Law Firms, Their Dealings with Trump, and Consequences
Nine major law firms struck deals with Trump - are they better off?
Law Firms That Struck Deals with Trump
In order to avoid being struck by Trump’s executive orders, nine law firms appeased Trump by offering $940 million in pro bono services to support his agenda, and by changing their internal DEI practices.
Below is a list of the law firms and what they did:
List of Law Firms That Caved and Their Commitments
| Law Firm | Pro Bono Commitment | Specific Actions Taken |
|---|---|---|
| Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison | $40 million | Ended its DEI policies. |
| A&O Shearman | $125 million | Settled potential EEOC complaints regarding DEI practices. |
| Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft | $100 million | Aligned pro bono work with administration initiatives. |
| Kirkland & Ellis | $125 million | Submitted to EEOC review of diversity policies. |
| Latham & Watkins | $125 million | Committed to monitoring DEI practices with oversight. |
| Milbank | $100 million | Limited individual attorneys' pro bono work to support Trump’s causes; ended DEI-based hiring. |
| Simpson Thacher & Bartlett | $125 million | Restructured DEI-related employment practices; received EEOC letter regarding DEI practices. |
| Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom | $100 million | Brought pro bono work under firm control; would not engage in DEI work without administration approval. |
| Willkie Farr & Gallagher | $100 million | Dismantled existing DEI structures. |
Law Firms that did not capitulate to Trump
Here's where all the firms in the Trump-Big Law fight stand
Business Insider https://www.businessinsider.com › trump-big-law-fight-firms-legal-dilemma-2025-3?op=1
| LAW FIRM | TRUMP’S ACTION | LAW FIRM’S RESPONSE | RESULT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perkins Cole | Trump criticized the firm’s DEI policies and suspended security clearances for its attorneys after the firm represented Hillary Clinton. | Filed a lawsuit arguing the administration’s actions violated core constitutional rights, including free speech and due process. | Judge Beryl Howell temporarily blocked part of the executive order, writing that eliminating lawyers as guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power. |
| Covington & Burling | Suspended security clearances of individuals who advised former Special Counsel Jack Smith. | Publicly stated it continues to represent Jack Smith. | No public legal action taken against the administration. |
| Elias Law Group | Trump issued a memo alleging the firm was involved in investigating him. | Marc Elias released a statement condemning actions targeting law firms that challenge assaults on the rule of law. | No court ruling reported. |
| Jenner & Block | Revoked security clearances, focusing on Andrew Weissmann from the Mueller investigation. | Called the order unconstitutional and filed a lawsuit. Represented by Cooley LLP. | On May 23, 2025, Judge John D. Bates struck down the order completely. |
| Wilmer Hale | Suspended security clearances on March 27 due to its connection to Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. | Filed a lawsuit. Paul Clement argued it was critical to vindicate the First Amendment and the rule of law. | On May 27, 2025, Judge Richard J. Leon struck down the executive order completely. |
| Susman Godfrey | Suspended security clearances on April 9, 2025. | Filed a constitutional challenge on April 11, 2025. | A judge issued a restraining order preventing implementation. |
It pays to fight. The law firms that appeased Trump have had business setbacks.
Demand Justice
Here's where all the firms in the Trump-Big Law fight stand
https://demandjustice.org › wp-content › uploads › 2025 › 05 › FACT-SHEET_-Law-Firms-Who-Struck-Deals-with-Trump-Continue-to-Suffer-While-Those-Fighting-Back-Gain-Support.pdf
FACT SHEET: Law Firms Who Struck Deals with Trump Continue to Suffer ...
· Lawyers have left the firms
· Major corporations drop the firms
· Law students are avoiding those firms
Law Firms That Caved to Trump Suddenly Lose a Lot of Big Business | The New Republic
At least 11 corporations are dropping these law firms. The corporations include Oracle, Microsoft and Morgan Stanley.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS BIG LAW’S BIG CHOICE
The District of Columbia Bar Legal Ethics Committee questioned the ethics of big law firms’ settlements with Trump. These firms have possibly violated Rules of Professional Conduct. The way for them to ameliorate these violations is to rescind the arrangements that they made with Trump.
The Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit conflicts of interest. If a lawyer represents client A and client B, and client A wants to sue client B, that would create a conflict of interest. A lawyer’s personal business or financial interests can also create conflicts of interest.
“And this is where the Trump settlement agreements come in—the question is whether the law firms’ agreements with Trump create personal or financial interests for the law firms that may conflict with the interests of their clients—particularly when those clients are in turn suing the United States. Put bluntly, can a law firm really represent a client zealously against the Trump’s administration when, at the same time, it is seeking to stay on Trump’s good side through a settlement agreement?
The answer, as should have been obvious to the big law firms, is clearly ‘no.’”
References:
Firms That Caved to Trump Are Helping Him Break the Law, Dems Warn
U.S. House of Representatives Wikipedia
Firms That Caved to Trump Are Helping Him Break the Law, Dems Warn | Representative Dave Min
‘https://min.house.gov/media/in-the-news/firms-caved-trump-are-helping-him-break-lw-dems-warn