by
Justin
Sullivan/Getty
Images)
When
Donald
Trump
issued
an
executive
order
that
could
compromise
the
firm’s
ability
to
do
business,
Paul
Weiss
waved
away
the
option
of
challenging
the
illegal
act
of
retaliation
in
court
and
instead
pledged
$40
million
in
free
legal
services.
Eventually,
eight
other
firms
joined
in
with
bigger
pro
bono
deals.
In
response
to
legislative
inquiry,
the
firms
swore
up
and
down
that
these
services
would
only
go
toward
some
vaguely
defined
charitable
causes,
even
while
the
Trump
administration
itself
bragged
that
it
would
be
able
to
call
upon
the
firms
to
work
directly
for
the
government
for
free.
Back
in
August,
it
came
out
that
at
least
two
of
the
firms,
Paul
Weiss
and
Kirkland,
were
performing
free
legal
work
for
the
Commerce
Department.
This
sort
of
direct
contradiction
of
the
firms’
earlier
representations
seemed
to
bound
to
rub
lawmakers
the
wrong
way.
But
a
retired
practitioner
reached
out
to
us
the
next
day
to
flag
Section
1342
of
Title
31,
known
as
the
Antideficiency
Act,
which
bars
the
government
from
accepting
volunteer
services
outside
of
situations
“emergencies
involving
the
safety
of
human
life
or
the
protection
of
property.”
Since
negotiating
a
trade
deal
doesn’t
carry
life
or
death
stakes
—
at
least
not
“imminently,”
as
the
statutory
text
requires
—
this
seemed
like
a
problem.
Apparently,
folks
in
Congress
agreed.
According
to
the
New
York
Times,
the
firms
received
letters
on
fancy
Capitol
Hill
letterhead
today:
The
top
Democrats
said
in
the
letters
to
the
firms
that
“as
you
are
certainly
aware,
providing
legal
services
to
the
Commerce
Department
without
compensation
may
violate
the
law.”
The
letters
cited
the
Antideficiency
Act,
which
“prohibits
the
government
from
accepting
voluntary
services
and
has
limited
exceptions
in
order
to
ensure
the
government
is
not
on
the
hook
for
financial
obligations
Congress
has
not
explicitly
appropriated.”
“Certainly”
provides
a
lot
of
sarcastic
structural
support.
What’s
worse
for
the
firms
in
this
situation?
It’s
possible
the
firms
really
didn’t
know
about
this
statute
—
it’s
not
a
law
that
generates
a
lot
of
action
—
but
do
they
want
to
admit
that
they
never
bothered
to
check
if
this
arrangement
was
even
legal?
An
embarrassing
admission,
but
better
than
having
to
explain
that
they
were
aware
of
the
law
and
did
it
anyway.
Neither
firm
responded
to
the
Times
when
asked
for
comment,
so
they’re
probably
mulling
over
this
exact
Scylla
and
Charybdis
of
pleading
ignorance
or
complicity.
And
hoping
to
come
up
with
a
not-immediately-apparent
third
solution.
Technically,
the
stakes
are
low
for
the
firms.
It’s
the
administration
that’s
actually
breaking
the
law
here
—
the
statute
bars
accepting
the
services,
not
offering
them.
And
the
penalties
aren’t
all
that
onerous
either.
That
said,
the
answers
the
firms
provide
could
embarrass
the
administration
and
given
how
it’s
responded
to
past
perceived
slights,
putting
the
wrong
foot
forward
here
could
land
the
firms
in
worse
trouble
than
they
thought
they
faced
when
they
sold
out
in
the
first
place.
Democrats
Investigating
Law
Firms
Over
Work
for
Trump’s
Commerce
Dept.
[New
York
Times]
Earlier:
Paul
Weiss
&
Kirkland
Doing
Free
Trump
Commerce
Department
Work
As
Part
Of
‘Please
Don’t
Hurt
Us,
Daddy’
Deals
Trump’s
Biglaw
Bootlickers
Say
Quiet
Part
Out
Loud
In
Letters
To
Congress