Judge Rejects Trump Administration Bid to Disqualify Susman Godfrey in ABA Case

A federal judge has firmly denied the Trump administration’s request to disqualify the law firm Susman Godfrey from representing the American Bar Association (ABA) in a lawsuit challenging executive orders targeting law firms. The ruling came in a six-page order delivered by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, underscoring the court’s rejection of arguments that the firm violated legal ethics rules.

The Background of the ABA Lawsuit

The ABA filed its complaint in June 2025, contesting a series of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump that the lawsuit describes as coercive efforts by the Executive Branch to pressure lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions disfavored by the President. The 93-page complaint alleges a coordinated campaign by the government over a 14-week period to intimidate and punish law firms based on their speech.

Among the firms targeted was Susman Godfrey, which successfully obtained a permanent injunction against the executive order sanctioning it. Subsequently, Susman Godfrey took on counsel duties for the ABA in this litigation, which brought issues of discovery related to the firm’s prior challenge into the case.

The Government’s Disqualification Motion and Court’s Response

In July, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sought to disqualify Susman Godfrey, citing alleged violations of the District of Columbia’s legal ethics rules. The DOJ argued that the firm’s lawyers could not serve as both advocates and witnesses in the case, which they described as a “textbook case” for disqualification under Rule 3.7(a).

However, Judge Ali found the government’s arguments lacking. The court noted that the DOJ failed to identify any Susman Godfrey lawyer who was likely to be a necessary witness at trial. In fact, the government conceded it could not specify any such individual. This lack of concrete evidence was critical in the judge’s decision to reject the motion.

Legal Ethics Rules and Firm-Wide Disqualification

Judge Ali emphasized that Rule 3.7(a) governs individual lawyers, not entire law firms. Even if a lawyer at Susman Godfrey were a necessary witness, the rule does not automatically disqualify the whole firm. The court referenced the rule’s comments clarifying there is no general rule of imputed disqualification applicable to this scenario.

Furthermore, the lawyers representing the ABA in the case were not involved in Susman Godfrey’s prior challenge to the executive order, diminishing any basis for concern about conflicts or ethical breaches.

Implications for the ABA-DOJ Discovery Dispute

This ruling likely removes a significant hurdle in the ongoing discovery battle between the DOJ and the ABA. Judge Ali pointed out that the ABA’s discovery requests regarding communications related to Susman Godfrey do not mean the lawyers representing the ABA are necessary witnesses or have conflicts requiring disqualification.

The court’s order clarifies that simply being involved in related discovery does not equate to a conflict of interest or ethical misconduct by the law firm’s attorneys.

With the disqualification motion denied, the case can proceed without disruption related to Susman Godfrey’s role, potentially speeding resolution of substantive legal issues around the executive orders and government conduct toward law firms.