A new paper by Louis S. Rulli, Shuster Practice Professor of Law and Director of Civil Practice Clinic & Legislative Clinic, and Benjamin Brody L’24, an associate at Morgan Lewis in Philadelphia, argues that agreements between the White House and major law firms undermine lawyer independence and violate the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6(b).
The forthcoming paper in the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, “Not Everything Is Negotiable: Reinforcing Model Rule 5.6(b) to Safeguard the Integrity of the Bar from Government Intrusion,” examines executive orders issued by President Trump targeting major law firms and subsequent settlement agreements in which firms pledged nearly $1 billion dollars in free legal services to the White House. The authors situate these events within a long history of government intimidation of the bar.
The paper explains that the President’s executive orders imposed costly restrictions on law firms that represented clients opposing his policies, aiming to sideline prominent firms and deter others from taking cases that challenge government power. In response, many targeted firms have entered agreements with the administration to support presidential priorities and halt work opposing those priorities. In return, these firms temporarily avoided threatened sanctions, including revoked security clearances, loss of access to government property, and other potential penalties.
“In the United States, the independence of the bar and the availability of legal counsel are fundamental to the rule of law. Lawyers are gatekeepers to the courts, and the public depends on legal representation to vindicate their rights,” say Rulli and Brody. “Our research demonstrates Model Rule 5.6(b) was designed to prevent precisely this kind of intrusion, but it has long been misunderstood.”
The authors argue that for over 40 years, ABA publications and scholars have misinterpreted Rule 5.6(b), often assuming it was adopted as an “afterthought” or intended to protect the financial interests of certain lawyers. Their research shows instead that the rule is rooted in the ABA’s earliest ethical guidance, was considered fundamental to the legal profession by its drafters, and was intended as a broad safeguard for professional autonomy and public access to counsel. They also note that subsequent ethics opinions confirm the rule applies to both governmental and private efforts to restrict the availability of legal representation.
“While some law firms challenged the orders as unconstitutional or unenforceable, surprisingly few have questioned the ethics of the agreements under Model Rule 5.6(b), which embodies the importance of an independent bar and explicitly prohibits lawyers from entering into agreements that restrict their future right to practice law,” note the co-authors.
The authors conclude by urging the ABA to amend Model Rule 5.6(b) and its comments to provide a clear ethical safeguard – one that makes explicit what the rule’s history already shows: that it applies to agreements with the government as well as private parties; that it bars any settlement terms that “materially limit” a lawyer’s future representations, protecting the public’s access to qualified counsel; and that it covers agreements of any kind with adverse parties or entities, whether or not they resolve a client dispute.
“At its heart, Model Rule 5.6(b) is about protecting the public’s right to an independent legal profession,” conclude Rulli and Brody. “When government pressure dictates which clients lawyers may represent, the rule of law itself is at risk. Clarifying and strengthening this rule is essential to ensuring that every person – regardless of politics or power – can obtain the legal counsel they need when they need it.”
Read “Not Everything Is Negotiable.”
Not Everything Is Negotiable: Reinforcing Model Rule 5.6(b) To Safeguard the Integrity of the Bar from Government Intrusion
U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 26-08
Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, forthcoming 2026
70 Pages Posted: 3 Feb 2026
Date Written: January 29, 2026
Abstract
When the government acts to undermine lawyer independence and to restrict the public’s access to qualified counsel, how must lawyers ethically respond? Focusing on President Trump’s executive orders against major law firms and the resulting settlement agreements—in which firms pledged nearly one billion dollars in free legal services to the White House—this article situates these events within a long history of government intimidation of the bar. Based on new research, we argue Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6(b) was designed to prevent precisely this kind of intrusion, but it has long been misunderstood. Correcting erroneous perceptions of the rule that have gone unchallenged for over forty years, we demonstrate that Rule 5.6(b) was drafted broadly to safeguard professional autonomy and access to counsel, principles its drafters deemed “basic” to “the purpose of our profession.” We apply this guidance to the present moment, concluding the agreements reached between the White House and major law firms violate Rule 5.6(b)’s mandate, and we call on the ABA to revise the rule to make explicit lawyers’ non-negotiable duty to reject adverse government control over client acceptance and case selection.
Suggested Citation:
