In 2021, DLA Piper was among the most vocal law firms condemning the January 6 Capitol attack and calling for Donald Trump’s removal from office.
The firm was the largest of 19 to sign a letter describing the assault on the Capitol as “the direct and predictable result of a rally summoned by the president.”
That letter urged then-Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office before his term expired.
The firms wrote that “the President has proven himself unfit for office, and a reckless and wanton threat to the Constitution that he pledged to preserve, protect, and defend.”
Five years later, DLA Piper has taken on a strikingly different role, now defending Trump in legal cases stemming directly from the January 6 riot.
Bloomberg Law reported that DLA Piper partners Caryn Schechtman and Mike Walsh entered appearances as part of the Trump legal team last month.
The two partners are fighting a lawsuit brought by Capitol police officers injured during the riot, as well as a separate suit filed by members of Congress.
Both cases allege that Trump bears responsibility for spreading false election-rigging claims and inciting his supporters on the day of the attack.
The firm’s shift from calling the riot a constitutional threat to defending the man accused of instigating it has drawn significant attention across the legal community.
Trump remains the most powerful political figure in the country, and his administration has spent considerable time rewarding or punishing major law firms based on perceived loyalty.
That ecosystem of executive orders, pro bono settlement deals, and institutional pressure has reshaped how many large firms engage with the administration and its principals.
Directly handling Trump’s personal litigation represents the most premium form of alignment a firm can demonstrate within that environment, going well beyond mere neutrality.
DLA Piper has not publicly addressed the apparent contradiction between its 2021 letter and its current representation of the former and sitting president.
The firm’s involvement underscores a broader pattern in Biglaw, where financial and political incentives have increasingly influenced the positions firms are willing to take on publicly.