Sweet

The DC Bar has told law firms that cut a deal with Trump to either drop their clients who are challenging federal government actions or secure a waiver from them.

It makes sense under my understanding of legal ethics: 

Months after law firms made deals with President Trump to ward off punitive executive orders, the ethics committee of the District of Columbia Bar is warning that such arrangements may require firms to drop or obtain waivers from all clients who have interests at odds with the government.

An opinion issued by the committee this week could bring new scrutiny to several prominent law firms that chose to strike deals with Mr. Trump instead of challenging his executive orders targeting them.

Any lawyer or law firm that contemplates making a deal with a government that includes conditions that may limit or shape their practices, the opinion said, “must examine whether the arrangement would prevent the firm from providing conflict-free representation to clients — existing and new — who are adverse to the relevant government.”

………

Even though the committee’s opinions are not legally binding, they are considered authoritative and are often cited in disciplinary proceedings brought by the office that prosecutes legal ethics violations, which is overseen by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Allegations of a conflict can also be important if a law firm is sued for malpractice.

The opinion did not specifically mention Mr. Trump. But it indirectly referred to his administration’s pressure on law firms not to challenge his policies, citing a Justice Department memo issued in May that says the administration will treat any firm that represents a client in a dispute with any executive branch agency as having a conflict with the entire executive branch — not just that agency.

………

Four targeted law firms filed lawsuits, and a series of federal judges in those cases have blocked Mr. Trump’s orders against specific firms as unconstitutional.

But at least nine struck deals with him, agreeing to provide millions of dollars in free legal services to causes he favors. The exact details of the arrangements are murky. Mr. Trump announced them on social media, but it is not clear whether those are formal written deals that detail the scope of the obligations the firms have agreed to, as opposed to vague handshake agreements.

At least two of those firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Kirkland & Ellis, are now working on a range of matters for the Commerce Department, The New York Times has reported. A personal lawyer to Mr. Trump has also connected a third, Skadden Arps, with the department about working on trade deals for the Trump administration.

………

To avoid an ethics problem, the opinion said, such a firm must drop the client, pull out of its agreement with the government or obtain a conflict-of-interest waiver from the client. But, the opinion also stated, to validly consent to such a waiver, the client must be fully informed of all the ways in which a firm’s deal with the government might create a conflict and the potential consequences.

To quote the old joke, "I think we already established that, now we're just negotiating."

They whored themselves to Trump, and the Bar is acknowledging this fact.