The Trump administration is once again stepping up pressure on large law firms over their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
On Jan. 30, the Federal Trade Commission’s chairman issued a letter targeting 42 firms for their participation in the Mansfield Certification program, a widely used process aimed at creating greater diversity in law firm leadership. Hundreds of firms participate in the annual certification process, which is administered by Diversity Lab, a self-described “laboratory that cultivates more inclusive and equitable workplaces in law and beyond.”
The letter comes on the first anniversary of Trump administration attacks on major law firms over their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies and their representation and support of the president’s political foes. Last year, nine large law firms targeted by punitive executive orders agreed to spend nearly $1 billion on Trump-backed pro bono issues and to curtail their diversity efforts.
Those attacks included threatening letters from Trump’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which suggested it would investigate and penalize several AmLaw 100 firms for DEI programs that the agency said may have “discriminated against white or male employees, applicants, and training program participants.”
Anticompetitive Argument
While the EEOC alleged potential civil rights violations, the warning letter from the FTC focuses on anticompetition laws like the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Signed by FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, the letter suggests that firms may be engaging in unfair and anticompetitive employment practices by participating in a program like Mansfield Certification that focuses on DEI-related metrics.
To earn annual Mansfield certifications, firms must demonstrate that 30% of the talent pool for promotions and leadership opportunities comes from underrepresented groups. “Collusion between law firms on DEI metrics can include quotas by which they agree to compose panels of job candidates based on race, sex, or other personal characteristics other than the candidate’s merit,” Ferguson asserted.
Ferguson said monthly knowledge-sharing calls among Mansfield-participating firms are potentially anti-competitive collusion. “During these competitor meetings, the firms were asked ‘to openly share their innovative ideas for overcoming our common challenges’ in the labor market,” Ferguson wrote. He added, “I remind you that the FTC remains focused on protecting American workers from unfair and anticompetitive employer labor practices. This includes collusion or unlawful coordination on DEI metrics.”
The FTC sent the letter to: Alston & Bird, Arnold & Porter, BakerHostetler, Cooley, Covington & Burling, Davis Polk, Debevoise & Plimpton, Dentons, DLA Piper, Faegre Drinker, Fox Rothschild, Gibson Dunn, Goodwin Procter, Gordon Rees, Greenberg Traurig, Hogan Lovells, Holland & Knight, Husch Blackwell, Jackson Lewis, K&L Gates, Latham & Watkins, Lewis Brisbois, Littler, Mayer Brown, McDermott Will & Emery, McGuireWoods, Morgan Lewis, Nelson Mullins, Ogletree Deakins, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, Polsinelli, Reed Smith, Sheppard Mullin, Sidley Austin, Skadden, Troutman Pepper, White & Case, WilmerHale, Wilson Elser, Wilson Sonsini, and Winston & Strawn.
A Court Test
While Ferguson said he was not intending “to suggest that you have engaged in illegal conduct,” the letter was clearly designed to chill firms’ use of Diversity Lab and participation in Mansfield Certification. Ferguson said that “sharing of competitively sensitive information about pay and other benefits between employers can be unlawful under the antitrust laws.”
How well the FTC’s arguments will fare if challenged in court is another matter. The administration’s initial attempt to use the Mansfield Rule (i.e., 30% of the talent pool should be from underrepresented groups) did not go well.
In 2025, administration lawyers argued that a federal court should uphold President Trump’s executive order against Perkins Coie, in part, because of its adoption of the Mansfield Rule, which they portrayed as discriminatory. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, in a ruling blocking the executive order, rejected that argument. Howell, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said that the Mansfield Rule in and of itself “does not establish any hiring quotas or other illegally discriminatory practices” and does not require firms to consider attorneys from diverse backgrounds for leadership positions.
Howell also noted that government counsel acknowledged to the court that the use of the Mansfield Rule in job interviews “maybe isn’t so problematic.” In dicta, Howell said the administration’s lawyers suggested the problem lies in the use of data and metrics to measure success, assuming that this meant the “imposition of ‘targets’” and evaluating candidates solely based on their race, sex and ethnicity.
The government, Howell said, was misreading both the intent of the Mansfield program and the use of metrics to help law firms find qualified candidates. “The principle underlying such programs is that negative biases against qualified underrepresented lawyers reduce their likelihood of being selected as frequently to interview for positions for which they are qualified,” she wrote. When firms ensure they have not eliminated candidates from underrepresented groups from the hiring pool, they tend to hire more of these individuals on their own merit.
“In other words, the metrics might mean exactly the opposite of what the government assumes to be true, and exactly what the government says it wants,” Howell said.
‘Mansfield Is Lawful’
For its part, Diversity Lab leans on Howell’s opinion in website materials explaining its process, noting that the decision found “Mansfield is lawful and aligned with anti-discrimination laws.” The company adds that “Mansfield doesn’t dictate or require that underrepresented talent be ‘slated’ or selected for any given leadership role or activity, nor does it result in any person being excluded from consideration based on race, gender, or any other demographics.”
Instead, the company says the process is designed to be “additive,” asking that qualified talent, regardless of background, have a fair shot at being considered for positions based on merit. The Mansfield Rule, in Diversity Labs formulation, asks organizations to determine annually whether they have expanded and considered a broader pool of talent “including at least 30% qualified underrepresented talent out of the unlimited number of people considered” before making hiring and promotion decisions.
A 2023 report by a pair of university researchers shows that since Mansfield efforts began in 2016, firms participating in the program have doubled the rate at which diverse candidates have joined the firm’s equity partnerships and executive committees.
Hundreds of firms have sought certification. According to Diversity Lab data, released just ahead of the 2024 election, more than 360 law firms earned Mansfield certification in the previous year, a 13% annual increase. “Additionally, the majority of these firms, along with 19 others, are already pursuing certification for 2024–25,” Diversity Lab said in an October 2024 news release.
Altered Websites
How many of those firms came back after the second Trump administration took office and began attacking DEI programs in earnest is an open question.
Last July, in the wake of Trump’s executive orders targeting Big Law, Reuters found that “dozens of major law firms, wary of political retaliation, have scaled back pro bono work, diversity initiatives and litigation that could place them in conflict with the Trump administration.” At that point, 46 of the American Lawyer’s 50 highest-grossing firms had “removed or altered website references to diversity, equity, and inclusion,” Reuters said.
In one of his executive orders, Trump asked the EEOC to determine whether elite law firms “reserve certain positions, such as summer associate spots, for individuals of preferred races; promote individuals on a discriminatory basis; permit client access on a discriminatory basis; or provide access to events, trainings, or travel on a discriminatory basis.” The EEOC followed up with a letter to 20 AmLaw 100 firms requesting information about their DEI-related employment practices.
“Nearly all of the nation’s 50 top-grossing law firms have removed or revised online references to diversity, equity, and inclusion,” Reuters said in its report. “Between February and early March [2025], 35 of the 50 highest-earning firms highlighted DEI efforts. By late June, only two had not altered that language.”
Shifting Language
Despite the attacks, diversity remains a key issue for law firm talent. Many firms are now taking a “show, don’t tell” approach when promoting their DEI bona fides to job candidates, Law.com reported. Nikia Gray, executive director of the National Association of Law Placement, told Law.com that firms have changed their pitches from “explicit DEI language” to “more value-based” statements.
For firms, the challenge has been communicating with multiple audiences. Lateral partners may understand why firms are using more nuanced language, but “attorneys coming fresh out of law school have been more critical of law firm shifts away from DEI and are looking to have deeper conversations on the topic,” Law.com reported.
On the positive side, recent students are asking deeper questions of firms about their commitment to diversity, Gray told Law.com. “Students should never have just been relying on external statements or diversity-led pages,” she said. “This is an opportunity for students to dig in more and ask more important questions.”
---
David L. Brown is a legal affairs writer and content consultant, who has served as head of editorial at ALM Media, editor-in-chief of The National Law Journal and Legal Times, and executive editor of The American Lawyer. He consults on thought leadership strategy and creates in-depth content for legal industry clients and works closely with Best Law Firms as a senior content consultant.