Big Law Firms Bowed to Trump

The notion that “Big Law Firms Bowed to Trump” has gained significant traction, particularly in light of actions taken by the Trump administration against certain law firms and the subsequent responses from some of those firms. This situation highlights a contentious period where the independence of the legal profession has been called into question.

Here’s a breakdown of the dynamic:

Trump’s Pressure Tactics:

Executive Orders and Memoranda: Beginning in early 2025, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders and presidential memoranda directly targeting major law firms. These orders were often seen as retaliatory, aimed at firms that had represented clients opposing Trump or had employed lawyers involved in investigations against him (e.g., those connected to Robert Mueller).

Threats and Restrictions: The orders included severe measures such as:

Suspending security clearances for attorneys.

Restricting their access to government buildings.

Directing agencies to review and potentially terminate government contracts with the firms.

Prohibiting federal government employees from engaging with targeted firms.

Targeting DEI Policies: Some of the executive orders also explicitly criticized firms for their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, which Trump labeled as “unlawful discrimination.”

Demands for Pro Bono Work: In several instances, the administration sought commitments for substantial pro bono legal services for causes favored by the President and his allies. This amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars in pledged free legal work from several prominent firms.

The notion that “Big Law Firms Bowed to Trump” has gained significant traction, particularly in light of actions taken by the Trump administration against certain law firms and the subsequent responses from some of those firms. This situation highlights a contentious period where the independence of the legal profession has been called into question.

Here’s a breakdown of the dynamic:

Trump’s Pressure Tactics:

Executive Orders and Memoranda: Beginning in early 2025, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders and presidential memoranda directly targeting major law firms. These orders were often seen as retaliatory, aimed at firms that had represented clients opposing Trump or had employed lawyers involved in investigations against him (e.g., those connected to Robert Mueller).

Threats and Restrictions: The orders included severe measures such as:

Suspending security clearances for attorneys.

Restricting their access to government buildings.

Directing agencies to review and potentially terminate government contracts with the firms.

Prohibiting federal government employees from engaging with targeted firms.

Targeting DEI Policies: Some of the executive orders also explicitly criticized firms for their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, which Trump labeled as “unlawful discrimination.”

Demands for Pro Bono Work: In several instances, the administration sought commitments for substantial pro bono legal services for causes favored by the President and his allies. This amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars in pledged free legal work from several prominent firms.

“Bowing” or Strategic Response?

The response from “Big Law” has been varied, but some actions have been widely interpreted as acquiescence:

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (Paul Weiss): This firm was notably targeted by an executive order but, instead of suing, made a deal with the administration. This settlement involved a pledge of $40 million in pro bono work for administration-supported causes and commitments to policy changes regarding hiring and client representation. This move was heavily criticized within the legal community as a “humiliating” capitulation.

Other Firms Pledging Pro Bono: Following the Paul Weiss settlement, at least eight other major law firms, including Kirkland & Ellis, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, made similar preemptive deals, collectively pledging nearly $1 billion in pro bono services to avoid similar executive orders. These firms generally defended their agreements as legal and ethical in letters to Congress.

Internal Outcry: These agreements sparked outrage among many lawyers and staff within the affected firms, with some publicly resigning or signing letters urging leadership to reconsider.

Firms That Fought Back:

It’s important to note that not all targeted firms “bowed.” Several chose to fight the administration’s actions:

Lawsuits and Injunctions: Firms like Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey filed lawsuits against the Trump administration and successfully obtained temporary restraining orders and even permanent injunctions, with federal judges finding that the executive orders likely violated constitutional rights, particularly