Back
in
August,
the
New
York
Times
reported
that
Kirkland
and
Paul
Weiss
(along
with
Skadden)
—
firms
who
had
cut
deals
with
the
administration
in
exchange
for
pro
bono
payola
—
had
done
work
for
Trump’s
Commerce
Department.
Democratic
lawmakers
quickly
fired
off
inquiries
because
giving
the
government
free
services
would
violate
the
Anti-Deficiency
Act,
and
direct
work
for
the
administration
would
contradict
the
firms’
prior
representations
that
any
free
legal
work
would
be
limited
to
a
relatively
benign
list
of
charitable
causes.
The
firms
responded
without
actually
answering
those
concerns,
instead
reiterating
that
they
can
choose
their
clients
and
believe
they’re
not
doing
anything
wrong.
Now,
it
seems,
Simpson
Thacher
has
joined
up
with
Trump’s
Commerce
Department.
Simpson
Thacher
&
Bartlett
is
handling
work
for
the
U.S.
Commerce
Department,
a
department
official
confirmed
on
Wednesday.
The
New
York
firm
is
the
latest
Big
Law
firm
that
reached
a
pro
bono
deal
with
President
Donald
Trump
this
year
to
commit
to
do
work
on
behalf
of
the
U.S.
government.Simpson
Thacher
has
already
started
working
for
the
department,
but
the
firm
and
the
U.S.
government
are
working
to
finalize
an
agreement
for
the
firm’s
work.“We
are
working
with
the
firm
and
finalizing
terms
at
the
moment,”
a
department
official
said.
“Terms”
implies
a
paid
engagement.
It
also,
by
extension,
lends
support
to
the
idea
that
the
other
firms
also
got
paid
for
their
time,
despite
earlier
reports.
And
there’s
nothing
wrong
with
that!
Law
firms
perform
work
for
the
federal
government
all
the
time
—
in
both
Republican
and
Democratic
administrations.
If
Simpson
Thacher
—
and
the
other
firms
—
are
getting
paid,
it
resolves
both
the
Anti-Deficiency
Act
issue
and
concern
that
the
firms
misrepresented
the
extent
of
the
deal
in
their
early
letters
to
lawmakers.
So
why
can’t
they
just
say
that?
Simpson
Thacher
representatives
did
not
respond
to
requests
for
comment
by
publication
time.
Quelle
surprise.
If
we’re
making
predictions,
when
the
inevitable
letter
from
legislators
arrives,
the
firm
will
also
avoid
saying,
“yes,
we’ve
been
engaged
at
our
standard
rate
to
perform
contract
work
on
behalf
of
the
administration”
and
instead
cough
up
some
vague
song
and
dance
about
choosing
their
work
and
swearing
without
any
evidence
that
they’ve
done
nothing
wrong.
And
it’s
probably
true!
This
probably
is
routine
work.
Now,
is
it
routine
work
they
would’ve
been
awarded
but
for
cutting
deals
that
made
them
preferred
contractors?
Maybe
not.
That
constitutes
a
whole
other
problem
if,
even
unintentionally,
this
sends
a
signal
to
the
rest
of
the
industry
or
the
public
at
large
that
administration
work
is
a
pay-tribute-to-play
endeavor.
But,
that
aside,
simply
doing
the
work
for
money
resolves
the
issues
the
lawmakers
have
explicitly
raised.
The
fact
that
none
of
them
will
simply
say
so
is
exactly
why
these
deals
remain
such
a
disastrous
mistake.
Right
now,
a
handful
of
the
most
powerful
law
firms
in
the
country
are
utterly
tongue-tied
when
asked
to
give
a
straightforward,
honest
answer
to
the
congressional
equivalent
of
the
$100
question
on
Who
Wants
To
Be
A
Millionaire.
Because
simply
admitting
“no,
obviously
we
wouldn’t
directly
give
Trump
pro
bono
services”
comes
with
the
non-zero
prospect
that
the
dementia-patient-in-Chief
will
momentarily
emerge
from
the
wreckage
of
the
East
Wing
long
enough
to
put
his
tiny
hands
on
his
Truth
Social
account
and
bang
out
a
new
executive
order
to
destroy
the
firm’s
ability
to
do
work.
Nothing
in
the
“deals”
they
put
together
indicated
that
the
firms
would
have
to
forfeit
their
ability
to
be
forthright,
but
everyone
understood
that
was
part
of
the
package.
It’s
another
wrinkle
to
the
Lando
effect:
it
doesn’t
matter
how
fair
the
original
terms
may
be,
when
you
deal
with
a
bad
faith
actor,
they
own
you.
Even
if
Vader
doesn’t
alter
the
deal
any
further,
there’s
no
peace
under
this
kind
of
deal
because
the
fear
never
evaporates.
Assuming
Trump
hasn’t
changed
the
deal
to
demand
free
Commerce
work,
why
take
this
work
at
all?
Why
wouldn’t
the
firms
steer
clear
to
avoid
even
the
appearance
of
impropriety?
It
can’t
be
particularly
lucrative
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things.
Doesn’t
it
speak
to
the
de
facto
breadth
of
Trump’s
hold
over
them
if
the
firms
feel
compelled
to
take
on
Trump
work
knowing
that
it
would
only
invite
further
scrutiny?
That
they
can’t
just
speak
plainly
about
it
without
fear
of
reprisal?
I
suspect
the
firms
thought
they
had
discrete,
limited
deals
with
no
regard
to
the
broader
implications
for
both
themselves
and
the
industry.
But
that’s
not
how
Vader
deals.
They
thought
they
were
buying
protection
and
instead
they
bought
an
obligation
to
keep
proving
their
loyalty
ad
infinitum.
Simpson
Thacher
Working
for
Commerce
Department,
Official
Says
[Law.com]
Earlier:
‘Pray
I
Don’t
Alter
It
Any
Further’:
What
Darth
Vader
Should
Teach
Law
Firms
About
Settling
With
Trump
Paul
Weiss,
Kirkland
Doing
Free
Trump
Commerce
Department
Work
As
Part
Of
‘Please
Don’t
Hurt
Us
Daddy’
Deals
Lawmakers
Ask
Paul
Weiss
And
Kirkland
To
Explain
Why
Trump
Work
Isn’t
Totally
Illegal
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.