Every year, Bloomberg Law honors select law firms as Pro Bono Innovators. This year, the publication profiled Latham & Watkins for its work:
Latham & Watkins’ key pro bono matters include achieving a unanimous US Supreme Court victory for Ava Tharpe, a student with severe epilepsy, in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools. The ruling established that children with disabilities suing for education-related discrimination must be treated like all other plaintiffs. Latham also used its experience advising on low-carbon energy matters in a novel environmental project on Chicago’s South Side. The firm’s lawyers prepared a renewable natural gas offtake agreement that allowed Green Era, housed at a remediated brownfield, to optimize the creation of its food waste recycler, known as an anaerobic digester.
Hmmm. It seems like something is missing from this account! Wasn’t there some other pro bono story about Latham this year? Something big? Something… nine figures and collapse of the rule of law-adjacent?
That said, offering the government $125 million in pro bono payola to bribe Donald Trump into ending a blatantly unconstitutional shakedown campaign is, I suppose, a kind of innovation. It’s certainly not a pro bono strategy anyone had heard of before 2025. As innovation goes, it’s not exactly inventing the wheel. More like unveiling a Cinnamon Toast flavored Tide Pod, in that it’s undeniably a new twist, ethical considerations aside.
But also, Latham wasn’t even the first to cop a deal with the administration — Paul Weiss had already waved the white flag by the time Latham arrived with an oversized novelty check of constitutional complicity. So how innovative were they really?
The Bloomberg Law write-up runs over a thousand words and none of them are “Trump” or “executive order” or “cowardly” despite each of these being essential to any conversation about Latham’s 2025 pro bono campaign. Without even a whiff about the firm’s biggest pro bono story of the year, the piece reads like putting a sticker on the “Check Engine” light.
No one is asking Latham to self-flagellate. No one expects Bloomberg to write diss tracks. But if you’re going to throw laurels, at least acknowledge the head you’re placing them upon.
Maybe sit out this year’s awards circuit, gang. This is the lesson Paul Weiss learned last month when partner Loretta Lynch collected a Champion of Justice award from the New York Bar Foundation. Protesters gathered outside. A heckler inside shouted “For Trump?” while Paul Weiss Chair Brad Karp spoke about the firm’s pro bono accomplishments. It was, shall we say, not the dignified evening the rubber chicken circuit typically provides. It’s not that Lynch didn’t deserve the award or that Paul Weiss didn’t perform worthy pro bono work outside of their deal, but this is what happens when a firm tries to collect kudos for pro bono work in the same calendar year that they pledged free work to Trump.
Whether either firm intended it that way or not, there’s no way to collect awards like these in 2025 without it coming across as a shameless rehabilitation tour. Participating in a puff piece for a trade publication only makes it worse.
Now is the time to keep heads down and just do the work… we’ll let you know when you’ve worked your way back. And Latham is pursuing good pro bono projects. The A.J.T. case genuinely matters, delivering for children with disabilities facing discrimination in education. Partner Roman Martinez and his team did real work that will help real people. Likewise, Josh Bledsoe’s team working with Green Era supported that group’s initiatives to address food waste, urban farming, and renewable energy in underserved Chicago communities. Just because a firm capitulated to Trump didn’t mean it stopped doing good pro bono work.
Or at least didn’t mean it necessarily stopped doing good pro bono work.
Because groups disfavored by the Trump administration, particularly those working with immigrants, have found themselves dropped by longtime Biglaw pro bono partners. The damage spilled out beyond the capitulators too, as firms registered what happened with the firms targeted by Trump and accordingly walked away from pro bono causes to avoid ending up on Trump’s bad side. None of the Surrender Firms will admit it, but when the most well-resourced firms in human history decided that protecting the rule of law was none of their business, the rest of the market got the message loud and clear: keep your head down and maybe Trump won’t notice you.
Every firm that made a deal with Trump made life worse for those who need pro bono services. There should be no awards for this.
Earlier: Five Top Biglaw Firms Pledge Their Allegiance To Trump, Promising To Provide Legal Services ‘Beyond’ His Time In The White House
Heckler Asks ‘For Trump?’ As Paul Weiss Describes Pro Bono Work At Gala Dinner
Biglaw’s Trump Deals Have Chilling Effect On Pro Bono
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
The post Latham Honored As ‘Pro Bono Innovator,’ Without Mentioning That ‘$125 Million Trump Extortion’ Thing appeared first on Above the Law.