Trump’s Law Firm Negotiations: Lawyers Reveal Deals Made Under Intense Pressure

In March 2025, President Trump signed executive orders impacting law firms like Perkins Coie. Expert opinions suggest that these recent agreements with big firms may not hold up legally.

Since taking office, Trump has targeted some law firms, stripping them of security clearances and federal contracts. In contrast, he has announced partnerships with firms such as Kirkland & Ellis, promising about $1 billion in pro bono services to reduce scrutiny of their hiring practices. Yet many details of these agreements remain unclear, raising suspicion among lawmakers.

Harold Hongju Koh, a law professor, argues that true contracts require mutual agreement. He highlights that Trump’s statements often conflict with what firms tell their partners, implying a lack of clarity. For example, initial pro bono commitments to aid veterans expanded to include controversial areas like immigration and police defense. “What if a veteran wants gender-affirming surgery?” Koh asks, pointing out the ambiguity.

Meanwhile, law firms challenging Trump’s actions have experienced courtroom victories. Recently, a judge ruled against an executive order aimed at WilmerHale, noting it significantly harmed the firm’s capacity to represent clients. Judge Richard J. Leon emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary, crucial for a fair legal system. Koh and others insist that agreements made under duress can’t be considered valid.

Steven Brill, founder of The American Lawyer, has voiced concerns about the rising mercenary culture in law firms, which he attributes partly to his own magazine’s focus on economic data that encourages job-hopping among attorneys. He noted the irony that firms known for their deal-making risked ending up with agreements that may not stand up.

Despite the pressure, some firms that resisted settlement have gained new clients, including those who appreciate their willingness to contest Trump’s executive orders. Media mogul Barry Diller expressed a strong sentiment: he’d avoid firms that capitulated under pressure.

Amidst this, the State Bar of California issued warnings about the executive orders threatening legal principles, especially for vulnerable clients needing pro bono services. Representative April McClain Delaney criticized the idea of using pro bono work for political negotiations, calling it “obscene.”

In a shift, some conservative groups are urging law firms to broaden their pro bono efforts, aiming for a more balanced approach that extends to issues like immigration enforcement. As Mike Howell from the Oversight Project put it, there’s a need for the legal industry to return to normal, where services aren’t skewed by political beliefs.

Despite criticisms, the White House claims the agreements with law firms are intended to ensure accountability. Koh hopeful that the judiciary’s backlash against certain orders might offer firms a chance to reconsider their decisions under pressure.

As legal challenges unfold, this evolving landscape will have significant implications for both the legal profession and democratic values, making it crucial to reflect on the moral choices facing these firms.

Source link