For lawyers, the Trump II era has been defined by the existential crisis facing the profession. Donald Trump has gone to war with the rule of law and Biglaw through a series of unconstitutional Executive Orders (or the mere threat of them) designed to break major law firms and have them bend a knee to Trump or extract a tremendous financial penalty. In the face of this financial harm, nine major law firms were willing to proactively seek out Trump’s seal of approval and provide pro bono payola, that is, free legal services on behalf of conservative clients or causes in order to avoid Trumpian retribution.
The cowardice of the Biglaw firms kissing Trump’s ring has been a major taking point with far-reaching consequences for the profession. But few have been willing to offer a full-throated defense of the deals. Until now.
Lobbying firm Ballard Partners, a firm with deep MAGA connections, has seen a spike in business as folks try to navigate the ever-changing currents emanating from the White House — including two major Biglaw firms… that happen to be among those that inked deals with Trump. And Brian Ballard spoke with Bloomberg Law to defend the deals with Trump.
“If you are in the business in Washington, DC, of working for clients that have issues before the government, it’s better to be someone who can work with the government than someone who just says screw you,” Ballard said. “I think it’s pretty smart for those guys to have done what they’ve done—the guys we represented and others.”
I termed the Biglaw deals pro bono payola because that’s what they are — paying (through pro bono services) to play. And while that may may grease the wheels for a subset of a Biglaw firm’s clients (and accentuate the difference between corporate and litigation clients), there are plenty of clients that see this as a problem. If a firm can’t — or won’t — defend themselves against an administration willing to use unconstitutional executive orders to extort free legal services, then how will that firm represent a company who finds themselves on the wrong side of the fickle president? This is also a reputational hit for the firms that signed the deals, and clients *are* steering work away from the firms that bent a knee to Trump.
But there are other problems for yellow-bellied firms. There are congressional investigations. And a real recruitment problem, as attorneys are leaving the firms that caved to Trump, hoping to get the stink of capitulation off their resumes.
Perhaps most importantly, there’s the whole “fail[ing] the American people” and abandoning the rule of law thing. It bears repeating that the EOs Trump weaponized has been found unconstitutional. Repeatedly. Trump is trying to punish law firms for taking work and clients he personally doesn’t like, and four different district court judges from across the political spectrum have all ruled the orders unconstitutional on a variety of grounds — and that callous disregard for the foundations of our legal system corrodes those rights, particularly for the profession charged with safeguarding the law.
So color me unimpressed that the man who has directly benefitted from negotiating the deals is downplaying the harm they do to the rule of law.
“It always makes sense to try to resolve things,” Ballard said. “This administration wants to resolve things. They’re looking to address the issues that they’ve raised, but they’re not looking for battles. They’re looking for more friends than enemies.”
Sure, Jan.
But even more galling is how Ballard denigrates the firms that have stood up to fight the EOs aimed at them:
“Some of these law firms like the idea of having an enemy,” Ballard said of the firms that chose to fight Trump. “Either for business reasons or political reasons, that’s why they do it.”
In standing up to Trump, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey are carrying the baton for the legal profession. Most lawyers agree with the stance these firms have taken — 90% of respondents in a recent Above the Law survey said other firms should follow their lead. Perkins, Jenner, Wilmer, and Susman have an “enemy” in the president not for the cynical reasons Ballard outlines, but because they’re defending the constitution.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.
The post Guy Who Helped Orchestrate Some of Biglaw’s Pro Bono Payola Deals Offers Tone Deaf Defense Of Them appeared first on Above the Law.
For lawyers, the Trump II era has been defined by the existential crisis facing the profession. Donald Trump has gone to war with the rule of law and Biglaw through a series of unconstitutional Executive Orders (or the mere threat of them) designed to break major law firms and have them bend a knee to Trump or extract a tremendous financial penalty. In the face of this financial harm, nine major law firms were willing to proactively seek out Trump’s seal of approval and provide pro bono payola, that is, free legal services on behalf of conservative clients or causes in order to avoid Trumpian retribution.
The cowardice of the Biglaw firms kissing Trump’s ring has been a major taking point with far-reaching consequences for the profession. But few have been willing to offer a full-throated defense of the deals. Until now.
Lobbying firm Ballard Partners, a firm with deep MAGA connections, has seen a spike in business as folks try to navigate the ever-changing currents emanating from the White House — including two major Biglaw firms… that happen to be among those that inked deals with Trump. And Brian Ballard spoke with Bloomberg Law to defend the deals with Trump.
“If you are in the business in Washington, DC, of working for clients that have issues before the government, it’s better to be someone who can work with the government than someone who just says screw you,” Ballard said. “I think it’s pretty smart for those guys to have done what they’ve done—the guys we represented and others.”
I termed the Biglaw deals pro bono payola because that’s what they are — paying (through pro bono services) to play. And while that may may grease the wheels for a subset of a Biglaw firm’s clients (and accentuate the difference between corporate and litigation clients), there are plenty of clients that see this as a problem. If a firm can’t — or won’t — defend themselves against an administration willing to use unconstitutional executive orders to extort free legal services, then how will that firm represent a company who finds themselves on the wrong side of the fickle president? This is also a reputational hit for the firms that signed the deals, and clients *are* steering work away from the firms that bent a knee to Trump.
But there are other problems for yellow-bellied firms. There are congressional investigations. And a real recruitment problem, as attorneys are leaving the firms that caved to Trump, hoping to get the stink of capitulation off their resumes.
Perhaps most importantly, there’s the whole “fail[ing] the American people” and abandoning the rule of law thing. It bears repeating that the EOs Trump weaponized has been found unconstitutional. Repeatedly. Trump is trying to punish law firms for taking work and clients he personally doesn’t like, and four different district court judges from across the political spectrum have all ruled the orders unconstitutional on a variety of grounds — and that callous disregard for the foundations of our legal system corrodes those rights, particularly for the profession charged with safeguarding the law.
So color me unimpressed that the man who has directly benefitted from negotiating the deals is downplaying the harm they do to the rule of law.
“It always makes sense to try to resolve things,” Ballard said. “This administration wants to resolve things. They’re looking to address the issues that they’ve raised, but they’re not looking for battles. They’re looking for more friends than enemies.”
Sure, Jan.
But even more galling is how Ballard denigrates the firms that have stood up to fight the EOs aimed at them:
“Some of these law firms like the idea of having an enemy,” Ballard said of the firms that chose to fight Trump. “Either for business reasons or political reasons, that’s why they do it.”
In standing up to Trump, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey are carrying the baton for the legal profession. Most lawyers agree with the stance these firms have taken — 90% of respondents in a recent Above the Law survey said other firms should follow their lead. Perkins, Jenner, Wilmer, and Susman have an “enemy” in the president not for the cynical reasons Ballard outlines, but because they’re defending the constitution.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.
The post Guy Who Helped Orchestrate Some of Biglaw’s Pro Bono Payola Deals Offers Tone Deaf Defense Of Them appeared first on Above the Law.
