In case you haven't considered it before, let me tell you what it entails.
You usually take "St. Jude's cases," i.e. cases that seem so hopeless (but with merit) that most attorneys refuse to take them. You represent the client/the case on the basis of fortifying the legal justice system and to help a client who will be screwed if someone doesn't go to court for him/her/it.
Of course, your client has no money. Not only do you not make any compensation, but you often end up spending your own money to go to court, let alone to keep the case going. I mean expenses like copying, postage, time away from paying clients, paying witnesses, Discovery, etc.
I've had pro bono cases where I kept a client out of jail (who was looking at 15 years), another client who was going to lose her license to be a nursing assistant, another client who was going to have her parental rights terminated with her five children being adopted by the foster family, a singing society whose treasurer embezzled almost $20,000. None of these clients had any money.
I can't imagine being sanctioned for doing the right thing. As a solo practitioner, I can't be fired or told to refuse these kinds of cases -- or my firm can't be threatened by Trump for any or no reason.
I see this kind of sanctioning as a violation of Gideon v. Wainwright, where SCOTUS (Warren Court) in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions and requires courts to provide counsel for defendants unable to hire counsel unless the right was competently and intelligently waived. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155