Remember when nine major law firms bowed to Trump’s demands, agreeing to vaguely worded pro bono commitments to avoid retaliatory executive orders? Because they sure hope Trump doesn’t!
According to American Lawyer reporting, seven of the nine have “pledged to maintain independence in their pro bono practices” per internal memos. Promising to do something would seem to do incredible violence to the word “independence.” Do students “independently” agreed to pay off their loans when they fulfill their end of a contractual agreement? The pro bono payola agreements seemed a little informal — most contracts aren’t memorialized in all caps on a social media platform — but these internal memos are giving a lot of “anticipatory breach” energy.
But three months after the deals were made, firms are staying quiet about how they plan to fulfill their pro bono commitments to President Donald Trump and his administration. None of the nine firms that made deals responded to questions from The American Lawyer about pro bono work they’ve done that counts toward their financial commitments.
No kidding. While the firms have suffered defections — some very high profile — over these deals, the slow drip of departures would become a rushing torrent if the firms went ahead and started defending police brutality cases… which the Trump administration has explicitly said they will be asked to do under the agreement.
But after all the fanfare surrounding these deals, why hasn’t the administration called in its debts?
Firms may be keeping a low profile in hopes that the president moves on to something else, said New York Law School ethics professor Rebecca Roiphe. “Neither side has an interest here in pushing things too far because the Trump administration has kind of walked away with a win here regardless of what the courts do,” Roiphe said.
And just as firms don’t want negative attention that could jeopardize their good standing with the administration, Roiphe added, Trump’s win over firms could turn into a loss if the president presses for something firms can’t or won’t give, forcing them to fight him in court.
This would make sense in normal times, but nothing about this is normal. These parties do not have equal bargaining positions. Trump already proved that these firms will cave. They forfeited their bargaining position already. All that’s left is him forgetting that he has the upper hand.
There’s no downside to Trump pushing these deals if it came to it because he holds all the cards over these firms. He can just reinstate the executive orders. Are they illegal? Sure, but they were always illegal. The firms didn’t make these deals because they thought they’d lose the court fight over the executive orders — at least not unless I’m grossly overestimating their judgment as lawyers — they made the deals to avoid the hassle of fighting the case. Trump can, at almost zero cost, bring back the hassle. Firms with some backbone actually challenged these orders and won and Trump is still appealing. He doesn’t care about taking repeated losses in court because he’s exacting inconvenience and he can just turn those losses into more fuel for the “all the activist leftist Reagan judges are out to get me” agitprop.
The idea that Trump is playing 3D chess against Biglaw to prevent a black eye in court, gives way to the simpler explanation: the firms know they’re dealing with an excitable dementia patient and expect him to move on to the next shiny object. Personally, I wouldn’t bank a firm’s liquidity on a toddler’s promise to eat his veggies, but here we are.
And, look, Trump can’t even remember the people he appointed to the Federal Reserve, so there’s a decent case that he might forget about his law firm deals too. But I doubt Stephen Miller will.
Though even if the White House never comes calling — though they will — the deals are already hurting people. The implicit flipside of firms keeping their heads down to avoid doing work for Trump is that the firm has to avoid doing work that gets back on Trump’s radar. And it goes beyond the firms themselves, as pro bono work is taking a hit across Biglaw in large part because of the lead these firms took in bending the knee. No one wants to be out there defending folks that could irk Trump or Miller.
Maybe they can help him with the Epstein list. Trump’s not going to get far litigating against Rupert Murdoch without some big guns and it’s not like he’s actually going to pay a firm to handle it.
Despite Affirming Their Independence, Law Firm Leaders Remain Quiet on How They’re Satisfying Trump Pro Bono Commitments [American Lawyer]
Earlier: Biglaw Firms Surrendering To Trump Furiously Backpedaling: ‘LOL, What Pro Bono Deals?’
The post Biglaw Surrender Firms Hoping Trump Just Forgets About Them appeared first on Above the Law.
Remember when nine major law firms bowed to Trump’s demands, agreeing to vaguely worded pro bono commitments to avoid retaliatory executive orders? Because they sure hope Trump doesn’t!
According to American Lawyer reporting, seven of the nine have “pledged to maintain independence in their pro bono practices” per internal memos. Promising to do something would seem to do incredible violence to the word “independence.” Do students “independently” agreed to pay off their loans when they fulfill their end of a contractual agreement? The pro bono payola agreements seemed a little informal — most contracts aren’t memorialized in all caps on a social media platform — but these internal memos are giving a lot of “anticipatory breach” energy.
But three months after the deals were made, firms are staying quiet about how they plan to fulfill their pro bono commitments to President Donald Trump and his administration. None of the nine firms that made deals responded to questions from The American Lawyer about pro bono work they’ve done that counts toward their financial commitments.
No kidding. While the firms have suffered defections — some very high profile — over these deals, the slow drip of departures would become a rushing torrent if the firms went ahead and started defending police brutality cases… which the Trump administration has explicitly said they will be asked to do under the agreement.
But after all the fanfare surrounding these deals, why hasn’t the administration called in its debts?
Firms may be keeping a low profile in hopes that the president moves on to something else, said New York Law School ethics professor Rebecca Roiphe. “Neither side has an interest here in pushing things too far because the Trump administration has kind of walked away with a win here regardless of what the courts do,” Roiphe said.
And just as firms don’t want negative attention that could jeopardize their good standing with the administration, Roiphe added, Trump’s win over firms could turn into a loss if the president presses for something firms can’t or won’t give, forcing them to fight him in court.
This would make sense in normal times, but nothing about this is normal. These parties do not have equal bargaining positions. Trump already proved that these firms will cave. They forfeited their bargaining position already. All that’s left is him forgetting that he has the upper hand.
There’s no downside to Trump pushing these deals if it came to it because he holds all the cards over these firms. He can just reinstate the executive orders. Are they illegal? Sure, but they were always illegal. The firms didn’t make these deals because they thought they’d lose the court fight over the executive orders — at least not unless I’m grossly overestimating their judgment as lawyers — they made the deals to avoid the hassle of fighting the case. Trump can, at almost zero cost, bring back the hassle. Firms with some backbone actually challenged these orders and won and Trump is still appealing. He doesn’t care about taking repeated losses in court because he’s exacting inconvenience and he can just turn those losses into more fuel for the “all the activist leftist Reagan judges are out to get me” agitprop.
The idea that Trump is playing 3D chess against Biglaw to prevent a black eye in court, gives way to the simpler explanation: the firms know they’re dealing with an excitable dementia patient and expect him to move on to the next shiny object. Personally, I wouldn’t bank a firm’s liquidity on a toddler’s promise to eat his veggies, but here we are.
And, look, Trump can’t even remember the people he appointed to the Federal Reserve, so there’s a decent case that he might forget about his law firm deals too. But I doubt Stephen Miller will.
Though even if the White House never comes calling — though they will — the deals are already hurting people. The implicit flipside of firms keeping their heads down to avoid doing work for Trump is that the firm has to avoid doing work that gets back on Trump’s radar. And it goes beyond the firms themselves, as pro bono work is taking a hit across Biglaw in large part because of the lead these firms took in bending the knee. No one wants to be out there defending folks that could irk Trump or Miller.
Maybe they can help him with the Epstein list. Trump’s not going to get far litigating against Rupert Murdoch without some big guns and it’s not like he’s actually going to pay a firm to handle it.
Despite Affirming Their Independence, Law Firm Leaders Remain Quiet on How They’re Satisfying Trump Pro Bono Commitments [American Lawyer]
Earlier: Biglaw Firms Surrendering To Trump Furiously Backpedaling: ‘LOL, What Pro Bono Deals?’
