One of the most important legal stories of this year — hell, probably this decade — is the craven capitulation of nine major Biglaw firms to Donald Trump.
You’ll recall, early in his second term, Trump launched a war on Biglaw through unconstitutional Executive Orders designed to break major law firms unless they bent the knee. In the face of financial harm, nine major firms (Paul Weiss, Skadden, Kirkland, Latham, Cadwalader, Willkie Farr, Simpson Thacher, Milbank, and A&O Shearman) sought Trump’s seal of approval, providing millions in pro bono payola, that is, free legal services on behalf of conservative clients or approved causes in order to avoid Trumpian retribution. Those deals keep getting worse, as the consequences hit home: there’ve been congressional investigations, client concerns, and there’ve been bunches lawyers bailing on the firms to distance themselves from the craven capitulation.
But what work, exactly, are the firms doing to satisfy the terms of their deals? We’ve since learned that several of the capitulating firms have taken on a role papering up work for the Commerce Department in a questionably legal arrangement. But how this work squares with the deals the firms signed with Trump remains unclear.
Earlier today, nonprofit watchdog American Oversight filed a lawsuit (available below) seeking compliance with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests about the deals. As the complaint notes, “Though the scope of the services included in these agreements is unclear, President Trump has suggested these law firms may be working pro bono for the federal government on issues including ‘trade deals, immigration enforcement, and . . . defending police officers who are under investigation for misconduct.’”
As the complaint says, American Oversight has filed repeated FOIA requests — to both the Commerce Department and DOJ — related to the Biglaw deals, and got bupkus for their efforts. The FOIA requests seek communications, agreements, ethics waivers, billing records, and legal analyses concerning the firms’ work, including any pro bono or discounted arrangements.
“When elite law firms decide it’s safer to appease political power than uphold the rule of law, the public deserves to know what was bargained away. Lawyers swear an oath to serve the public and the Constitution, not abandon principle when it threatens their bottom line. Yet these firms capitulated, engaging in anticipatory obedience to secure protection and profit,” said Chioma Chukwu, Executive Director of American Oversight. “They entered sweeping, secretive agreements with the very administration targeting them, and their work now advances the president’s political agenda at the public’s expense. That is unacceptable. These records must be released so the American people can see the terms of these deals and hold institutions accountable when they choose compliance over principle. And accountability must follow.”
Whatever is turned up in these FOIA requests will certainly be interesting for legal industry watchers, and pretty much anyone who is deeply concerned about the rule of law in 2025.
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 New Lawsuit Seeks To Find Out What Exactly Is Up With Capitulating Biglaw Firms’ Deals With Trump appeared first on Above the Law.