Follow up to previous post – How Trump’s crackdown on law firms is undermining legal defenses for the vulnerable…Read the D.C. Bar legal ethics committee opinion. The New York Times: “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.” The committee issues formal, unsigned opinions that interpret rules of professional conduct and provide ethics guidance for lawyers who are licensed to practice in the nation’s capital. Its 15 members — 11 active members of the bar and four nonlawyers — are appointed by the bar group’s board of governors. 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…”