On Monday, March 17, 2025, Bloomberg Law reported that Judge James Ho of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has raised concerns about what he perceives as “institutional bias” at some of the largest law firms in the United States. This statement comes in the context of ongoing attacks from former President Donald Trump against certain legal firms he considers adversaries.
The Fifth Circuit recently voted 10-5 on March 14 against a full court rehearing of a previous decision regarding Mississippi’s mail-in ballot policies, which stated that the state could not accept ballots after election day. Judge Ho, along with fellow judges Stuart Kyle Duncan and Andrew Oldham—both appointed by Trump—was part of the panel that issued this ruling.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Stephen Higginson, appointed by former President Barack Obama, acknowledged the critique from attorney Adam Unikowsky, a partner at Jenner & Block, who wrote against the panel’s decision. Higginson noted the importance of receiving insights from legal professionals, despite the infrequency of amicus curiae briefs compared to the Supreme Court. He emphasized that high-profile lawyers like Unikowsky rarely have the opportunity to offer critiques unless they are directly involved in a case.
Judge Ho, who opposed the review of the panel ruling, interpreted Higginson’s comments as suggesting that the panel’s decision might have been flawed, prompting prominent legal figures to publicly express their views. However, Ho contended that the heightened pro bono activity surrounding the case could simply indicate a broader institutional bias within major law firms.
He referenced research indicating that law firms tend to support liberal groups more frequently than conservative ones when submitting pro bono amicus briefs to the Supreme Court. Ho expressed concern that these firms might be straying from neutral representation principles, instead engaging in ideological and political discrimination regarding the cases they choose to handle.
Ho clarified that while evidence of bias does not necessarily determine the correctness of any legal position, it should not be surprising if leading firms consistently advocate for one side in politically sensitive disputes, regardless of the legal validity of their stance. He further remarked that firms should not be taken aback when their practices draw scrutiny for deviating from professional standards.
In his statements, Ho underscored that while attorneys are entitled to express their opinions, courts ought to approach their work with caution, recognizing it as “motivated lawyering” aimed at achieving specific outcomes.
Judge Ho has a history of vocal opposition to what he perceives as “viewpoint discrimination,” particularly concerning conservative viewpoints. His outspoken nature has led to speculation that he may be a leading candidate for a Supreme Court appointment should a vacancy arise during Trump’s second term.
Recently, Trump has intensified his criticism of several law firms and their attorneys. On February 25, he issued a memo that revoked security clearances for lawyers at the Washington, D.C. firm Covington & Burling, who had provided counsel to Special Counsel Jack Smith, who had previously indicted Trump—though those cases were ultimately dropped after Trump’s election victory.
On March 12, a federal judge in D.C. blocked elements of an order issued by Trump against Perkins Coie, a law firm that represented Hillary Clinton and contested lawsuits linked to Trump following the 2020 election. Furthermore, on March 14, the Trump administration targeted Paul Weiss due to its association with lawyer Mark Pomerantz, who had advocated for charges against Trump during his tenure with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office before leaving the firm in 2022.
Source: Bloomberg Law
