{"id":166781,"date":"2026-11-04T16:52:06","date_gmt":"2026-11-05T00:52:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/11\/04\/biglaw-firms-that-surrendered-to-trump-should-get-ready-for-the-congressional-probes\/"},"modified":"2026-11-04T16:52:06","modified_gmt":"2026-11-05T00:52:06","slug":"biglaw-firms-that-surrendered-to-trump-should-get-ready-for-the-congressional-probes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/11\/04\/biglaw-firms-that-surrendered-to-trump-should-get-ready-for-the-congressional-probes\/","title":{"rendered":"Biglaw Firms That Surrendered To Trump Should Get Ready For The Congressional Probes"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last year, nine of the biggest law firms in the country sold out their principles and dignity to promise Donald Trump free legal services for his pet causes. All in all, the firms pledged $940 million in pro bono services<\/a> and while the firms swear that they maintain final say on exactly which<\/em> matters they\u2019ll take, the agreements laid out Trump-approved categories of work. More than any affirmative work for Trump\u2019s buddies, the firms largely removed<\/em> themselves<\/a> from charitable work that might displease Dear Leader. And arguably, the pro bono commitments weren\u2019t as damaging as the chill it sent to other firms to follow suit and abandon critical pro bono causes<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A&O Shearman, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Milbank, Paul Weiss, Simpson Thacher, Skadden, and Willkie all signed deals. Cadwalader did too, and who knows what happens to that pledge now that they\u2019ve merged with Hogan Lovells. And don\u2019t forget Sullivan & Cromwell, a firm that did not make a deal, but reportedly acted as the architect of the whole scheme<\/a>. Remember these firms.<\/p>\n

All of those firms boast congressional investigations practices. Now they\u2019ll get to learn a little about the client experience!<\/p>\n

Last night, Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress<\/a>, though really \u201ctook control\u201d undersells it. The Democrats shellacked Republicans, picking up massive wins all over the country. At this moment, Mississippi\u2019s senate race is still too close to call. MISSISSIPPI!<\/p>\n

And with control of Congress, Democrats have explicitly pledged to use their new \u201csubpoena power and agenda-setting authority.\u201d<\/a> As they say on the internet, \u201cthe dildo of consequence rarely arrives lubed.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Orange Shoe firms<\/a> justified their deals out of pragmatism. Milbank chair Scott Edelman described the deal as avoiding \u201cunnecessary confrontation,\u201d which was true in the same way drinking neon Kool-Aid avoids an \u201cunnecessary confrontation\u201d with the cult leader. Trump fired off some half-baked executive orders purporting to punish large law firms. The threat was undeniably real, but it was also entirely illegal. Four other firms targeted by this tactic \u2014 Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey \u2014 decided to take Trump to court where they\u2019ve won permanent injunctions from four separate district judges<\/a>. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s almost as though \u201clawyers\u201d standing up for the \u201crule of law\u201d could successfully defeat an extortionist threat.<\/p>\n

The firms did get fair warning that these deals could land their leaders in witness chairs. In April 2025, 16 House Democrats led by Reps. Dave Min and April McClain Delaney wrote all nine firms<\/a> suggesting the deals might implicate bribery and extortion laws, calling them \u201ca clear mistake,\u201d and asking the firms to disavow them. The firms did the math on a minority party\u2019s prospects at the time and decided to blow them off with a series of lackluster responses<\/a>.<\/p>\n

On October 15, Ranking Members Jamie Raskin and Richard Blumenthal, joined by Sen. Adam Schiff, sent their sixth letter to Kirkland & Ellis chairman Jon Ballis<\/a> seeking answers. According to the lawmakers, Kirkland has so far produced no responsive documents<\/a> and has refused to meet with congressional staff. That\u2019s a calculation a firm could make when Raskin and Blumenthal were mere ranking members. When they have gavels in a couple months, it\u2019s a different story.<\/p>\n

Kirkland responded to the initial inquiry with \u201cYour letter raises several legal and ethical concerns regarding the agreement. We are comfortable that the agreement does not run afoul of the issues you raise in your letter.\u201d Unsatisfied with this naked assertion of \u201ctrust us,\u201d Democrats have continued to press for any basis Kirkland has for this claim. In a May 28 response, Kirkland\u2019s Neil Eggleston threw all the privilege-spaghetti \u2014 privilghetti, if you will \u2014 against the wall to see what sticks. Attorney-client privilege, work product, settlement privilege, executive privilege, deliberative process privilege\u2026 whatever might get the firm out of answering questions. Some of these aren\u2019t even privileges Kirkland can<\/em> assert, they\u2019re just suggesting they can preemptively assert a privilege on behalf of the government.<\/p>\n

Katie Phang summed up the differing obfuscatory strategies of the firms<\/a>: Kirkland \u201chides behind privilege, while Skadden hides behind a form letter.\u201d Skadden advised Intel on the tech giant\u2019s decision to hand Commerce a roughly 10 percent equity stake<\/a> while simultaneously doing free legal work for Commerce. Lawmakers called that \u201cmanifestly corrupt\u201d and called the firm\u2019s responses to that claim \u201cvague and cursory.\u201d Skadden\u2019s outside counsel, Richard Sauber, replied that the firm\u2019s decisions meet the \u201chighest ethical standards of the bar,\u201d which is more of a tagline than an answer. Intel shareholders are suing in Delaware over this. Paul Weiss, meanwhile, restored its Center to Combat Hate page<\/a> (minus its January 6 lawsuit against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers), though internal messages obtained by the New York Times<\/em> revealed the firm considered seeking Stephen Miller\u2019s approval of the website<\/a>. A spokeswoman speaking to the Times<\/em> called the idea that the firm\u2019s independence was compromised \u201ccompletely false.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sure, Jan<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Her name was actually Laura, but the point remains.<\/p>\n

A congressional gavel is not a magic wand though. Actually enforcing a congressional subpoena requires either criminal contempt referrals to the Justice Department \u2014 this<\/em> Justice Department \u2014 or potentially glacially slow civil litigation. And these Biglaw cowards might not land on the top of the investigation docket. Bloomberg Law News notes the law firm probe will compete for committee attention with immigration enforcement abuses, Justice Department misconduct, and funding for the White House ballroom.<\/p>\n

So much corruption, so little time.<\/p>\n

But the risk of a firm chair or other senior partner sitting at a witness table, on C-SPAN, explaining why a bunch of supposed lawyers decided to do Howard Lutnick\u2019s paperwork for free rather than call bullshit on an illegal threat remains. The comedy potential of those clips living forever on the internet should give firm leadership nightmares. This is a confrontation that would have been totally unnecessary if the firms stood up for themselves in the moment. The uncomfortable moment just got rescheduled.<\/p>\n

These firms sell professional judgment, but they looked at a president two months into his term and priced in four years of total control. Fast forward a bit and those minority letters they functionally blew off are about to become a majority subpoenas. <\/p>\n

Washington firms have reportedly already started staffing up to help clients navigate the congressional scrutiny arriving in January. The good news for Biglaw is that it\u2019s about to bill handsomely as Trump\u2019s enablers find themselves called to answer for themselves in front of Congress.<\/p>\n

And some of those clients will probably be Biglaw firms themselves.<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Trump\u2019s Biglaw Bootlickers Say Quiet Part Out Loud In Letters To Congress<\/a>
Biglaw Firms That Cut Deals With Trump Are AWOL As Midterm Election Fights Heat Up<\/a>
Paul Weiss & Kirkland Doing Free Trump Commerce Department Work As Part Of \u2018Please Don\u2019t Hurt Us, Daddy\u2019 Deals<\/a>
Skadden Said Its Trump Deal Raised No Ethical Issues. Intel\u2019s Shareholders Disagree.<\/a>
Did Paul Weiss Partners Seriously Debate Running The Firm\u2019s Business Past Stephen Miller?<\/a>
Paul Weiss Betrayed Its Own Values When Capitulating To Trump<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

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

The post Biglaw Firms That Surrendered To Trump Should Get Ready For The Congressional Probes<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPhotographer: Julia Nikhinson\/Bloomberg\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Last year, nine of the biggest law firms in the country sold out their principles and dignity to promise Donald Trump free legal services for his pet causes. All in all, the firms pledged $940 million in pro bono services<\/a> and while the firms swear that they maintain final say on exactly which<\/em> matters they\u2019ll take, the agreements laid out Trump-approved categories of work. More than any affirmative work for Trump\u2019s buddies, the firms largely removed<\/em> themselves<\/a> from charitable work that might displease Dear Leader. And arguably, the pro bono commitments weren\u2019t as damaging as the chill it sent to other firms to follow suit and abandon critical pro bono causes<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A&O Shearman, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Milbank, Paul Weiss, Simpson Thacher, Skadden, and Willkie all signed deals. Cadwalader did too, and who knows what happens to that pledge now that they\u2019ve merged with Hogan Lovells. And don\u2019t forget Sullivan & Cromwell, a firm that did not make a deal, but reportedly acted as the architect of the whole scheme<\/a>. Remember these firms.<\/p>\n

All of those firms boast congressional investigations practices. Now they\u2019ll get to learn a little about the client experience!<\/p>\n

Last night, Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress<\/a>, though really \u201ctook control\u201d undersells it. The Democrats shellacked Republicans, picking up massive wins all over the country. At this moment, Mississippi\u2019s senate race is still too close to call. MISSISSIPPI!<\/p>\n

And with control of Congress, Democrats have explicitly pledged to use their new \u201csubpoena power and agenda-setting authority.\u201d<\/a> As they say on the internet, \u201cthe dildo of consequence rarely arrives lubed.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Orange Shoe firms<\/a> justified their deals out of pragmatism. Milbank chair Scott Edelman described the deal as avoiding \u201cunnecessary confrontation,\u201d which was true in the same way drinking neon Kool-Aid avoids an \u201cunnecessary confrontation\u201d with the cult leader. Trump fired off some half-baked executive orders purporting to punish large law firms. The threat was undeniably real, but it was also entirely illegal. Four other firms targeted by this tactic \u2014 Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey \u2014 decided to take Trump to court where they\u2019ve won permanent injunctions from four separate district judges<\/a>. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s almost as though \u201clawyers\u201d standing up for the \u201crule of law\u201d could successfully defeat an extortionist threat.<\/p>\n

The firms did get fair warning that these deals could land their leaders in witness chairs. In April 2025, 16 House Democrats led by Reps. Dave Min and April McClain Delaney wrote all nine firms<\/a> suggesting the deals might implicate bribery and extortion laws, calling them \u201ca clear mistake,\u201d and asking the firms to disavow them. The firms did the math on a minority party\u2019s prospects at the time and decided to blow them off with a series of lackluster responses<\/a>.<\/p>\n

On October 15, Ranking Members Jamie Raskin and Richard Blumenthal, joined by Sen. Adam Schiff, sent their sixth letter to Kirkland & Ellis chairman Jon Ballis<\/a> seeking answers. According to the lawmakers, Kirkland has so far produced no responsive documents<\/a> and has refused to meet with congressional staff. That\u2019s a calculation a firm could make when Raskin and Blumenthal were mere ranking members. When they have gavels in a couple months, it\u2019s a different story.<\/p>\n

Kirkland responded to the initial inquiry with \u201cYour letter raises several legal and ethical concerns regarding the agreement. We are comfortable that the agreement does not run afoul of the issues you raise in your letter.\u201d Unsatisfied with this naked assertion of \u201ctrust us,\u201d Democrats have continued to press for any basis Kirkland has for this claim. In a May 28 response, Kirkland\u2019s Neil Eggleston threw all the privilege-spaghetti \u2014 privilghetti, if you will \u2014 against the wall to see what sticks. Attorney-client privilege, work product, settlement privilege, executive privilege, deliberative process privilege\u2026 whatever might get the firm out of answering questions. Some of these aren\u2019t even privileges Kirkland can<\/em> assert, they\u2019re just suggesting they can preemptively assert a privilege on behalf of the government.<\/p>\n

Katie Phang summed up the differing obfuscatory strategies of the firms<\/a>: Kirkland \u201chides behind privilege, while Skadden hides behind a form letter.\u201d Skadden advised Intel on the tech giant\u2019s decision to hand Commerce a roughly 10 percent equity stake<\/a> while simultaneously doing free legal work for Commerce. Lawmakers called that \u201cmanifestly corrupt\u201d and called the firm\u2019s responses to that claim \u201cvague and cursory.\u201d Skadden\u2019s outside counsel, Richard Sauber, replied that the firm\u2019s decisions meet the \u201chighest ethical standards of the bar,\u201d which is more of a tagline than an answer. Intel shareholders are suing in Delaware over this. Paul Weiss, meanwhile, restored its Center to Combat Hate page<\/a> (minus its January 6 lawsuit against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers), though internal messages obtained by the New York Times<\/em> revealed the firm considered seeking Stephen Miller\u2019s approval of the website<\/a>. A spokeswoman speaking to the Times<\/em> called the idea that the firm\u2019s independence was compromised \u201ccompletely false.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sure, Jan<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Her name was actually Laura, but the point remains.<\/p>\n

A congressional gavel is not a magic wand though. Actually enforcing a congressional subpoena requires either criminal contempt referrals to the Justice Department \u2014 this<\/em> Justice Department \u2014 or potentially glacially slow civil litigation. And these Biglaw cowards might not land on the top of the investigation docket. Bloomberg Law News notes the law firm probe will compete for committee attention with immigration enforcement abuses, Justice Department misconduct, and funding for the White House ballroom.<\/p>\n

So much corruption, so little time.<\/p>\n

But the risk of a firm chair or other senior partner sitting at a witness table, on C-SPAN, explaining why a bunch of supposed lawyers decided to do Howard Lutnick\u2019s paperwork for free rather than call bullshit on an illegal threat remains. The comedy potential of those clips living forever on the internet should give firm leadership nightmares. This is a confrontation that would have been totally unnecessary if the firms stood up for themselves in the moment. The uncomfortable moment just got rescheduled.<\/p>\n

These firms sell professional judgment, but they looked at a president two months into his term and priced in four years of total control. Fast forward a bit and those minority letters they functionally blew off are about to become a majority subpoenas. <\/p>\n

Washington firms have reportedly already started staffing up to help clients navigate the congressional scrutiny arriving in January. The good news for Biglaw is that it\u2019s about to bill handsomely as Trump\u2019s enablers find themselves called to answer for themselves in front of Congress.<\/p>\n

And some of those clients will probably be Biglaw firms themselves.<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Trump\u2019s Biglaw Bootlickers Say Quiet Part Out Loud In Letters To Congress<\/a>
Biglaw Firms That Cut Deals With Trump Are AWOL As Midterm Election Fights Heat Up<\/a>
Paul Weiss & Kirkland Doing Free Trump Commerce Department Work As Part Of \u2018Please Don\u2019t Hurt Us, Daddy\u2019 Deals<\/a>
Skadden Said Its Trump Deal Raised No Ethical Issues. Intel\u2019s Shareholders Disagree.<\/a>
Did Paul Weiss Partners Seriously Debate Running The Firm\u2019s Business Past Stephen Miller?<\/a>
Paul Weiss Betrayed Its Own Values When Capitulating To Trump<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last year, nine of the biggest law firms in the country sold out their principles and dignity to promise Donald Trump free legal services for his pet causes. All in all, the firms pledged $940 million in pro bono services and while the firms swear that they maintain final say on exactly which matters they\u2019ll […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":166770,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166781","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=166781"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166781\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/166770"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}