After returning to the White House, President Donald Trump issued executive orders that critics say were designed to intimidate major law firms—including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Perkins Coie; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; and Susman Godfrey.
One of Trump's tactics involved threatening firms' security clearances. And rather than fight what observers say was likely an easy First Amendment battle, some firms cut deals with Trump and agreed to do pro bono work for the president.
Former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori told Politico these deals aren't serving either Trump or the firms well.
READ MORE: Former military officials launch 'cowardice' award — and the nominees may surprise you
"Privately, representatives for three of the settling firms (who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters) told me that they have not received any instructions or input from the White House on pro bono matters to take on,” Khardori writes.
Beyond “Trump’s public gloating,” Khardori says it’s difficult to see what the White House got from their surrender. Some appear to be “making subtle changes to their pro bono portfolios,” but any open capitulation to Trump’s pro bono call will count as “caving (again).”
“It’s hard to predict exactly how this surprising subplot in Trump’s second term ultimately ends, except that it is only likely to get messier, particularly if — or perhaps when — Trump decides to put the firms to work,” Khardori writes.
But surrendering firms are up against more problems than that. Khardori warns if Democrats retake the House or Senate next year, the firms could find themselves in the crosshairs of lawmakers who have already posed sharp questions directly to the firms about the legality of their deals and the circumstances that led to them.”
READ MORE: 'You’re on your own': This Trump official is 'missing in action' during a 'critical time
Subpoenas could even divulge sensitive and embarrassing details.
Senior lawyers have already been abandoning firms that took the deal, Khardori reports. Some have even abandoned “tens of millions of dollars a year” in salaries, which indicates the sheer toxicity of the deal that firms made.
“If you want to be a White House counsel or a lawyer with a major position in a future Democratic administration, having Paul, Weiss on your resume may now be a liability for the foreseeable future,” writes Khardori, who added that judges have also slammed the deals in their own decisions.
Brad Karp, the chairman of capitulating firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Karp, once “positioned himself as a legal power broker within the Democratic Party,” said Khardori, but now he risks “becoming the Baghdad Bob of Big Law in his efforts to defend the deal.”
READ MORE; 'Disgrace': Trump mocked over letter that 'reads as if it was written by a fifth grader'
But “one of Trump’s skills in politics is his occasional ability to demonstrate the hollowness of his opponents’ stated convictions,” Khardori said. Law firms’ diversity “remains truly abysmal,” he says, even as senior management espoused the benefits of varied backgrounds and ethnicity. Trump blew their purported goals to pieces.
“He appears to have pulled that off yet again,” Khardori said.
Read the full Politico report at this link.