is
such
surprising
news,’
said
nobody.
Ever
since
the
Surrendergate
Nine
capitulated
to
the
Trump
administration,
pledging
nearly
a
billion
dollars
worth
of
free
legal
work,
the
firms
have
bent
over
backward
to
shrug
it
off
as
no
big
deal.
As
the
months
dragged
on,
and
the
firms
lost
more
talent
and
more
clients,
stories
started
cropping
up
suggesting
that
the
firms
viewed
the
deals
as
unenforceable
all
along
and
that
it’s
business
as
usual
over
there.
The
firms
never
officially
said
this,
of
course.
None
of
them
would
stick
their
head
above
the
trench
to
say
such
a
thing
directly.
But
news
article
fodder
kept
drip,
drip,
dripping
out
that
the
firms
were
really
just
fine
—
in
fact,
they
still
take
on
a
few
matters
that
challenge
the
administration!
Earlier
this
week,
the
American
Lawyer
ran
a
piece
wondering
“has
leverage
shifted?”
in
the
Trump-Biglaw
relationship,
chronicling
work
the
firms
are
doing
against
the
administration.
At
the
time,
I
mused
that
the
headline
all
but
guaranteed
the
other
shoe
was
about
to
drop.
And
here
we
are.
It
turns
out,
despite
the
firms
providing
the
media
with
flashy
exceptions
to
prove
the
rule,
the
Trump
administration
indeed
still
holds
the
leverage.
The
New
York
Times
reported
last
week
that
Kirkland
and
Skadden
were
doing
trade
work
for
the
Commerce
Department,
but
couldn’t
confirm
if
they
were
getting
paid
for
it.
Now
the
Times
can
confirm
that
Kirkland
and
Paul
Weiss
are
repping
the
Commerce
Department
for
free,
presumably
as
part
of
their
pro
bono
payola
deals.
Skadden’s
situation
is
still
up
in
the
air.
In
the
past,
some
law
firms
have
done
work
for
the
federal
government
at
a
reduced
rate.
But
coming
just
months
after
they
struck
deals
with
the
president,
the
free
work
is
likely
to
raise
new
questions
about
whether
the
firms
felt
compelled
to
do
so
to
stay
in
Mr.
Trump’s
good
graces.
So
much
for
those
grand
declarations
the
firms
sent
to
Congress
just
a
few
months
back.
Despite
explicit
claims
from
the
administration
that,
under
the
deal,
the
firms
would
be
conscripted
to
paper
up
nonsense
tariff
deals,
the
firms
hand-waved
it
all
away
as
preposterous.
Nonetheless,
those
letters
dripped
with
bravado
about
how
the
firm
would
never
be
coerced
into
abandoning
principles.
Paul
Weiss
specifically
promised
that
its
free
work
would
be
limited
“to
assist
our
nation’s
veterans,
to
combat
anti-Semitism,
and
to
promote
the
fairness
of
the
justice
system.”
Kirkland’s
response
offered
fewer
specifics
but
declared
that
its
pro
bono
work
would
be
delivered
on
“a
non-partisan
basis
to
a
wide
range
of
underserved
populations.”
Apparently,
the
Commerce
Department
is
one
of
those
underserved
populations.
It’s
not
established
that
Skadden
is
doing
this
work
for
free,
but
its
response
to
Congress
included
similar
bullshit.
We
didn’t
believe
them
at
the
time.
It’s
refreshing
when
cynicism
ages
like
a
fine
wine.
Could
the
firms
be
doing
more
objectionable
work
for
the
administration?
Sure!
The
Trump
administration
suggested
drafting
the
firms
to
defend
police
brutality
claims.
They
aren’t
doing
that…
yet.
But
this
misses
the
point.
Pro
bono
work
is,
functionally,
zero-sum.
Law
firms
aren’t
giving
up
billable
time
to
other
pro
bono
tasks
after
sacrificing
$125
million
to
the
feds.
Every
hour
spent
trying
to
convince
Penguin
Island
to
import
more,
I
don’t
know,
more
Trump
2028
hats
or
something,
isn’t
going
to
a
homeless
shelter.
And
all
that
time
has
to
be
made
up
by
real,
paying
work
to
pay
for
those
partner
summer
homes.
Not
that
this
is
really
“pro
bono
publico”
work.
The
fact
that
it
was
even
a
question
whether
or
not
this
was
paid
work,
demonstrates
how
phony
the
“pro
bono”
claim
is.
Not
all
free
legal
services
are
pro
bono
or
everyone
would
claim
summer
associate
write-offs
as
pro
bono.
The
Model
Rules
specifically
frame
pro
bono
—
even
pro
bono
work
for
the
government
—
as
services
in
support
of
those
with
“limited
means”
or
where
normal
fees
would
“significantly
deplete”
organizational
resources.
The
U.S.
government,
shockingly,
is
not
indigent
—
though
the
Trump
tax
cuts
may
drive
it
there
soon
enough.
Nor
can
lawyers
claim
the
community
service
they’re
doing
to
clear
up
that
DUI
toward
their
pro
bono
awards
either.
As
the
American
Lawyer
article
concludes:
Still,
ethics
experts
were
doubtful
that
Kirkland
could
claim
the
work
as
“pro
bono,”
in
the
traditional
meaning
of
the
word.
“I
don’t
view
it
as
pro
bono
work.
The
U.S.
government
is
not
an
individual
or
organization
of
limited
means.
This
work
was
also
coerced,”
Levin
said.
There’s
a
word
for
this
kind
of
relationship,
and
it
isn’t
“charity.”
It’s
“complicity.”
Two
Big
Law
Firms
Said
to
Be
Doing
Free
Work
for
Trump
Administration
[NY
Times]
In
Trump’s
Battle
With
Big
Law,
Has
Leverage
Shifted?
[American
Lawyer]
Earlier:
Biglaw
Firms
Surrendering
To
Trump
Furiously
Backpedaling:
‘LOL,
What
Pro
Bono
Deals?’
Trump’s
Biglaw
Bootlickers
Say
Quiet
Part
Out
Loud
In
Letters
To
Congress
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.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.