When Donald Trump issued an executive order that could compromise the firm’s ability to do business, Paul Weiss waved away the option of challenging the illegal act of retaliation in court and instead pledged $40 million in free legal services. Eventually, eight other firms joined in with bigger pro bono deals. In response to legislative inquiry, the firms swore up and down that these services would only go toward some vaguely defined charitable causes, even while the Trump administration itself bragged that it would be able to call upon the firms to work directly for the government for free.
Back in August, it came out that at least two of the firms, Paul Weiss and Kirkland, were performing free legal work for the Commerce Department. This sort of direct contradiction of the firms’ earlier representations seemed to bound to rub lawmakers the wrong way. But a retired practitioner reached out to us the next day to flag Section 1342 of Title 31, known as the Antideficiency Act, which bars the government from accepting volunteer services outside of situations “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.”
Since negotiating a trade deal doesn’t carry life or death stakes — at least not “imminently,” as the statutory text requires — this seemed like a problem.
Apparently, folks in Congress agreed. According to the New York Times, the firms received letters on fancy Capitol Hill letterhead today:
The top Democrats said in the letters to the firms that “as you are certainly aware, providing legal services to the Commerce Department without compensation may violate the law.” The letters cited the Antideficiency Act, which “prohibits the government from accepting voluntary services and has limited exceptions in order to ensure the government is not on the hook for financial obligations Congress has not explicitly appropriated.”
“Certainly” provides a lot of sarcastic structural support. What’s worse for the firms in this situation? It’s possible the firms really didn’t know about this statute — it’s not a law that generates a lot of action — but do they want to admit that they never bothered to check if this arrangement was even legal? An embarrassing admission, but better than having to explain that they were aware of the law and did it anyway.
Neither firm responded to the Times when asked for comment, so they’re probably mulling over this exact Scylla and Charybdis of pleading ignorance or complicity. And hoping to come up with a not-immediately-apparent third solution.
Technically, the stakes are low for the firms. It’s the administration that’s actually breaking the law here — the statute bars accepting the services, not offering them. And the penalties aren’t all that onerous either.
That said, the answers the firms provide could embarrass the administration and given how it’s responded to past perceived slights, putting the wrong foot forward here could land the firms in worse trouble than they thought they faced when they sold out in the first place.
Democrats Investigating Law Firms Over Work for Trump’s Commerce Dept. [New York Times]
Earlier: Paul Weiss & Kirkland Doing Free Trump Commerce Department Work As Part Of ‘Please Don’t Hurt Us, Daddy’ Deals
Trump’s Biglaw Bootlickers Say Quiet Part Out Loud In Letters To Congress
The post Lawmakers Ask Paul Weiss And Kirkland To Explain Why Trump Work Isn’t Totally Illegal appeared first on Above the Law.
When Donald Trump issued an executive order that could compromise the firm’s ability to do business, Paul Weiss waved away the option of challenging the illegal act of retaliation in court and instead pledged $40 million in free legal services. Eventually, eight other firms joined in with bigger pro bono deals. In response to legislative inquiry, the firms swore up and down that these services would only go toward some vaguely defined charitable causes, even while the Trump administration itself bragged that it would be able to call upon the firms to work directly for the government for free.
Back in August, it came out that at least two of the firms, Paul Weiss and Kirkland, were performing free legal work for the Commerce Department. This sort of direct contradiction of the firms’ earlier representations seemed to bound to rub lawmakers the wrong way. But a retired practitioner reached out to us the next day to flag Section 1342 of Title 31, known as the Antideficiency Act, which bars the government from accepting volunteer services outside of situations “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.”
Since negotiating a trade deal doesn’t carry life or death stakes — at least not “imminently,” as the statutory text requires — this seemed like a problem.
Apparently, folks in Congress agreed. According to the New York Times, the firms received letters on fancy Capitol Hill letterhead today:
The top Democrats said in the letters to the firms that “as you are certainly aware, providing legal services to the Commerce Department without compensation may violate the law.” The letters cited the Antideficiency Act, which “prohibits the government from accepting voluntary services and has limited exceptions in order to ensure the government is not on the hook for financial obligations Congress has not explicitly appropriated.”
“Certainly” provides a lot of sarcastic structural support. What’s worse for the firms in this situation? It’s possible the firms really didn’t know about this statute — it’s not a law that generates a lot of action — but do they want to admit that they never bothered to check if this arrangement was even legal? An embarrassing admission, but better than having to explain that they were aware of the law and did it anyway.
Neither firm responded to the Times when asked for comment, so they’re probably mulling over this exact Scylla and Charybdis of pleading ignorance or complicity. And hoping to come up with a not-immediately-apparent third solution.
Technically, the stakes are low for the firms. It’s the administration that’s actually breaking the law here — the statute bars accepting the services, not offering them. And the penalties aren’t all that onerous either.
That said, the answers the firms provide could embarrass the administration and given how it’s responded to past perceived slights, putting the wrong foot forward here could land the firms in worse trouble than they thought they faced when they sold out in the first place.
Democrats Investigating Law Firms Over Work for Trump’s Commerce Dept. [New York Times]
Earlier: Paul Weiss & Kirkland Doing Free Trump Commerce Department Work As Part Of ‘Please Don’t Hurt Us, Daddy’ Deals
Trump’s Biglaw Bootlickers Say Quiet Part Out Loud In Letters To Congress
