by
Joe
Raedle/Getty
Images)
One
of
the
most
important
legal
stories
of
this
year
—
hell,
probably
this
decade
—
is
the
craven
capitulation
of
nine
major
Biglaw
firms
to
Donald
Trump.
You’ll
recall,
early
in
his
second
term,
Trump
launched
a war
on
Biglaw through unconstitutional
Executive
Orders designed to
break
major
law
firms unless
they bent
the
knee. In
the face
of
financial
harm, nine
major
firms (Paul
Weiss,
Skadden,
Kirkland,
Latham,
Cadwalader,
Willkie
Farr,
Simpson
Thacher,
Milbank,
and
A&O
Shearman)
sought Trump’s
seal
of
approval,
providing
millions
in
pro
bono
payola,
that
is,
free
legal
services
on
behalf
of conservative
clients
or
approved
causes in
order
to
avoid
Trumpian
retribution. Those
deals
keep
getting
worse,
as
the
consequences
hit
home:
there’ve
been congressional
investigations, client
concerns,
and
there’ve
been
bunches
lawyers bailing on the
firms to distance
themselves from
the
craven
capitulation.
But
what
work,
exactly,
are
the
firms
doing
to
satisfy
the
terms
of
their
deals?
We’ve since
learned that
several
of
the
capitulating
firms
have
taken
on
a
role
papering
up
work
for
the
Commerce
Department in
a
questionably
legal
arrangement.
But
how
this
work
squares
with
the
deals
the
firms
signed
with
Trump
remains
unclear.
Earlier
today,
nonprofit
watchdog
American
Oversight
filed
a
lawsuit
(available
below)
seeking
compliance
with
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(FOIA)
requests
about
the
deals.
As
the
complaint
notes,
“Though
the
scope
of
the
services
included
in
these
agreements
is
unclear,
President
Trump
has
suggested
these
law
firms
may
be
working
pro
bono
for
the
federal
government
on
issues
including
‘trade
deals,
immigration
enforcement,
and
.
.
.
defending
police
officers
who
are
under
investigation
for
misconduct.’”
As
the
complaint
says,
American
Oversight
has
filed
repeated
FOIA
requests
—
to
both
the
Commerce
Department
and
DOJ
—
related
to
the
Biglaw
deals,
and
got
bupkus
for
their
efforts.
The
FOIA
requests
seek
communications,
agreements,
ethics
waivers,
billing
records,
and
legal
analyses
concerning
the
firms’
work,
including
any
pro
bono
or
discounted
arrangements.
“When
elite
law
firms
decide
it’s
safer
to
appease
political
power
than
uphold
the
rule
of
law,
the
public
deserves
to
know
what
was
bargained
away.
Lawyers
swear
an
oath
to
serve
the
public
and
the
Constitution,
not
abandon
principle
when
it
threatens
their
bottom
line.
Yet
these
firms
capitulated,
engaging
in
anticipatory
obedience
to
secure
protection
and
profit,” said
Chioma
Chukwu,
Executive
Director
of
American
Oversight. “They
entered
sweeping,
secretive
agreements
with
the
very
administration
targeting
them,
and
their
work
now
advances
the
president’s
political
agenda
at
the
public’s
expense.
That
is
unacceptable.
These
records
must
be
released
so
the
American
people
can
see
the
terms
of
these
deals
and
hold
institutions
accountable
when
they
choose
compliance
over
principle.
And
accountability
must
follow.”
Whatever
is
turned
up
in
these
FOIA
requests
will
certainly
be
interesting
for
legal
industry
watchers,
and
pretty
much
anyone
who
is
deeply
concerned
about
the
rule
of
law
in
2025.
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].
