It may be, but none of that matters when the so-called "checks and balances" are not being applied expeditiously.

I'm not here to defend their behavior. It's important for anyone that chooses to think critically to try and understand motives. It's easy to armchair quarterback and harder to put yourself in their position and truly evaluate the choice in front of them.

What options are available to them to "fight for the rule of law"? The executive branch, responsible for enforcing laws, is the offending party. The judicial branch moves too slowly to mitigate the significant damages that would be incurred while that fight is taking place. And the legislative branch has implicitly endorsed this behavior by not serving as a check against overreach.

Even if the law firm wins the case, their clientele will have moved on and they will likely have laid off a significant portion of their workforce.

These partners have dedicated their lives to their firms. 3,000+ billable hours each year for their entire careers. I sincerely hope you never have to choose between not only your livelihood, but that of your entire workforce, and your principles because I guarantee you, it won't be an easy decision.

There is no relief in sight unless the populace demonstrates that this is all unacceptable. Why would they choose otherwise?

The law doesn't preclude them from representing a client unless they believe their services are being used to further a crime or harass others. The Supreme Court has provided broad coverage to the powers of a President acting in an official capacity.

It is up to each attorney individually to decide where their personal ethics do not align with their professional obligations but this is not an issue per the bar association's professional rules of conduct. However, feel free to read through them and provide counter arguments based on their actual professional code.