The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers
Can you believe this shit?
In a past life, I was very interested in the slide of liberal (with a lower-case "l") societies into authoritarian states. I didn't study this as some academic exercise. I studied it because it happens. Repeatedly. And the warning signs are screaming at us right now.
One of the most consistent signs that democracy is being dismantled—not weakened, not challenged, but systematically destroyed—is when the party or demagogue in power targets the law. They don't just disagree with legal outcomes (although they sure as hell do that). They come for us. For lawyers. For the entire system that stands between them and absolute power.
Don't believe me? The evidence is overwhelming and blood-soaked:
Russia’s ongoing war against attorneys that represent political opposition, starting with the assassination of Stanislav Markelov to the attempted disbarment of Navalny’s attorneys and those same attorneys’ recent conviction for extremist behavior.
China’s 709 Crackdown on human rights lawyers, and by way of example, China’s persistent harassment, disbarment, imprisonment, and even enforced disappearances of Gao Zhisheng and Teng Biao, who defended Uighurs, house church Christians, and democracy activists.
Iran’s imprisonment of Nasrin Sotoudeh, a prominent human rights lawyer, for “spreading propaganda” and “harming state security.”
Since Myanmar’s February 2021 military coup, lawyers defending detained pro-democracy activists and opposition leaders have been arrested and prevented from accessing their clients. Some have been sentenced to long prison terms or have gone missing.
During the Apartheid era in South Africa, lawyers defending members of the African National Congress (ANC) and anti-apartheid activists were routinely harassed, detained, or even assassinated. Nelson Mandela, a lawyer himself, was barred from practicing and later imprisoned for decades.
In Pakistan, lawyers who dare to represent folks who have been charged with blasphemy or who defend political opponents of the regime have been assassinated and subjected to harassment, detentions, and attacks by state security forces.
And, of course, Godwin’s Law requires us to conclude this truncated list (I could have provided a nearly endless bulleted list here) with the Nazis’ Volksgerichtshof, or “People’s Court,” which handled political cases, particularly those related to treason. Defense lawyers were effectively prohibited from properly representing their clients, and many who tried to defend accused individuals were themselves arrested or executed.
This isn't ancient history. This is the playbook. And now it's happening here.
The context here is important: liberal societies fall when the rule of law is destabilized, which is why any aspiring strong man goes for its throat. This attack will almost always be multi-pronged, seeking to subvert the judicial system and attack its independence (see: the continuous calls to impeach “corrupt” judges who issue rulings that the executive disfavors), intimidating opponents from bringing suit or taking action in the first place for fear of reprisal, and morally compromising the supposed independent judges and justices.
Twice in mere weeks, President Trump has issued executive orders specifically targeting law firms that represented clients he hates. First Covington & Burling for representing Jack Smith, now Perkins Coie for representing Democrats. He's stripping security clearances, blocking federal work, and using executive power to punish private attorneys for doing their jobs.
If you're still calling this normal, you're either complicit or willfully blind. This is a direct assault on the legal profession and the rule of law. It's exactly what authoritarians do before they consolidate power.
Saying the damned thing
Michael Masnick published a superb piece in Techdirt addressing the reality that Techdirt—one of the OG tech news websites—has been increasingly on the political beat. It is definitely worth reading. In it he notes:
This is the kind of thing tech and law reporters spot immediately, because we’ve seen this all play out before. When someone talks about “free speech” while actively working to control speech, that’s not a contradiction or a mistake — it’s the point. It’s about consolidating power while wrapping it in the language of freedom as a shield to fool the gullible and the lazy.
This is why it’s been the tech and legal press that have been putting in the work, getting the scoops, and highlighting what’s actually going on, rather than just regurgitation administration propaganda without context or analysis (which hasn’t stopped the administration from punishing them).
The political press is treating all of this as normal because they’ve been in it for so long, they are, to use the cliche, the frog in the boiling water.
But we lawyers? We have a duty to speak up about this. I posted a short note about this on LinkedIn yesterday. It got a ton of impressions but very little engagement. That’s almost entirely the opposite of my normal post metrics—and I think I know why.
It feels dangerous to speak about this. To put into the public record our objections to these affronts to the rule of law, to our ability to represent who we want, to take on cases for disfavored and oppressed people. Of course it’s dangerous. That’s the point. The goal is to make you afraid, to train you into silence before the real crackdown begins.
Here’s the thing: there’s a small window where we can push back on this. Control can, and often is, consolidated very rapidly. So, I understand if it feels risky to speak up. I see you, silent and watching. I see the LinkedIn lurkers, the cautious DM senders, the ones who whisper agreement in private but say nothing in public.
I have a family. I have a business. I have everything to lose too. And I'm terrified. But I'm more terrified of what happens if we all keep our heads down and hope someone else will fight this battle.
If you're angry, good. Channel it. If you're afraid, use it. Fear tells you exactly what's at stake. But let’s be clear: silence is a choice. And it’s the choice authoritarianism counts on.
Do it anyway.