'Complete independence': Law firms that 'caved' to Trump say they choose their own 'pro bono' clients

06 May

Donald Trump arriving at the Jones Day law firm in Washington, D.C. in March 2016, Lorie Shaull

Bulwark Managing Editor Sam Stein says law firms that President Donald Trump pressed into doing pro bono work earlier this year won’t commit to Trump’s pro bono work. The firms are instead privately insisting that they are under no obligation to take on Trump’s pro-bono clients according to letters forwarded to The Bulwark from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).

Earlier this year, Trump targeted certain law firms with executive orders that suspended security clearances for employees, barred attorneys' access to government buildings and officials, and collapsed government contracts. The president aimed the orders at prominent law firms that he views as political enemies. Three firms, including Perkins Coie, challenged Trump in court. Others have already won court orders temporarily blocking enforcement.

As recently as last Friday, a federal judge struck down Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie, finding it unconstitutional and declaring it an attack on the foundational principles of the American legal system.

Other firms, however, including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, announced concessions to Trump to avoid attack. However, Stein says even these are ducking serious commitments to pro bono work Trump demanded as part of their concession.

The firms “maintain authority to choose their pro bono clients, even if those deals required them to devote tens of millions of dollars to specific pro bono causes.”

“Latham maintains its complete independence as to the clients and matters the firm takes on, whether in our pro bono or commercial engagements,” claims a letter from Latham & Watkins.
“The agreement does not dictate or restrict what pro bono matters we will take on moving forward,” states the letter from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.
“We have not and will not restrict our pro bono activities or the positions we take on behalf of those clients,” read the letter from the firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

Stein notes that Trump publicly claims he could demand firms work “on pet issues like tariffs and coal leasing,” however one letter from A&O Shearman says its “Agreement” with Trump requires the firm to provide $125 million pro bono and other free legal services to “three specified areas” including assisting veterans and other public servants, ensuring fairness in our justice system, and combatting antisemitism.

“The Agreement does not call for, or permit, the administration or any other person or entity to determine what clients and matters the Firm takes on, whether they be pro bono matters or otherwise,” claims the letter.

The New Republic on Tuesday argued the letters are evidence of Trump's law firm deals "falling apart."

"Law firms that caved to Donald Trump are revealing they have ways to wriggle out of the deals," The New Republic wrote.

Read the full Bulwark report here.

From Your Site Articles