by
David
Lat).
Like
that
old
saying,
if
at
first
you
don’t
succeed,
try,
try
again,
Democrats
in
Congress
are
taking
a
*fourth*
shot
at
trying
to
get
Kirkland
&
Ellis
to
be
upfront
about
the
firm’s
deal
with
Donald
Trump.
At
this
point,
it’s
almost
a
tradition.
Democrats
ask
questions.
Kirkland
&
Ellis
sends
back
a
politely
worded
shrug.
Repeat.
Now
Richard
Blumenthal,
ranking
member
of
the
Senate
Permanent
Subcommittee
on
Investigations,
Jamie
Raskin,
ranking
member
of
the
House
Judiciary
Committee,
and
Adam
Schiff
are
trying
again
—
fourth
time’s
the
charm!
—
to
get
the
world’s
richest
law
firm,
Kirkland
&
Ellis,
to
explain
exactly
what
it
promised
the
Trump
administration
in
order
to
avoid
one
of
those
retaliatory
executive
orders
targeting
Biglaw.
And
this
time,
they
sound
done
playing
nice.
“We
have
written
to
your
firm
three
times
previously
seeking
documents
and
answers
regarding
this
corrupt
bargain,
and
Kirkland
has
provided
no
responsive
information
or
records
in
response
to
any
of
these
letters,”
the
March
2,
2026
letter
reads.
As
readers
will
recall,
the
Trump
administration
rolled
out
a
series
of
executive
orders
threatening
law
firms
that
represented
political
adversaries
or
maintained
diversity
initiatives
the
White
House
didn’t
like.
Some
firms
fought.
They
won.
The
orders
were
struck
down
as
unconstitutional.
Others?
They
made
deals.
Kirkland
was
one
of
nine
firms
that
opted
for
the
“let’s
just
make
this
go
away”
approach
rather
than
litigate.
Along
with
firms
like
Paul,
Weiss,
Kirkland
entered
into
an
agreement
that
allegedly
resolved
an
EEOC
investigation
while
committing
to
certain
pro
bono
work
that
just
so
happened
to
align
with
administration
priorities.
Kirkland’s
first
response
to
Congress,
dated
April
28,
2025,
framed
the
deal
as
consistent
with
its
“meritocratic
ideals”
and
described
the
EEOC
matter
as
resolved.
Its
second
letter,
dated
October
7,
2025,
insisted
the
firm
was
“comfortable
that
the
agreement
does
not
run
afoul
of
the
issues
that
you
raise
in
your
letter.”
Comfortable!
That’s
nice.
Here’s
the
problem:
in
that
October
response,
Kirkland
acknowledged
it
was
performing
legal
work
—
for
multiple
government
agencies
—
for
free.
And
that’s
something
lawmakers
now
characterize
as
“startling.”
If
this
saga
needed
more
intrigue,
the
latest
letter
raises
concerns
about
contacts
with
Boris
Epshteyn,
described
in
the
letter
as
“a
former
Trump
administration
official,
legal
fixer
and
a
Trump
co-conspirator
to
overturn
the
2020
presidential
election.”
Lawmakers
are
particularly
interested
in
any
communications
or
negotiations
involving
Epshteyn,
who
has
reportedly
been
linked
to
alleged
pay-to-play
schemes
involving
political
appointments.
The
Dems
are
out
there
making
allusions
to
bribery
and
that
demonstrates
just
how
thin
their
patience
is.
The
frustration
is
palpable,
“The
time
for
short,
nonresponsive
replies—assuring
us
that
Kirkland
knows
best
and
feels
comfortable
about
its
arrangements
with
the
Trump
administration—is
over.”
That’s
about
as
close
as
congressional
correspondence
gets
to
“we
are
not
amused.”
Ball’s
back
in
Kirkland’s
court
—
let’s
see
how
they
read
the
room.
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
@[email protected].