Why Understanding Impact Beats Dissecting Details
In March 2025, when the Trump administration suspended federal contracts for major law firms, most affected firms did exactly what you’d expect: they dissected the problem. They formed committees, analysed clauses, and created compliance checklists. Since then, the legal landscape has fundamentally shifted, but not in the ways that many people may have thought.
The firms that navigated the crisis most effectively? They asked a different question. Instead of “What do these orders require?” they asked “What does this campaign actually mean for us, our people, our clients and wider our ecosystem?”
This distinction – between problem-solving and problem-framing – determines the pathways of how organisations might navigate disruption. And as challenges from AI, geopolitics, and market shocks arrive faster than ever, it can very often be the crucial difference between resilience and obsolescence.
The Seduction of Micro-Analysis
We love breaking challenges into bite-sized chunks. It feels productive. It allows us a better chance to feel like we fully understand them. It provides a veneer of psychological safety. Each component gets its own team, its own timeline, and its own solution. It all appears very “neat”. But this approach has a fatal flaw as it very quickly loses sight of how all the pieces interact with the whole.
Consider how major law firms initially responded to the administration’s executive orders, which startied with Covington & Burling on February 25th, quickly moving to the executive order 14230 aimed atPerkins Coie on March 6th, followed in an almost identical executive order 14237 levelled at Paul Weiss on March 14th, and eventually targeting many others.The orders and actions suspended security clearances, restricted federal building access, and threatened to cancel government contracts – not just for the firms, but for their clients.
The typical micro-analysis response looked like this:
- Legal team: File appeals on clearance suspensions
- HR team: Review DEI programs cited in the orders
- Contracts team: Audit federal matters and client exposure
Each team executed their piece. But something was missing – understanding the ripple effects.
The Power of Problem-Framing
Problem-framing starts with understanding impacts across the entire ecosystem. Those firms that adopted this approach identified critical ripples:
- Talent was mobilising: Over 800 associates across multiple firms were organising resistance efforts
- The profession itself was under attack: This was about the independence of the legal sector rather than simply being about individual firms
- Precedent was being set: How firms responded would shape future government-profession relations
The firms that foresaw these interconnected impacts took dramatically different actions from those that capitulated.
Two Paths Diverged
Path A: Capitulation Through Micro-Analysis
Nine major firms, including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher, approached the crisis transactionally. They negotiated deals pledging a cumulative amount of nearly $1 billion in pro bono work and making promises about slashing DEI policies.
The micro-analysis painted a specific picture: minimise immediate business risk, protect revenue, avoid confrontation. And it worked – in the narrowest sense. The orders were lifted or avoided.
But there were consequences. At Simpson Thacher, partner Siunik Moradian resigned in protest, writing that he would not “sleepwalk toward authoritarianism”. Similar resignations followed at other firms. Paul Weiss lost 4 major partners in the fall out. Advocacy groups reported that firms became reluctant to take on politically sensitive cases. The precedent was set. Political pressure could dictate legal representation.
Path B: Resistance Through Problem-Framing
Four firms – Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey – saw the broader picture. They recognised this wasn’t just about their immediate business interests but about fundamental principles of the legal system.
Their response:
- Immediate litigation: All four sued, arguing First and Sixth Amendment violations
- Coalition building: Over 500 law firms signed briefs supporting their position
- Public stance: They framed their stance as defending the rule of law, not just their business
- Client communication: Transparent discussions about why fighting mattered
The results were mixed but significant. Federal judges issued temporary restraining orders blocking key provisions. Stating that the administration’s orders, “sends chills down (her) spine”, Judge Beryl Howell eventually struck down the entire order against Perkins Coie as unconstitutional. A separate court reached the same conclusion in the case of Jenner & Block, finding that the order violated the First Amendment. And most recently, WilmerHale became the third firm to win summary judgment against an executive order targeting its work, with the court again striking down the administration’s actions as unconstitutional. While these firms faced real consequences, client concerns, security clearance delays, and legal expenses, they maintained their independence and set a different precedent.
The Nuanced Reality
In truth neither path was purely successful or disastrous. The firms that settled avoided immediate pain but face internal dissent, reputational questions, and concerns about future independence. On the other side, those firms that fought have endured months of uncertainty and real business risks but have preserved their autonomy and earned judicial vindication.
The key differentiator isn’t the outcome. It is the decision-making processes each firm followed. Firms using micro-analysis optimised for immediate, measurable impacts. Firms using problem-framing considered systemic, long-term effects.
Making the Shift
- Map the Ripples, Not the Pebble
When change hits, resist the urge to immediately dissect it. Instead, trace its impacts through your ecosystem. Who’s affected? What behaviors will shift? Which relationships are at risk?
- Identify Leverage Points
Not all impacts are made equal. The law firms that recognised the precedent-setting nature of their response understood they were negotiating for the future of their clients, people and sector.
- Accept Complexity
Real-world outcomes are rarely binary. On one hand, the firms that fought didn’t win everything. On the other, the firms that settled didn’t lose everything. But understanding the full complexity of impacts led to more intentional choices.
When you frame problems holistically:
- Short-term costs become investments in long-term resilience
- Individual decisions reveal systemic implications
- Tactical choices connect to strategic outcomes
The Broader Lesson
A crucial element of these recent battles is that it wasn’t just about law firms, rather it is a broader issue of whether professionals can maintain independence in the face of political pressure. The same dynamics apply across industries facing disruption.
The Bottom Line
Defining success of an outcome in such complex scenarios is often as difficult as reaching the outcome itself. However, we can see that often, contrary to what we may instinctively feel, it will seldom come from perfect analysis of individual components. Rather, it may come from understanding how changes reverberate through your organisation and having the ability to address impacts, not just inputs.
A simple takeaway is to step back. Frame the problem. Understand what it does, not just what it is.