'Not likely': Judge rejects Trump admin's 'unpersuasive' effort to disqualify major law firm in American Bar Association case

President Donald Trump speaks successful the East Room of the White House, July 16, 2026, successful Washington, D.C. (Saul Loeb/Pool via AP, File).

A national justice has categorically rejected a petition by the Trump administration to disqualify the instrumentality steadfast of Susman Godfrey successful a high-profile case implicit the government's targeting of instrumentality firms.

In the underlying case, the American Bar Association (ABA) sued implicit President Donald Trump's bid of enforcement orders that "used the immense powers of the Executive Branch to coerce lawyers and instrumentality firms to wantonness clients, causes, and argumentation positions the President does not like," according to the 93-page complaint filed successful June 2025.

The court, successful a six-page order, described the suit successful presumption that mightiness connection a hint arsenic to the wide trajectory of the case.

"The ABA's ailment details a 14-week play starring up to this suit successful which the authorities launched and executed a coordinated run to intimidate and punish instrumentality firms and their lawyers based connected their speech," U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote.

In those enforcement orders, the 45th and 47th president attempted to enforce "virtually identical sanctions connected instrumentality firms and their lawyers," resulting successful respective law firms making concessions to the authorities to debar specified sanctions. Others, however, sued for relief.

"Susman Godfrey was 1 of the instrumentality firms targeted for sanctions by an enforcement order, and it obtained a imperishable injunction against that order," the justice notes. "Susman Godfrey aboriginal filed this suit arsenic counsel for the ABA. Because 1 of the enforcement orders targeted Susman Godfrey, immoderate of the find successful this lawsuit has sought accusation related to that order."

In July, the DOJ moved to disqualify Susman Godfrey connected the ground that the instrumentality steadfast was violating ineligible morals rules successful D.C.

Now, the tribunal has said the government's effort "is not persuasive for a fewer reasons."

To perceive the authorities archer it, the concern was "the textbook lawsuit wherever the rules of nonrecreational behaviour prohibit…a lawyer from serving arsenic some advocator and witness."

In different words, the DOJ claimed the operative ethical regularisation restricts Susman Godfrey's practice due to the fact that an lawyer successful the steadfast mightiness beryllium called arsenic a witness.

The justice said determination was nary denotation of that being the case.

"Here, the authorities does not place immoderate lawyer astatine Susman Godfrey who is apt to beryllium a indispensable witnesser astatine trial," the bid goes on. "To the contrary, the authorities concedes it cannot place immoderate lawyer who fits that description."

Ali, for his part, was unwilling to interpolate conscionable due to the fact that the instrumentality steadfast itself was antecedently targeted by Trump and won successful court.

"That the ABA's find requests see inquiries astir an enforcement bid that targeted Susman Godfrey does not found that immoderate Susman Godfrey lawyer is 'likely to beryllium a indispensable witness,'" the bid continues. "Indeed, the authorities does not explicate which enactment is apt to telephone a Susman Godfrey lawyer arsenic a witnesser oregon what taxable that lawyer would attest about, fto unsocial that the lawyer's grounds would beryllium indispensable to a contested contented successful the case."

The tribunal notes that the government's main statement was that Susman Godfrey is simply a "central player" and "essential actor" successful the underlying litigation. This, the DOJ argued, means the ABA's find petition into the government's enforcement bid targeting Susman Godfrey "effectively concedes [the instrumentality firm's] attorneys are worldly information witnesses."

Here, the tribunal recovered different crushed to cull the Trump administration's "unpersuasive" disqualification bid.

From the order, astatine length:

Rule 3.7(a) restricts practice by idiosyncratic lawyers, not by their instrumentality firms. So adjacent if the ABA identified a Susman Godfrey lawyer who was apt to beryllium a indispensable witness, the rule, by its text, would not disqualify the remainder of the firm. And the comments to the regularisation marque wide "there is nary wide regularisation of imputed disqualification applicable to Rule 3.7." In fact, Rule 3.7 specifically says that a lawyer's disqualification nether Rule 3.7(a) is imputed to different lawyer astatine their steadfast lone "if the different lawyer would beryllium precluded from acting arsenic advocator successful the proceedings by [other rules]."

"The tribunal finds the lawyers representing the ABA successful this lawsuit are not apt to beryllium indispensable witnesses," the bid goes on. "Indeed, based connected the grounds earlier the court, nary were adjacent progressive successful representing Susman Godfrey successful its situation to the enforcement bid targeting the firm."

The court's bid is apt to wide the way toward resolving a long-simmering find quality betwixt the DOJ and the ABA.

The justice took enactment of that quality successful the order.

"That the ABA seeks find astir communications related to Susman Godfrey does not bespeak the lawyers representing the ABA here, who whitethorn not person adjacent been progressive successful the communications, are apt to beryllium indispensable witnesses," Ali wrote.

The station 'Not likely': Judge rejects Trump admin's 'unpersuasive' effort to disqualify large instrumentality steadfast successful American Bar Association case archetypal appeared connected Law & Crime.