This week, the first -year students of the Georgetown Law Faculty had to present their final classification of law firms with those who wanted to meet for summer associate positions in 2026, after their second year. The hiring of summer associates reached its minimum in 11 years last year, but these summer jobs remain very coveted. This is because they pay more than $ 4,000 a week and increase the possibilities that students get a job in a large law firm with a salary exceeding 200,000 dollars when graduating after the third year, provided they stand out in the Law School and do not have a prestigious judicial internship or a work in insured public interest.
But this year, the first year students face an unusual question: whether or not to include Skadden Arps; Paul Weiss; Milbank; and Wilkie, Farr and Gallagher among their options. These four law firm have something in common: they have been bent to Trump after the threat, or even the firm, of executive orders that seek to restrict their ability to represent clients with government contracts. The four have agreed, for example, to provide a combined total of at least 340 million dollars in legal work for causes Trump supports and renounce any “illegal” program aimed at promoting diversity.
In contrast, three other great firms, explicitly attacked by Trump – Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and Wilmerhal – have filed demands to block their actions and have obtained temporary restriction orders that prevent the entry into force of most orders. Meanwhile, the American Association of Lawyers (American Bar Association) and the local Bar Associations; Deans of Law Faculties; State General Prosecutors; and more than 1600 alumni of the Department of Justice have issued joint statements denouncing Trump’s executive orders.
The controversy has left first -year students wondering where to request a place, both for reasons of consciousness and economic. What companies are most likely to survive: those that agree with Trump or those that resist? Can students work for bonus for reasons that care (which has long been an attraction for large law firms) if they sign with signatures that adapt to Trump’s needs?
In Georgetown, some students are taking advantage of the summer recruitment event to express their disapproval that the signatures give in to Trump. “The legal recruitment process is the only tool we really have to influence the behavior of law firms,” says Caleb Frye, a second year law student of 33 years and co -president of the Georgetown energy law group, which this week loudly canceled a recruitment event with Skadden scheduled in the office of the firm in Washington. (Frye published the cancellation letter on LinkedIn). Canceling an event may seem like a small gesture, but according to Frye, during each of the last three years, Skadden hired someone from the energy group. Students valued the opportunity to know personally and receive advice from associates and partners before sending applications and schedule interviews with the buffet.
“I know there are many scared students now that the recruitment season is approaching,” says Alanna Belmont, 25, co -president of the Georgetown Law Energy Group. “But as a club leader, I have the obligation with my classmates to offer a program that is aligned with the values, not only of our organization, but of Georgetown’s right as a whole.”
It should be noted that the Georgetown Law Faculty has been at the forefront of the fight against the reduction of the DEI by Trump. Dean William Trennor defended his curriculum after Ed Martin, the controversial interim federal prosecutor of Washington DC (and Trump candidate for the position), declared that he would not hire students from the Faculty unless he eliminated all his Dei programs. In a letter to Martin, Trennor wrote: “The constitutional violation that underlies this threat is evident, as well as the attack on the mission of the university as a Jesuit and Catholic institution.”
In fact, Georgetown is becoming a focus of student resistance. A base student group, self -denominated “Base Group”, has been collecting and updating a Google spreadsheet with information about 375 law firm, including its response to the executive orders of the Trump administration and the US investigations. It even includes a list of the changes that law firm have implemented on their websites in terms of diversity, equity and inclusion.
“This does not have a negative intention or intends to cancel these law firms,” says Sophia C., a third year of law in Georgetown, who updates the tracker daily and requested that we not use his last name for fear of reprisals against his family. He assures that more than 25 student groups have pledged to update the page daily, dedicating each person between 30 and 40 minutes a day. “We want to provide access to information, both students and other law firms, to demonstrate that there is a diversity of approaches” in response to Trump.
But, as Belmont acknowledges, refusing an interview with a prestigious office or denouncing it publicly is not an easy decision for all students, particularly for those who graduate with a high student debt. The majority of law students who graduated in the last 10 years, or who are less than 36 years old, requested some type of loan to finance their studies, accumulating an average debt of $ 112,500 when graduating, according to a 2024 study conducted by the American Association of Lawyers.
“It is very difficult to reject the option of winning $ 200,000 just out of the Law Faculty, especially when before it only earned the minimum salary,” says a first year of Georgetown law who is currently in the process of selection and who requested anonymity for fear of professional reprisals. They decided not to include Skadden in their interview due to the decision of the firm to give in to the Trump administration.
Read more: these are the brands and businesses of Luis R Conriquez, the king of the war corridos
Law students criticize signatures that have surrendered to Trump
Skadden has become a focus of attention, since some of their associated young people have publicly resigned from the firm as a sign of protest. The most prominent is Rachel Cohen, former third year associate in the Skadden finance area, who announced on LinkedIn, before the firm reached an agreement with Trump, which presented its resignation due to the lack of support for Perkins Coie and other signatures in the sight of the Trump administration. Since then, he has captured attention in Tiktok and traditional media.
Now, it encourages other associates and law students to take advantage of the recruitment season to express their opinion. This week, it launched a set of tools for students that suggest various techniques so that associates and those looking for employment can counterattack. For example, it urges the associates to refrain from participating in recruitment activities, including interviews in the campus and preselection calls as part of a recruitment strike, which forces the partners, whose time is usually invoiced by thousands of dollars per hour, to spend more time to make preselection calls and interviews on the campus. “Law firm consider students as replaceable,” he writes. “Our suggested actions aim to reduce the time and money of the firm.”
Cohen suggests that students who plan to become public defenders or aspire to jobs of public interest request jobs in signatures that have surrendered to Trump and, during interviews, overwhelm the representative with uncomfortable questions, such as asking if the associates will be obliged to perform pro bonus work in support of the Trump administration or if they have felt that the fundamental values of the firm have been questioned when working in a case. “This gives visibility to the signing that law students are not satisfied with their actions,” he says.
Another way that those who are interested in working in the big law firms can oppose, says Cohen, is to request the professional guidance offices of their powers that exclude Paul Weiss, Skadden, Wilkie and Millbank of hiring on the campus. “What really matters to these firms is access to the campus and the prestige that entails,” he observes. “Out of there, the signatures do not care much that the law students think.”
Prohibiting employers from recruiting in the campus had some success in the past, he argues, pointing out the battle between the Harvard Law Faculty and the Army for their ability to recruit through the Office of Professional Services of the Harvard Law Faculty. For more than 20 years, the Army had to resort to the Harvard Student Veterans Association to obtain future lawyers because it refused to sign the anti -discrimination policy of the Faculty, which required employers to commit not to discriminate for reasons of race, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. (The permanent return of the armed forces to the Harvard campus was allowed after the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that universities had to provide equal access to military recruiters, even if they violated the anti -discrimination policies of the Faculty, in order to receive federal financing).
But will student objections really influence the big law firms? Nikia Gray, Executive Director of the National Association for Law placement, which monitors the capture of law students, doubt. About 20% of law graduates access these competitive jobs, he points out, and with the growing fear of a recession, the hiring (and job offers) is likely to decrease anyway. The law firm, he says, “may need to expand their quarries or deepen the class, look at the 20 best students instead of the 10 best, but will not harm them simply for the interest they wake up.”
This article was originally published by Forbes Us.
You may be interested: Trump freezes 2,200 MDD Federal Financing to Harvard after refusing to meet their demands
