{"id":127638,"date":"2025-07-22T11:02:59","date_gmt":"2025-07-22T19:02:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/22\/biglaw-surrender-firms-hoping-trump-just-forgets-about-them\/"},"modified":"2025-07-22T11:02:59","modified_gmt":"2025-07-22T19:02:59","slug":"biglaw-surrender-firms-hoping-trump-just-forgets-about-them","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/22\/biglaw-surrender-firms-hoping-trump-just-forgets-about-them\/","title":{"rendered":"Biglaw Surrender Firms Hoping Trump Just Forgets About Them"},"content":{"rendered":"

Remember when nine major law firms bowed to Trump\u2019s demands<\/a>, agreeing to vaguely worded pro bono commitments to avoid retaliatory executive orders? Because they sure hope Trump doesn\u2019t!<\/p>\n

According to American Lawyer reporting<\/a>, seven of the nine have \u201cpledged to maintain independence in their pro bono practices\u201d per internal memos. Promising to do something would seem to do incredible violence to the word \u201cindependence.\u201d Do students \u201cindependently\u201d agreed to pay off their loans when they fulfill their end of a contractual agreement? The pro bono payola agreements seemed a little informal \u2014 most contracts aren\u2019t memorialized in all caps on a social media platform \u2014 but these internal memos are giving a lot of \u201canticipatory breach\u201d energy.<\/p>\n

\n

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\u2019ve done that counts toward their financial commitments. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

No kidding. While the firms have suffered defections \u2014 some very high profile<\/a> \u2014 over these deals, the slow drip of departures would become a rushing torrent if the firms went ahead and started defending police brutality cases\u2026 which the Trump administration has explicitly said they will be asked to do under the agreement<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But after all the fanfare surrounding these deals, why hasn\u2019t the administration called in its debts<\/em>?<\/p>\n

\n

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. \u201cNeither 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,\u201d Roiphe said.<\/p>\n

And just as firms don\u2019t want negative attention that could jeopardize their good standing with the administration, Roiphe added, Trump\u2019s win over firms could turn into a loss if the president presses for something firms can\u2019t or won\u2019t give, forcing them to fight him in court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This would make sense in normal times, but nothing about this is normal. These parties do not have equal bargaining positions. Trump already<\/em> proved that these firms will cave. They forfeited their bargaining position already. All that\u2019s left is him forgetting that he has the upper hand.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s 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<\/em> illegal. The firms didn\u2019t make these deals because they thought they\u2019d lose the court fight over the executive orders \u2014 at least not unless I\u2019m grossly overestimating their judgment as lawyers \u2014 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<\/a> and Trump is still appealing<\/a>. He doesn\u2019t care about taking repeated losses in court because he\u2019s exacting inconvenience and he can just turn those losses into more fuel for the \u201call the activist leftist Reagan judges are out to get me\u201d agitprop. <\/p>\n

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\u2019re dealing with an excitable dementia patient and expect him to move on to the next shiny object. Personally, I wouldn\u2019t bank a firm\u2019s liquidity on a toddler\u2019s promise to eat his veggies, but here we are.<\/p>\n

And, look, Trump can\u2019t even remember the people he appointed to the Federal Reserve<\/a>, so there\u2019s a decent case that he might forget about his law firm deals too. But I doubt Stephen Miller will. <\/p>\n

Though even if the White House never comes calling \u2014 though they will \u2014 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\u2019s radar. And it goes beyond the firms themselves, as pro bono work is taking a hit across Biglaw<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

Maybe they can help him with the Epstein list. Trump\u2019s not going to get far litigating against Rupert Murdoch without some big guns and it\u2019s not like he\u2019s actually going to pay<\/em> a firm to handle it.<\/p>\n

Despite Affirming Their Independence, Law Firm Leaders Remain Quiet on How They\u2019re Satisfying Trump Pro Bono Commitments<\/a> [American Lawyer]<\/p>\n

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

The post Biglaw Surrender Firms Hoping Trump Just Forgets About Them<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAfraid african woman isolated on gray background looking shy or terrified covering hiding her face with hands peeping through fingers is shocked by horror movie or frightened by what she saw concept\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Remember when nine major law firms bowed to Trump\u2019s demands<\/a>, agreeing to vaguely worded pro bono commitments to avoid retaliatory executive orders? Because they sure hope Trump doesn\u2019t!<\/p>\n

According to American Lawyer reporting<\/a>, seven of the nine have \u201cpledged to maintain independence in their pro bono practices\u201d per internal memos. Promising to do something would seem to do incredible violence to the word \u201cindependence.\u201d Do students \u201cindependently\u201d agreed to pay off their loans when they fulfill their end of a contractual agreement? The pro bono payola agreements seemed a little informal \u2014 most contracts aren\u2019t memorialized in all caps on a social media platform \u2014 but these internal memos are giving a lot of \u201canticipatory breach\u201d energy.<\/p>\n

\n

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\u2019ve done that counts toward their financial commitments. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

No kidding. While the firms have suffered defections \u2014 some very high profile<\/a> \u2014 over these deals, the slow drip of departures would become a rushing torrent if the firms went ahead and started defending police brutality cases\u2026 which the Trump administration has explicitly said they will be asked to do under the agreement<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But after all the fanfare surrounding these deals, why hasn\u2019t the administration called in its debts<\/em>?<\/p>\n

\n

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. \u201cNeither 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,\u201d Roiphe said.<\/p>\n

And just as firms don\u2019t want negative attention that could jeopardize their good standing with the administration, Roiphe added, Trump\u2019s win over firms could turn into a loss if the president presses for something firms can\u2019t or won\u2019t give, forcing them to fight him in court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This would make sense in normal times, but nothing about this is normal. These parties do not have equal bargaining positions. Trump already<\/em> proved that these firms will cave. They forfeited their bargaining position already. All that\u2019s left is him forgetting that he has the upper hand.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s 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<\/em> illegal. The firms didn\u2019t make these deals because they thought they\u2019d lose the court fight over the executive orders \u2014 at least not unless I\u2019m grossly overestimating their judgment as lawyers \u2014 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<\/a> and Trump is still appealing<\/a>. He doesn\u2019t care about taking repeated losses in court because he\u2019s exacting inconvenience and he can just turn those losses into more fuel for the \u201call the activist leftist Reagan judges are out to get me\u201d agitprop. <\/p>\n

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\u2019re dealing with an excitable dementia patient and expect him to move on to the next shiny object. Personally, I wouldn\u2019t bank a firm\u2019s liquidity on a toddler\u2019s promise to eat his veggies, but here we are.<\/p>\n

And, look, Trump can\u2019t even remember the people he appointed to the Federal Reserve<\/a>, so there\u2019s a decent case that he might forget about his law firm deals too. But I doubt Stephen Miller will. <\/p>\n

Though even if the White House never comes calling \u2014 though they will \u2014 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\u2019s radar. And it goes beyond the firms themselves, as pro bono work is taking a hit across Biglaw<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

Maybe they can help him with the Epstein list. Trump\u2019s not going to get far litigating against Rupert Murdoch without some big guns and it\u2019s not like he\u2019s actually going to pay<\/em> a firm to handle it.<\/p>\n

Despite Affirming Their Independence, Law Firm Leaders Remain Quiet on How They\u2019re Satisfying Trump Pro Bono Commitments<\/a> [American Lawyer]<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Biglaw Firms Surrendering To Trump Furiously Backpedaling: \u2018LOL, What Pro Bono Deals?\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Remember when nine major law firms bowed to Trump\u2019s demands, agreeing to vaguely worded pro bono commitments to avoid retaliatory executive orders? Because they sure hope Trump doesn\u2019t! According to American Lawyer reporting, seven of the nine have \u201cpledged to maintain independence in their pro bono practices\u201d per internal memos. Promising to do something would […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":127639,"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-127638","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\/07\/GettyImages-1227633099-scaled-1-O1vqJP.jpeg?fit=2560%2C1707&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127638","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=127638"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127638\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/127639"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}