Federal Trade Commission Warns Law Firms Against DEI Policies
The Federal Trade Commission is warning 42 major law firms that their participation in diversity, equity and inclusion programs risks enforcement action against them for anticompetitive collusion.
The issue is the firms’ participation in the Mansfield Certification program, which seeks a goal of having 30 percent of leadership positions held by underrepresented groups, such as women and minorities.
"Such agreements can distort competition for labor in legal professions, including along dimensions like hiring decisions, pay and promotions," a recent FTC letter to the firms says.
President Donald Trump has set a policy opposing DEI initiatives among law firms, academic institutions and governmental agencies.
The letters from FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson represent a significant escalation in threats to law firms over their DEI efforts.
DEI refers to initiatives to broaden representation in various organizations of underrepresented groups, particularly women and minorities.
"Potentially anticompetitive collusion between law firms on DEI metrics can include quotas by which they agree to compose panels of job candidates based on personal characteristics," Ferguson wrote. "Such agreements can infect all aspects of law firm hiring."
The unofficial quotas could influence the pool of job candidates based on race or sex rather than individual merit, according to the FTC.
The law firms that received the letters are some of the nation’s largest, employing more than 50,000 attorneys combined. They include Covington & Burling, DLA Piper, Latham & Watkins and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
Representatives of the law firms have so far declined to comment on the FTC’s letters. On previous occasions, they have said that Trump administration complaints about DEI fail to prove the programs are discriminatory or distort market power in a way that justifies government intervention.
Ferguson said his notices are cautionary to alert law firms to the potential for liability under federal antitrust laws, not to accuse them of unlawful conduct.
The FTC’s warning continues a dispute that started early last year when Trump issued executive orders targeting specific firms for punitive actions that would shut them out of federal contracts and courthouses. Trump accused them of maintaining "illegal race-based hiring quotas" and harboring political bias.
The firms were forced to choose between protracted legal battles or unprecedented concessions. Several of the nation's most prestigious law firms, such as Skadden Arps and Kirkland & Ellis, pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono services for conservative causes to settle the president’s complaints.
Trump administration officials say any weaponization of the Justice Department was done during the Biden administration.
The firings of federal lawyers in the past year and investigations of Trump administration adversaries represent an effort to restore integrity to the legal system, according to White House statements.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
U.S. Attorney for D.C. Pirro Clarifies Her Threat Over Gun Prosecutions
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro last week clarified her strong anti-gun statements from a recent television interview that prompted a backlash against her.
She said that anyone who brings a gun into D.C. is going to jail, regardless of whether they are licensed to carry a gun in another jurisdiction.
“You bring a gun into the district, you mark my words, you’re going to jail,” Pirro said on Fox News.
She added, “I don’t care if you have a license in another district, and I don’t care if you’re a law-abiding law owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this District, count on going to jail, and hope you get the gun back.”
Her comments led to strongly worded responses from gun rights supporters. They said she misstated District of Columbia law and appeared hostile to Second Amendment protections.
Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., who regularly travels to Washington with a gun authorized under a concealed-carry permit, responded on social media, writing, “I bring a gun into the district every week … and I will continue to carry to protect myself and others. Come and take it!”
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said D.C.’s “shall issue” regulations allow non-residents to obtain local gun permits. He questioned why a conservative U.S. attorney like Pirro would suggest lawful gun owners would be targeted for prosecution.
Other condemnations came from the National Association for Gun Rights.
Pirro took to X to distance herself from her own inflammatory language.
She wrote that she is “a proud supporter of the Second Amendment.” She said her office focuses on prosecuting persons unlawfully carrying firearms rather than responsible gun owners who comply with local law.
“I have guns myself … and every responsible gun owner that I know makes sure they understand the laws where they are going,” she wrote.
She added that residents and visitors are safe from prosecution if they abide by D.C.’s strict gun licensing and registration requirements.
Pirro’s clarification raised questions about whether some officials in the Justice Department might have pressured her over her initial threat.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche reposted her clarification on social media site X.
He said the Justice Department “will fiercely protect Second Amendment rights.” He also said nothing Pirro said was intended to contradict lawful rights to carry guns.
The confusion created by Pirro’s comments appears to result from an interpretation of D.C. law.
Washington is one of the most tightly regulated gun jurisdictions in the United States, even after Supreme Court rulings in recent years that expanded gun rights.
D.C. does not honor concealed-carry permits from any state. However, lawful gun owners from other states can register with the Metropolitan Police Department.
Anyone with a concealed gun permit from another jurisdiction who is not registered in D.C. could still be prosecuted, regardless of whether they made an innocent mistake.
Pirro’s first comments reflected the lack of reciprocal gun carry rights between D.C. and the states. Her clarification appeared to be an acknowledgement that her initial statements were overly broad.
The controversy Pirro created comes at a tense time after licensed gun owner Alex Pretti was killed by law enforcement officers last month in Minneapolis during an immigration protest despite the fact he threatened no one with his handgun.
The officers who shot him said the gun he had in a holster was a factor in why they shot Pretti multiple times. The local medical examiner classified the death as a homicide. Public protests continue this week.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Democratic Strategist Lawsuit Says Republicans Are Evading Campaign Finance Regulations
A group of veteran Democratic campaign strategists filed two lawsuits last week in federal court against the Federal Election Commission that accuse Republicans of a “bait-and-switch” strategy to violate campaign regulations.
The Democrats say Republicans use money from an account labeled "legal and building funds" to pay for campaign ads.
The lawsuits accuse a Republican party committee of exploiting a loophole in a revised campaign finance law to bypass contribution limits and disclosure rules.
Federal Election Commission rules allow "legal and building funds" to pay for overhead expenses, such as office space, but not campaign advertising.
If true, the allegations could lead to significant fines for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
A court ruling for the plaintiffs, the Senate Majority PAC, could reshape the rules on campaign financing.
The Senate Majority PAC is a Democratic-aligned political action committee dedicated to electing Democrats to the U.S. Senate by raising and spending money to help their campaigns through television advertisements and grassroots mobilization.
The lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia continue turbulent times for election laws and regulations.
President Donald Trump is suggesting that the federal government take over elections to avoid fraud, despite constitutional provisions that give each state authority over them.
In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case in December in which the National Republican Senatorial Committee argued for eliminating decades-old limits on how much money political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates.
The Court’s conservative super-majority hinted during the hearing that it favored the Republican plea. A ruling is expected in late spring.
The lawsuits filed last week say the National Republican Senatorial Committee is diverting money from “segregated accounts” that were established by a 2014 change to the Federal Election Campaign Act.
The accounts allow national party committees to raise significantly larger contributions – often three times the standard limit – if the funds are used for specific purposes, such as purchase of office buildings or legal fees.
The Senate Majority PAC says Republicans use the legal and building funds to pay for television ads they classify as "fundraising pleas" or "legal education" but are essentially the same as standard campaign ads.
“Republicans are breaking the law in plain sight and daring regulators to stop them,” said Senate Majority PAC spokesperson Lauren French in a statement. “The FEC’s failure to close obvious loopholes has enabled this abuse, but Senate Majority PAC and Democrats will not let it continue unchecked.”
Their lawsuit seeks a court ruling that says use of building and legal funds for media buys constitutes an "unlawful allocation of resources."
National Republican Senatorial Committee leaders say the plaintiffs are engaging in a "desperate" attempt to divert attention away from weak Democratic fundraising efforts. They say they comply with Federal Election Commission regulations.
A year-end Federal Election Commission filing last month from the National Republican Senatorial Committee shows it raised $88 million last year, compared with $36 million by the Senate Majority PAC.
A ruling for the Senate Majority PAC would be different from the standard set by a 2022 Supreme Court decision.
In FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, the Court established a "heightened standard of proof" for the government when it tries to restrict political spending.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
D.C. Courts Authorize Program for Community Justice Workers
The District of Columbia Courts officially approved a new Community Justice Worker program last week to address what advocates for low-income persons called a "justice gap."
The program authorizes trained nonlawyers to provide limited legal services to low-income residents who would otherwise be forced to navigate the legal system alone or not at all.
The decision is based on a 2025 proposal by the D.C. Courts’ Civil Legal Regulatory Reform Task Force.
The task force was a response to a staggering statistic, namely that in D.C., about 75 percent to 90 percent of litigants in high-stakes cases go to court without any legal representation. Common cases involve evictions, child custody and debt collection.
“This program will expand support where it is needed most,” said Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, D.C. Court of Appeals chief judge.
Under the order issued last week, non-lawyers who complete specialized training can help people with tasks such as explaining court procedures, giving legal advice, helping complete forms, preparing documents and offering limited in-court support.
The Community Justice Workers will be required to operate under the supervision of licensed attorneys and approved legal service providers. They would be prohibited from conducting evidentiary trials or taking depositions.
The program is being funded through a combination of public tax dollars, private philanthropy, and federal grants.
The District joins a small but growing number of jurisdictions, including Alaska and Arizona, that have embraced "allied legal professionals" to address legal challenges for low-income persons.
Among the D.C. organizations positioned to participate in the Community Justice Worker program are Legal Aid DC and the Neighborhood Legal Services Program.
The Court’s order is Order M293-26 Civil Legal Regulatory Reform Task Force Proposal, filed Feb. 5, 2026.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Former D.C. Government IT Manager Pleads Guilty in Computer Thefts
A former District of Columbia government employee is scheduled for sentencing April 17 after pleading guilty in Superior Court to stealing laptops and other computing devices issued to city agencies and selling them for personal profit.
Darrell A. Smith, Sr., 56, pleaded guilty last week to multiple offenses, including three counts of first-degree theft and one count of trafficking in stolen property.
Smith previously worked as an Information Technology Manager for the D.C. Department of Health Care Finance, where he had authorized access to government-owned IT equipment, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
Prosecutors said Smith took laptops and other devices that belonged to the D.C. government when he was supposed to ensure they were properly inventoried or reassigned as government property. The computers were Apple MacBook Pro laptops purchased as part of a $1.6 million technology procurement.
Instead of returning the equipment to the city’s asset pool, Smith kept some devices for himself, gave others away, and sold many others to third parties, prosecutors said. They allege he received as much as $1,250 per device on the resale market, retaining the proceeds for personal use.
The computers were valued at $3,000 each. City officials estimated their losses from Smith’s thefts at $30,000.
When Department of Health Care Finance officials began inquiring about the missing devices, Smith denied knowledge of their whereabouts.
At the plea hearing, Smith acknowledged the thefts and admitted his conduct violated both criminal statutes as well as public trust expectations for government workers. He also admitted to using his official system access to delete security camera footage from an IT storage room to conceal the theft.
Prosecutors indicated they would seek incarceration and restitution when Smith is sentenced.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.