Support for the law firms that didn’t make deals has been growing inside the offices of corporate executives. At least 11 big companies are moving work away from law firms that settled with the administration or are giving—or intend to give—more business to firms that have been targeted but refused to strike deals, according to general counsels at those companies and other people familiar with those decisions.

Among them are technology giant Oracle, investment bank Morgan Stanley, an airline and a pharmaceutical company. Microsoft expressed reservations about working with a firm that struck a deal, and another such firm stopped representing McDonald’s in a case a few months before a scheduled trial.

In interviews, general counsels expressed concern about whether they could trust law firms that struck deals to fight for them in court and in negotiating big deals if they weren’t willing to stand up for themselves against Trump. The general counsel of a manufacturer of medical supplies said that if firms facing White House pressure “don’t have a hard line,” they don’t have any line at all......

Not long after Latham struck a deal in April, the firm’s chair, Richard Trobman, met with Morgan Stanley’s chief legal officer, Eric Grossman, people familiar with the meeting said. Grossman heard him out about the firm’s reasoning for striking a deal and acknowledged that companies have to do what is best for themselves.

Soon after that meeting, Grossman and other Morgan Stanley lawyers communicated to law firms targeted by the White House that hadn’t signed deals that they were looking to give them new business, the people familiar with the meeting said.....

The law firms named in this article declined to publicly discuss client matters. Leaders of firms that struck deals said their business have continued to thrive and that they have received calls from clients supportive of the deals. They have said the agreements won’t force them to take on pro bono work that would create conflicts with existing clients.

The firms that chose to sue over executive orders said in court filings that they had fielded calls from anxious clients and lost business because of the orders. Judges have struck down the orders against WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie, and the order against Susman Godfrey has been temporarily blocked. Judges have said the executive orders amounted to unconstitutional retaliation against the firms.

On a website touting the firm’s lawsuit, Jenner & Block said relenting to the White House would mean “compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA.”

To date, four firms — Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey and WilmerHale — chose the latter course, and at least so far, they’re undefeated in court. As The New York Times noted after WilmerHale’s latest victory, “The ruling seemed to validate the strategy, embraced by a minority of firms, of fighting the administration instead of caving to a pressure campaign and making deals with Mr. Trump to avoid persecution.”

Those in the appeasement camp have had far less to celebrate. The Wall Street Journal reported:

Support for the law firms that didn’t make deals has been growing inside the offices of corporate executives. At least 11 big companies are moving work away from law firms that settled with the administration or are giving — or intend to give — more business to firms that have been targeted but refused to strike deals, according to general counsels at those companies and other people familiar with those decisions. ... In interviews, general counsels expressed concern about whether they could trust law firms that struck deals to fight for them in court and in negotiating big deals if they weren’t willing to stand up for themselves against Trump.

The Journal’s report, which has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, added that the firms that cooperated with the White House’s offensive are confronting the awkward realization that their strategy backfired: “The agreements were supposed to buy peace and allow the firms to move on, but in the weeks since they have caused rifts between partners, alienated some younger associates and created problems with some longtime clients.”.....

With this in mind, NBC News reported about a month ago that a progressive group has launched a media campaign targeting the same firms that reached deals with the president.

‘Big law, stop bending the knee,’ reads a poster from the ‘Big Law Cowards’ campaign by the liberal nonprofit group Demand Justice. The group says the ads will be wheatpasted strategically around Washington on Thursday near the locations of the firms that have reached deals with the administration. The group will also have a mobile billboard circulating with ads criticizing the firms, along with a broader digital campaign.

In case this isn’t obvious, the underlying point of these efforts isn’t to chastise the firms for making the wrong decision; it’s to remind those firms that it’s not too late to reverse course and join the ranks of the firms resisting Trump’s gambit.

Will any of the firms abandon their existing deals? If one firm does it, will others follow? Watch this space.