . . the disturbing normalization of executive overreach and complicity.”
Why does this matter for you, the concerned reader? Donald Trump’s executive orders didn’t just target political adversaries—they went after the very levers of accountability in our democracy, including the lawyers tasked with holding power to account. According to Politico’s in-depth reporting, judges have already blocked large portions of these orders, which threatened law firms’ access to federal buildings, security clearances, and even clients’ government contracts for daring to challenge—or not sufficiently cooperate with—the administration. These actions signal a deliberate campaign to disincentivize legal opposition and muzzling dissent through economic and reputational blackmail. The architects of these moves bet on intimidation rather than discussion, and the legal industry’s response—fragmented and sometimes complicit—reflects the high-stakes pressure now facing the profession.
Inside the Exodus from Big Law: Ethics, Profits, and Political Pressure
Behind the scenes, the legal world is quietly roiling. According to a 2023 American Bar Association survey, nearly two-thirds of major law firms reported feeling “external political influence” on client selection since 2018. How did this climate emerge?
Start with the financial calculations. When Skadden Arps, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious firms, agreed to provide $100 million in free legal work to the Trump administration, it wasn’t an act of altruism. It was a desperate move to avoid devastating sanctions—loss of access to federal work and the specter of ongoing harassment. In total, nine of the nation’s biggest firms pledged a combined $940 million in legal services via deals with the administration, as cited by internal sources and confirmed by the Wall Street Journal.
This new status quo collided with the conviction of lawyers like Rachel Cohen, who resigned from Skadden with a blistering public letter after the firm declined to join an amicus brief defending colleagues sued for dissenting against one of Trump’s executive orders. Her decision, amplified across legal circles and social media, signaled that not everyone is willing to trade ethics for access or reputation for revenue. Cohen’s move is emblematic of the broader exodus—attorneys refusing to remain silent as their own profession is conscripted into the machinery of political retribution.
“The rule of law crumbles not in a single collapse, but erosion by a thousand self-interested compromises. We didn’t go to law school to serve strongmen—no matter how gilded the office.”
— Rachel Cohen, resignation letter from Skadden Arps
Abbe Lowell’s strategic recruitment of Cohen and Brenna Trout Frey, who both left Skadden amidst controversy, underscores a new form of resistance—one rooted in the deep belief that legal institutions must remain independent. Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, speaking to The Atlantic, warned, “If lawyers become too fearful or too beholden to executive power, the principle of equal justice under law becomes a slogan, not a reality.”
The Battle Beyond Courtrooms: Challenging the Weaponization of Justice
Lowell & Associates’ docket is already brimming—not just with individuals, but with organizations challenging the very policies that have grown out of this dangerous politicization of the legal system. One example: lawsuits against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which abruptly canceled grant funding to groups and municipalities perceived as unfriendly to the Trump agenda. Mark Zaid, one of Lowell’s new clients and a prominent whistleblower advocate, says this is nothing new, but the scale and brazenness are extraordinary. “We’ve always seen power abused. What’s different now is it’s being codified,” Zaid told CNN earlier this year.
Lowell’s willingness to directly confront this “codification” is rapidly drawing allies—and scrutiny. His sharply worded letter to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, on behalf of Letitia James, lambasted the Trump Justice Department’s “stunning hypocrisy”: while publicly accusing others of politicizing justice, Trump operatives worked furiously behind the scenes to punish perceived enemies and protect allies. This is a page ripped straight from the playbook of illiberal democracies. Such overt politicization of prosecution and selective enforcement should chill anyone who values procedural fairness. The legal system, after all, is our society’s last line of defense against arbitrary power.
Beyond that, a closer look reveals the stakes are not merely abstract. Ordinary government officials—those who blow whistles, raise ethical alarms, or simply fail to toe the political line—are now in need of personal legal defense just to keep their jobs or reputations intact. When courts act as bulwarks, blocking parts of these executive orders, they’re not just checking a former president’s power—they’re upholding the very balance the founders intended.
Some critics may argue that lawyers like Lowell are “politicizing” their own industry in response. But as legal historian Jill Lepore reminds us in The New Yorker: “The act of defending due process isn’t politics—it’s the bare minimum of citizenship in a constitutional democracy.”
The Path Forward: Advocacy as Democracy’s Immune System
What do we risk if lawyers, law firms, and courts fail to push back? Democracy isn’t lost overnight. It erodes when independent watchdogs become lapdogs, when justice becomes a lever for the powerful alone. The launch of Lowell & Associates marks more than just a new business venture—it’s a declaration of resistance to the slow drip erosion of civil liberties in an era of emboldened executive overreach.
At this crossroads, the legal profession faces a stark choice: enable a climate where dissent is dangerous, or actively restore credibility by fighting for those bullied into silence. The wave of resignations, new alliances, and legal activism around Lowell’s firm are a hopeful sign that, even now, integrity can trump expedience. For progressives and anyone invested in the collective future, the question isn’t whether to take sides, but how to ensure America remains a government of laws—not just of men.
