{"id":120061,"date":"2025-05-22T16:03:07","date_gmt":"2025-05-23T00:03:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/05\/22\/trumps-biglaw-bootlickers-say-quiet-part-out-loud-in-letters-to-congress\/"},"modified":"2025-05-22T16:03:07","modified_gmt":"2025-05-23T00:03:07","slug":"trumps-biglaw-bootlickers-say-quiet-part-out-loud-in-letters-to-congress","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/05\/22\/trumps-biglaw-bootlickers-say-quiet-part-out-loud-in-letters-to-congress\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump\u2019s Biglaw Bootlickers Say Quiet Part Out Loud In Letters To Congress"},"content":{"rendered":"

In April, the nine Biglaw firms who settled with the Trump administration to the tune of a combined billion in pro bono payola received inquiries from legislators over the legal and ethical problems raised by the deals. Essentially, how can the firms remain adamant<\/em> that they did nothing to merit a retaliatory executive order \u2014 in the case of most firms, before any such order even existed \u2014 and claim that the deal is anything but an ethical compromise to illegal government extortion?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s one thing to settle \u201cwithout admitting or denying\u201d a violation, and it\u2019s another to bind firm operations to the government over violations that never even materialized. <\/p>\n

On May 6, the Bulwark reported(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a> on some of the firms\u2019 responses to inquiries from Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Jamie Raskin that more or less boiled down to \u201cLOL, what pro bono deals?(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a>\u201d and furiously backpedaling that they\u2019d given the administration anything at all. As they described it, they promised Trump nothing more than pro bono work they already planned to do and will not serve at the whim of the administration even if Trump publicly says that\u2019s the deal(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a> and issued an executive order explicitly deputizing the firms to work on police brutality defense(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a>. But the firms implied that they would simply not abide by such a request from the government.<\/p>\n

Yeah, let\u2019s see how that goes for you when you tell Trump you\u2019re not giving him what he bargained for(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a>. <\/p>\n

Another query, spearheaded by Rep. David Min and Rep. April McClain Delaney, also sought answers from the Orange Shoe firms(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a>, seeking more depth, specifically asking the firms to repudiate the deals on the grounds that such a deal:<\/p>\n

\n

(1) is unenforceable under contracts law; (2) would have enormous negative impacts on the legal system; (3) could potentially expose your firm and its attorneys to civil and criminal liability under state and federal law; and (4) creates potentially irresolvable violations of applicable Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to conflicts of interest and limiting an attorney\u2019s future practice of law<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Business Insider(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a> collected all nine May 8 responses(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a> to the Min and Delaney inquiry and while they largely reiterate the \u201cLOL, wut\u201d response previously reported, the letters offer a more comprehensive view of how these firms spin the unspinnable. Some are curt and insultingly dismissive of congressional inquiry. Others go into some detail with their \u201cnon-denial denials.\u201d And yet none actually, you know, answer the questions.<\/p>\n

When we say, \u201ccurt and insultingly dismissive,\u201d we mean a response like this one from Quinn Emanuel representing Milbank:<\/p>\n

\n

On April 2, 2025, Milbank\u2019s Chairman sent an internal email to firm personnel concerning the Agreement. That communication was picked up by the American Lawyer and continues to be available online. We respectfully refer you to that message\u2026\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

They told congressional representatives that they wouldn\u2019t answer their questions but they could go get an American Lawyer subscription and check out a reprinted email to staff. First of all, if it helps, we also reprinted the email at Above the Law(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a> and we aren\u2019t behind a paywall. You\u2019re welcome. Second, they told congresspeople that they weren\u2019t going to answer their specific questions and to look it up on Law.com<\/em>! Assuming for the sake of argument that the email directly addressed all of the questions posed \u2014 it doesn\u2019t \u2014 how hard is it to copy and paste? Does Quinn Emanuel charge so much by the hour that Milbank<\/em> can\u2019t afford to have the email turned into a letter?<\/p>\n

Simpson Thacher also referred the legislators to an email but had the common courtesy to at least attach a printout of the American Lawyer article. Though, again, why not just include the email? Presumably Simpson still has custody of their own email\u2026 why post an article about the email? Do they think it lends credibility to say, \u201cHey, here\u2019s an internal email that our lawyers are so fucking furious about that they leaked it to the press\u201d?<\/p>\n

Because it doesn\u2019t really.<\/p>\n

As an aside, the funniest part of Simpson using a printout of the American Lawyer story is that the last line is orphaned onto the next page, requiring them to include this\u2026<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Yeah, if you liked that response you definitely might like Donald Trump.<\/p>\n

Some (but pointedly not all) of the letters set the stage with a sob story about how they had no other choice but to agree to these deals. Paul Weiss, a rare firm among this cohort that actually HAD an executive order issued against it, stresses the \u201cexistential threat\u201d posed by Trump threatening the firm:<\/p>\n

\n

Because so many of the matters we handle on behalf of our clients, across practice areas, require productive interaction and engagement with the federal government\u2014and because many of our clients also value a productive relationship with the federal government and have significant commercial relationships with the federal government\u2014we immediately understood that the effects of the executive order would destroy the firm, even if we ultimately prevailed in court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Given that the firms who did NOT cave to the administration managed to quickly secure injunctive relief, it\u2019s worth asking if Paul Weiss properly assessed the litigation landscape here. It was a fast moving and complex situation to be sure. All I\u2019m saying is if you\u2019re a client and they\u2019re recommending that you settle to save the company, you might want a second opinion.<\/p>\n

To the extent other firms engaged in such preamble, the letters lacked detail beyond affirming that they were worried about their obligations to their employees and clients. For example, Simpson Thacher writes:<\/p>\n

\n

In any event, as Mr. Millard\u2019s email explains, in making the decision, the Firm\u2019s primary goal was to protect the best interests of the Firm, including our thousands of lawyers and business professionals, and our clients.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Maybe don\u2019t kick off by admitting that your \u201cprimary\u201d goal didn\u2019t include any ethical obligations. It can be in the \u201cbest interests\u201d of both the firm and its clients to rack up bills facilitating a Ponzi scheme but I wouldn\u2019t recommend it. At least Paul Weiss tried to flesh out the concern with concrete examples about being unable to conduct specific legal tasks if the order remained in effect. <\/p>\n

Whether the firms tried to paint themselves as victims of circumstance or not, they all more or less sidestepped the specific questions posed by claiming there\u2019s nothing to enforce \u2014 legally or ethically \u2014 anyway because Trump can\u2019t deputize them to work on whatever he wants.<\/p>\n

The deals with the firms involve slightly different administration asks, but mostly boil down to some form of anti-diversity pledge and a pro bono commitment. For Paul Weiss, the deal also included a specific \u201cviewpoint\u201d element:<\/p>\n

\n

The agreement reached on March 20, 2025 has three primary components: (1) reiterating our commitment to viewpoint diversity\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s not a thing. It\u2019s a racist rhetorical frame(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a> that conservative groups use to hijack the language and symbolism of the civil rights movement to demand preferential treatment for being bigots. \u201cViewpoint diversity\u201d borrows from Martin Luther King Jr admonition that people \u201cnot\u00a0be\u00a0judged\u00a0by the\u00a0color of their skin but by the content of their character\u201d and says \u201cactually, we don\u2019t want to be judged by the content of our character either.\u201d <\/p>\n

While not necessarily a function of their specific deals, some of the firms echoed this point. A&O Shearman described itself as, \u201ca Firm of excellence, opportunity, and inclusion, where persons of all backgrounds, characteristics, experiences, and viewpoints are given every opportunity to thrive\u201d managing to get viewpoints included in its new \u201cnot diversity, not equity, but sure maybe inclusion\u201d model. Kirkland affirmed that \u201cour lawyers span every belief, ideology, and viewpoint\u2026\u201d getting to the same sentiment without parroting the \u201cviewpoint diversity\u201d phrase.<\/p>\n

A&O Sherman describes another category of pro bono work specific to their deal:<\/p>\n

\n

ensuring fairness in our justice system\u2026 indeed, much of our lawyers\u2019 current and historical pro bono work centers on fairness in the justice system\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I don\u2019t want to get all \u201cmeeting of the minds\u201d here, but you guys realize that when the administration says \u201censuring fairness in our justice system\u201d they mean defending future January 6 rioters, right? They\u2019re not exactly hiding the ball on this one\u2026 it\u2019s the whole point of the police brutality executive order<\/em>! The administration asserted that police brutality charges are an unfair abuse of the justice system and that you all have to defend them pro bono.<\/p>\n

Even if the administration didn\u2019t make this clear, how does a law firm bind itself to a category of work as hopelessly vague as \u201censuring fairness in our justice system\u201d? <\/p>\n

The firms took different tacks when it came to the employment law ask. Paul Weiss writes that their deal involves:<\/p>\n

\n

committing to follow federal law with respect to our employment policies and practices\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Is that what you did, though? When, say, an SEC settlement includes a seemingly redundant \u201cyou agree not to be a criminal again\u201d clause, it\u2019s just to set up that the agency will come down even harder if the settling party screws up again. So was the firm agreeing to put itself in even worse shape if the EEOC comes calling again like with an SEC analog?<\/p>\n

Probably not. As Cadwalader\u2019s stab at this reads:<\/p>\n

\n

The commitment reaffirms our long standing dedication to merit-based hiring, retention and promotion practices that comply with anti-discrimination laws. The Firm has not and will not engage in illegal DEI discrimination or preferences.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s what\u2019s really going on here. It\u2019s not about committing to following employment laws, it\u2019s about committing to \u201cfollow what Stephen Miller thinks should be the<\/em> law.\u201d They might be trying to communicate that they \u201cwon\u2019t engage in diversity initiatives that are illegal\u201d but trust that the administration reads that as \u201cwon\u2019t engage in DEI\u2026 which we have decided by executive order is illegal\u201d \u2014 a paucity fo textual or judicial support for that conclusion be damned.<\/p>\n

Which is what makes these deals an assault upon the rule of law. The settling law firms are building a case for the administration that discrimination law means what it alone<\/em> says it means because, look, all these sophisticated legal entities willingly<\/em> agreed with our interpretation. <\/p>\n

When the Supreme Court overruled Chevron<\/em> and took away the deference afforded to executive agencies when interpreting statutes, not many expected the executive endrun around the problem to be \u201cissue illegal retaliatory orders so extreme that businesses don\u2019t go to court to challenge our interpretation.\u201d <\/p>\n

Points for creativity!<\/p>\n

Finally, all the firms fall back to the logical pretzel that their pro bono work is limited to non-controversial charitable issues that, they claim, they were going to perform anyway. Paul Weiss explains: <\/p>\n

\n

the agreement does not (and could not) permit the Administration to determine what matters we take on.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It does, though. Even if the firm refuses the administration\u2019s demand that it devote its pro bono time to defending law enforcement \u2014 per the executive order \u2014 or negotiate tariff deals, it already lets the administration determine what matters it takes on because it picks three areas and puts a dollar amount on them. The firm cannot now change its mix of pro bono work to fall below that limit, meaning that unless they\u2019re cutting billable work \u2014 HA \u2014 they have committed to cut other pro bono projects if they ever have to choose. That might sound a little \u201cfertile octogenarian(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a>,\u201d but don\u2019t suggest the deal did anything but give the administration the power to determine where pro bono money goes in the event of a conflict.<\/p>\n

Skadden\u2019s letter provides a breath of honesty on this point by admitting that, yes, they absolutely gave the administration power over what representations they take on:<\/p>\n

\n

Skadden will fund no fewer than five Skadden Fellows each year dedicated to the following projects: assisting veterans; ensuring fairness in our justice system; combatting antisemitism; and other similar types of projects.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

If you believe viewpoint diversity is a real thing, this is more of a quota-based diversity policy than any real DEI initiative. In the zero-sum world of Skadden Fellowships, some projects will lose out to make sure Skadden meets its 5 Trump Fellow quota. Of course, Skadden ducks behind the caveat that this isn\u2019t ordering any specific<\/em> representation, but that\u2019s semantic.<\/p>\n

Beyond constraining their freedom in pro bono work, the deals have implications for paying work too that the letters naively refuse to address. <\/p>\n

Willkie writes, \u201cNothing about the agreement\u2026 limits Wilkie\u2019s right to control the client engagements that it accepts.\u201d Latham claims that the firm, \u201ccontinues to maintain its complete independence as to the clients and matters the firm takes on, whether in our pro bono or commercial engagements.\u201d Kirkland says it \u201cwill determine which matters we take on\u2014both pro bono and otherwise\u2014consistent with our non-partisan mindset.\u201d A&O Shearman indicated \u201cthe Firm fully intends to continue its longstanding and extensive practice of zealously representing clients who find themselves adverse to the federal government, in both paying and pro bono matters.\u201d<\/p>\n

HEY, GUYS! This all started with the administration attacking Covington because it represents former special counsel Jack Smith(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a>. In signing the order, Trump said \u201cWe\u2019re going to call it the deranged Jack Smith signing or bill.\u201d Representing clients \u201cadverse to the federal government\u201d is the precise situation that the administration has PUBLICLY ADMITTED will result in retaliation.<\/p>\n

As for the legal and ethical implications of the deals, to the extent the firms acknowledge them at all, the treatment is perfunctory. O\u2019Melveny\u2019s letter on behalf of Willkie writes:<\/p>\n

\n

We also wish to allay your concern in the Letter that our client\u2019s agreement with the Administration could somehow expose the Firm to criminal liability or violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. To be clear, there is nothing about the agreement that could plausibly subject the Firm or its attorneys to criminal liability, including\u2014but certainly not limited to\u2014under the series of criminal statutes cited by the Letter.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

How did we not violate the cited rules and statutes? Oh, because \u201cto be clear\u201d we don\u2019t think we did. We hope this allayed your concerns!<\/em> You might think this is a flippant account of the letter, but that\u2019s actually the end of the discussion. There is no effort at all to apply their account of the deal to the professional or legal requirements.<\/p>\n

Simpson Thacher\u2019s handling of the question proved even more blunt:<\/p>\n

\n

Your suggestion that the Firm may have violated federal law, state law, and rules of professional conduct in entering into the agreements is wholly without merit.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

One of the most important practice points to internalize as a litigator is that adverbs imply weakness. If you don\u2019t think the reader can be swayed by \u201cis without merit\u201d and need to answer \u201cwholly\u201d or \u201cunquestionably\u201d or \u201cdecidedly,\u201d you\u2019re just telling on yourself.<\/p>\n

Bringing us all the way back to the very first question raised by the congressional letters: are these deals enforceable contracts? Because quibbling over the extent of their commitments and making conclusory assertions about the legal and ethical issues all cease to matter\u2026 if there just isn\u2019t any reason for the firms to honor the agreements in the first place.<\/p>\n

The closest anyone comes to grappling with this explicit question is A&O Shearman. Its response is\u2026 wild.<\/p>\n

\n

The complete terms of the Agreement are as set forth in the four numbered paragraphs of the President\u2019s April ll, 2025 social media post.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Some of the most powerful law firms in the world agreed to be bound BY A SOCIAL MEDIA POST. Allow your lawyerly brains to wrap themselves around that concept and then scream into the void. Client relationships, attorney independence, compliance with discrimination laws as written\u2026 all placed in varying degrees of compromise over an agreement memorialized by social media.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s the whole thing. All of these firms, struggling to justify their decisions to surrender in the face of an abusive, illegal extortion effort manufactured from the White House, can\u2019t manage to square the fundamental contradiction within their mealy mouthed excuse. Either the deal is an open-ended pinky swear to do whatever Trump asks to avoid further retaliation or it\u2019s not a deal at all. To the extent some of these firms try to characterize the scope of their deals as passably legitimate, they\u2019re all just inserting vibes. The actual \u201cagreements,\u201d such as they are, don\u2019t have all these limitations \u2014 which we know because one side of this meeting of the minds can\u2019t stop going out and publicly contradicting the spin these firms keep putting in their letters to legislators.<\/p>\n

More simply, the takeaway from these letters is that firms are trying but they cannot<\/em> have it both ways: they cannot say, \u201coh, but our agreement was clearly limited to these explicit line items\u201d and \u201cwe kind of let a brain mush kleptocrat bind us with a late night shitpost.\u201d<\/p>\n

(Check out all the letters on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Big Law firms double down on their Trump deals in letters to Congress(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a> [Business Insider]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Biglaw Firms Surrendering To Trump Furiously Backpedaling: \u2018LOL, What Pro Bono Deals?\u2019(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search(Opens in a new window)<\/span><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Trump\u2019s Biglaw Bootlickers Say Quiet Part Out Loud In Letters To Congress<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Photo by DON EMMERT\/AFP via Getty Images)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In April, the nine Biglaw firms who settled with the Trump administration to the tune of a combined billion in pro bono payola received inquiries from legislators over the legal and ethical problems raised by the deals. Essentially, how can the firms remain adamant<\/em> that they did nothing to merit a retaliatory executive order \u2014 in the case of most firms, before any such order even existed \u2014 and claim that the deal is anything but an ethical compromise to illegal government extortion?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s one thing to settle \u201cwithout admitting or denying\u201d a violation, and it\u2019s another to bind firm operations to the government over violations that never even materialized. <\/p>\n

On May 6, the Bulwark reported(Opens in a new window)<\/a> on some of the firms\u2019 responses to inquiries from Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Jamie Raskin that more or less boiled down to \u201cLOL, what pro bono deals?(Opens in a new window)<\/a>\u201d and furiously backpedaling that they\u2019d given the administration anything at all. As they described it, they promised Trump nothing more than pro bono work they already planned to do and will not serve at the whim of the administration even if Trump publicly says that\u2019s the deal(Opens in a new window)<\/a> and issued an executive order explicitly deputizing the firms to work on police brutality defense(Opens in a new window)<\/a>. But the firms implied that they would simply not abide by such a request from the government.<\/p>\n

Yeah, let\u2019s see how that goes for you when you tell Trump you\u2019re not giving him what he bargained for(Opens in a new window)<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Another query, spearheaded by Rep. David Min and Rep. April McClain Delaney, also sought answers from the Orange Shoe firms(Opens in a new window)<\/a>, seeking more depth, specifically asking the firms to repudiate the deals on the grounds that such a deal:<\/p>\n

\n

(1) is unenforceable under contracts law; (2) would have enormous negative impacts on the legal system; (3) could potentially expose your firm and its attorneys to civil and criminal liability under state and federal law; and (4) creates potentially irresolvable violations of applicable Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to conflicts of interest and limiting an attorney\u2019s future practice of law<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Business Insider(Opens in a new window)<\/a> collected all nine May 8 responses(Opens in a new window)<\/a> to the Min and Delaney inquiry and while they largely reiterate the \u201cLOL, wut\u201d response previously reported, the letters offer a more comprehensive view of how these firms spin the unspinnable. Some are curt and insultingly dismissive of congressional inquiry. Others go into some detail with their \u201cnon-denial denials.\u201d And yet none actually, you know, answer the questions.<\/p>\n

When we say, \u201ccurt and insultingly dismissive,\u201d we mean a response like this one from Quinn Emanuel representing Milbank:<\/p>\n

\n

On April 2, 2025, Milbank\u2019s Chairman sent an internal email to firm personnel concerning the Agreement. That communication was picked up by the American Lawyer and continues to be available online. We respectfully refer you to that message\u2026\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

They told congressional representatives that they wouldn\u2019t answer their questions but they could go get an American Lawyer subscription and check out a reprinted email to staff. First of all, if it helps, we also reprinted the email at Above the Law(Opens in a new window)<\/a> and we aren\u2019t behind a paywall. You\u2019re welcome. Second, they told congresspeople that they weren\u2019t going to answer their specific questions and to look it up on Law.com<\/em>! Assuming for the sake of argument that the email directly addressed all of the questions posed \u2014 it doesn\u2019t \u2014 how hard is it to copy and paste? Does Quinn Emanuel charge so much by the hour that Milbank<\/em> can\u2019t afford to have the email turned into a letter?<\/p>\n

Simpson Thacher also referred the legislators to an email but had the common courtesy to at least attach a printout of the American Lawyer article. Though, again, why not just include the email? Presumably Simpson still has custody of their own email\u2026 why post an article about the email? Do they think it lends credibility to say, \u201cHey, here\u2019s an internal email that our lawyers are so fucking furious about that they leaked it to the press\u201d?<\/p>\n

Because it doesn\u2019t really.<\/p>\n

As an aside, the funniest part of Simpson using a printout of the American Lawyer story is that the last line is orphaned onto the next page, requiring them to include this\u2026<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Yeah, if you liked that response you definitely might like Donald Trump.<\/p>\n

Some (but pointedly not all) of the letters set the stage with a sob story about how they had no other choice but to agree to these deals. Paul Weiss, a rare firm among this cohort that actually HAD an executive order issued against it, stresses the \u201cexistential threat\u201d posed by Trump threatening the firm:<\/p>\n

\n

Because so many of the matters we handle on behalf of our clients, across practice areas, require productive interaction and engagement with the federal government\u2014and because many of our clients also value a productive relationship with the federal government and have significant commercial relationships with the federal government\u2014we immediately understood that the effects of the executive order would destroy the firm, even if we ultimately prevailed in court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Given that the firms who did NOT cave to the administration managed to quickly secure injunctive relief, it\u2019s worth asking if Paul Weiss properly assessed the litigation landscape here. It was a fast moving and complex situation to be sure. All I\u2019m saying is if you\u2019re a client and they\u2019re recommending that you settle to save the company, you might want a second opinion.<\/p>\n

To the extent other firms engaged in such preamble, the letters lacked detail beyond affirming that they were worried about their obligations to their employees and clients. For example, Simpson Thacher writes:<\/p>\n

\n

In any event, as Mr. Millard\u2019s email explains, in making the decision, the Firm\u2019s primary goal was to protect the best interests of the Firm, including our thousands of lawyers and business professionals, and our clients.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Maybe don\u2019t kick off by admitting that your \u201cprimary\u201d goal didn\u2019t include any ethical obligations. It can be in the \u201cbest interests\u201d of both the firm and its clients to rack up bills facilitating a Ponzi scheme but I wouldn\u2019t recommend it. At least Paul Weiss tried to flesh out the concern with concrete examples about being unable to conduct specific legal tasks if the order remained in effect. <\/p>\n

Whether the firms tried to paint themselves as victims of circumstance or not, they all more or less sidestepped the specific questions posed by claiming there\u2019s nothing to enforce \u2014 legally or ethically \u2014 anyway because Trump can\u2019t deputize them to work on whatever he wants.<\/p>\n

The deals with the firms involve slightly different administration asks, but mostly boil down to some form of anti-diversity pledge and a pro bono commitment. For Paul Weiss, the deal also included a specific \u201cviewpoint\u201d element:<\/p>\n

\n

The agreement reached on March 20, 2025 has three primary components: (1) reiterating our commitment to viewpoint diversity\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s not a thing. It\u2019s a racist rhetorical frame(Opens in a new window)<\/a> that conservative groups use to hijack the language and symbolism of the civil rights movement to demand preferential treatment for being bigots. \u201cViewpoint diversity\u201d borrows from Martin Luther King Jr admonition that people \u201cnot\u00a0be\u00a0judged\u00a0by the\u00a0color of their skin but by the content of their character\u201d and says \u201cactually, we don\u2019t want to be judged by the content of our character either.\u201d <\/p>\n

While not necessarily a function of their specific deals, some of the firms echoed this point. A&O Shearman described itself as, \u201ca Firm of excellence, opportunity, and inclusion, where persons of all backgrounds, characteristics, experiences, and viewpoints are given every opportunity to thrive\u201d managing to get viewpoints included in its new \u201cnot diversity, not equity, but sure maybe inclusion\u201d model. Kirkland affirmed that \u201cour lawyers span every belief, ideology, and viewpoint\u2026\u201d getting to the same sentiment without parroting the \u201cviewpoint diversity\u201d phrase.<\/p>\n

A&O Sherman describes another category of pro bono work specific to their deal:<\/p>\n

\n

ensuring fairness in our justice system\u2026 indeed, much of our lawyers\u2019 current and historical pro bono work centers on fairness in the justice system\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I don\u2019t want to get all \u201cmeeting of the minds\u201d here, but you guys realize that when the administration says \u201censuring fairness in our justice system\u201d they mean defending future January 6 rioters, right? They\u2019re not exactly hiding the ball on this one\u2026 it\u2019s the whole point of the police brutality executive order<\/em>! The administration asserted that police brutality charges are an unfair abuse of the justice system and that you all have to defend them pro bono.<\/p>\n

Even if the administration didn\u2019t make this clear, how does a law firm bind itself to a category of work as hopelessly vague as \u201censuring fairness in our justice system\u201d? <\/p>\n

The firms took different tacks when it came to the employment law ask. Paul Weiss writes that their deal involves:<\/p>\n

\n

committing to follow federal law with respect to our employment policies and practices\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Is that what you did, though? When, say, an SEC settlement includes a seemingly redundant \u201cyou agree not to be a criminal again\u201d clause, it\u2019s just to set up that the agency will come down even harder if the settling party screws up again. So was the firm agreeing to put itself in even worse shape if the EEOC comes calling again like with an SEC analog?<\/p>\n

Probably not. As Cadwalader\u2019s stab at this reads:<\/p>\n

\n

The commitment reaffirms our long standing dedication to merit-based hiring, retention and promotion practices that comply with anti-discrimination laws. The Firm has not and will not engage in illegal DEI discrimination or preferences.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s what\u2019s really going on here. It\u2019s not about committing to following employment laws, it\u2019s about committing to \u201cfollow what Stephen Miller thinks should be the<\/em> law.\u201d They might be trying to communicate that they \u201cwon\u2019t engage in diversity initiatives that are illegal\u201d but trust that the administration reads that as \u201cwon\u2019t engage in DEI\u2026 which we have decided by executive order is illegal\u201d \u2014 a paucity fo textual or judicial support for that conclusion be damned.<\/p>\n

Which is what makes these deals an assault upon the rule of law. The settling law firms are building a case for the administration that discrimination law means what it alone<\/em> says it means because, look, all these sophisticated legal entities willingly<\/em> agreed with our interpretation. <\/p>\n

When the Supreme Court overruled Chevron<\/em> and took away the deference afforded to executive agencies when interpreting statutes, not many expected the executive endrun around the problem to be \u201cissue illegal retaliatory orders so extreme that businesses don\u2019t go to court to challenge our interpretation.\u201d <\/p>\n

Points for creativity!<\/p>\n

Finally, all the firms fall back to the logical pretzel that their pro bono work is limited to non-controversial charitable issues that, they claim, they were going to perform anyway. Paul Weiss explains: <\/p>\n

\n

the agreement does not (and could not) permit the Administration to determine what matters we take on.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It does, though. Even if the firm refuses the administration\u2019s demand that it devote its pro bono time to defending law enforcement \u2014 per the executive order \u2014 or negotiate tariff deals, it already lets the administration determine what matters it takes on because it picks three areas and puts a dollar amount on them. The firm cannot now change its mix of pro bono work to fall below that limit, meaning that unless they\u2019re cutting billable work \u2014 HA \u2014 they have committed to cut other pro bono projects if they ever have to choose. That might sound a little \u201cfertile octogenarian(Opens in a new window)<\/a>,\u201d but don\u2019t suggest the deal did anything but give the administration the power to determine where pro bono money goes in the event of a conflict.<\/p>\n

Skadden\u2019s letter provides a breath of honesty on this point by admitting that, yes, they absolutely gave the administration power over what representations they take on:<\/p>\n

\n

Skadden will fund no fewer than five Skadden Fellows each year dedicated to the following projects: assisting veterans; ensuring fairness in our justice system; combatting antisemitism; and other similar types of projects.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

If you believe viewpoint diversity is a real thing, this is more of a quota-based diversity policy than any real DEI initiative. In the zero-sum world of Skadden Fellowships, some projects will lose out to make sure Skadden meets its 5 Trump Fellow quota. Of course, Skadden ducks behind the caveat that this isn\u2019t ordering any specific<\/em> representation, but that\u2019s semantic.<\/p>\n

Beyond constraining their freedom in pro bono work, the deals have implications for paying work too that the letters naively refuse to address. <\/p>\n

Willkie writes, \u201cNothing about the agreement\u2026 limits Wilkie\u2019s right to control the client engagements that it accepts.\u201d Latham claims that the firm, \u201ccontinues to maintain its complete independence as to the clients and matters the firm takes on, whether in our pro bono or commercial engagements.\u201d Kirkland says it \u201cwill determine which matters we take on\u2014both pro bono and otherwise\u2014consistent with our non-partisan mindset.\u201d A&O Shearman indicated \u201cthe Firm fully intends to continue its longstanding and extensive practice of zealously representing clients who find themselves adverse to the federal government, in both paying and pro bono matters.\u201d<\/p>\n

HEY, GUYS! This all started with the administration attacking Covington because it represents former special counsel Jack Smith(Opens in a new window)<\/a>. In signing the order, Trump said \u201cWe\u2019re going to call it the deranged Jack Smith signing or bill.\u201d Representing clients \u201cadverse to the federal government\u201d is the precise situation that the administration has PUBLICLY ADMITTED will result in retaliation.<\/p>\n

As for the legal and ethical implications of the deals, to the extent the firms acknowledge them at all, the treatment is perfunctory. O\u2019Melveny\u2019s letter on behalf of Willkie writes:<\/p>\n

\n

We also wish to allay your concern in the Letter that our client\u2019s agreement with the Administration could somehow expose the Firm to criminal liability or violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. To be clear, there is nothing about the agreement that could plausibly subject the Firm or its attorneys to criminal liability, including\u2014but certainly not limited to\u2014under the series of criminal statutes cited by the Letter.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

How did we not violate the cited rules and statutes? Oh, because \u201cto be clear\u201d we don\u2019t think we did. We hope this allayed your concerns!<\/em> You might think this is a flippant account of the letter, but that\u2019s actually the end of the discussion. There is no effort at all to apply their account of the deal to the professional or legal requirements.<\/p>\n

Simpson Thacher\u2019s handling of the question proved even more blunt:<\/p>\n

\n

Your suggestion that the Firm may have violated federal law, state law, and rules of professional conduct in entering into the agreements is wholly without merit.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

One of the most important practice points to internalize as a litigator is that adverbs imply weakness. If you don\u2019t think the reader can be swayed by \u201cis without merit\u201d and need to answer \u201cwholly\u201d or \u201cunquestionably\u201d or \u201cdecidedly,\u201d you\u2019re just telling on yourself.<\/p>\n

Bringing us all the way back to the very first question raised by the congressional letters: are these deals enforceable contracts? Because quibbling over the extent of their commitments and making conclusory assertions about the legal and ethical issues all cease to matter\u2026 if there just isn\u2019t any reason for the firms to honor the agreements in the first place.<\/p>\n

The closest anyone comes to grappling with this explicit question is A&O Shearman. Its response is\u2026 wild.<\/p>\n

\n

The complete terms of the Agreement are as set forth in the four numbered paragraphs of the President\u2019s April ll, 2025 social media post.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Some of the most powerful law firms in the world agreed to be bound BY A SOCIAL MEDIA POST. Allow your lawyerly brains to wrap themselves around that concept and then scream into the void. Client relationships, attorney independence, compliance with discrimination laws as written\u2026 all placed in varying degrees of compromise over an agreement memorialized by social media.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s the whole thing. All of these firms, struggling to justify their decisions to surrender in the face of an abusive, illegal extortion effort manufactured from the White House, can\u2019t manage to square the fundamental contradiction within their mealy mouthed excuse. Either the deal is an open-ended pinky swear to do whatever Trump asks to avoid further retaliation or it\u2019s not a deal at all. To the extent some of these firms try to characterize the scope of their deals as passably legitimate, they\u2019re all just inserting vibes. The actual \u201cagreements,\u201d such as they are, don\u2019t have all these limitations \u2014 which we know because one side of this meeting of the minds can\u2019t stop going out and publicly contradicting the spin these firms keep putting in their letters to legislators.<\/p>\n

More simply, the takeaway from these letters is that firms are trying but they cannot<\/em> have it both ways: they cannot say, \u201coh, but our agreement was clearly limited to these explicit line items\u201d and \u201cwe kind of let a brain mush kleptocrat bind us with a late night shitpost.\u201d<\/p>\n

(Check out all the letters on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Big Law firms double down on their Trump deals in letters to Congress(Opens in a new window)<\/a> [Business Insider]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Biglaw Firms Surrendering To Trump Furiously Backpedaling: \u2018LOL, What Pro Bono Deals?\u2019(Opens in a new window)<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice(Opens in a new window)<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer(Opens in a new window)<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter(Opens in a new window)<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky(Opens in a new window)<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search(Opens in a new window)<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong> 2<\/a>Next \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In April, the nine Biglaw firms who settled with the Trump administration to the tune of a combined billion in pro bono payola received inquiries from legislators over the legal and ethical problems raised by the deals. Essentially, how can the firms remain adamant that they did nothing to merit a retaliatory executive order \u2014 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":120022,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120061","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Headshot-300x200-ly9eOC.jpeg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120061","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120061"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120061\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/120022"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120061"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120061"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120061"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}