Biglaw firms that pledged $125 million in pro bono work to the Trump administration now deny the deals amid backlash from clients, law students, and Congress.
Introduction
In a stunning reversal, several of the nation’s largest law firms—once eager to strike pro bono agreements with the Trump administration—are now scrambling to downplay or deny the very deals they brokered. What began as a strategy to avoid politically motivated executive orders has morphed into a public relations crisis, as firms face scrutiny from lawmakers, clients, and the next generation of attorneys.
The Origins: Trading Pro Bono for Protection
In early 2025, firms including Paul Weiss, Skadden, Willkie Farr, Milbank, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, A&O Shearman, and Cadwalader pledged over $125 million in free legal services. The goal? To shield themselves from Trump administration executive orders threatening to penalize firms perceived as politically oppositional or too aligned with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The work was intended to focus on:
-
Assisting veterans and public servants.
-
Ensuring fairness in the justice system.
-
Combatting antisemitism.
But as time passed, the nature of these agreements drew controversy.
Fallout: Client Losses and Law School Boycotts
As details of the pro bono commitments emerged—including rumors that firms might be compelled to defend police accused of brutality or assist in controversial federal enforcement actions—the backlash was swift:
-
Corporate Clients Exit: Major companies, including Microsoft, pulled business from capitulating firms.
-
Law Student Resistance: Top law students signed pledges refusing to work for participating firms, with some law school deans even advising graduates to weigh the political implications when selecting employers.
These reactions not only threatened firms’ reputations but also their talent pipelines and long-term profitability.
Congressional Scrutiny: “What Deals?”
Congressional Democrats demanded transparency. In response, the firms issued carefully worded letters claiming:
-
The administration had no power to dictate client choices.
-
Their pro bono work remained independent.
-
No new restrictions had been imposed on their services.
A&O Shearman’s letter was among the most explicit, emphasizing the firm’s discretion in selecting clients within the agreed-upon service areas. Still, observers noted the irony: agreeing to $125 million in specific pro bono commitments necessarily restricts other possible cases, regardless of how firms framed it.
The Firms’ Dilemma: Legal Loopholes vs. Public Perception
While technically accurate that no formal “restrictions” were placed, the financial commitment limited the firms’ flexibility. Critics argued:
-
Allocating $125 million to specific causes reduces capacity to take on other pro bono matters.
-
Pledges to avoid DEI-related pro bono cases—a condition reportedly accepted by some firms—further constrained their service scope.
Moreover, by agreeing to these deals, the firms risked appearing complicit in the administration’s politicization of the legal industry.
Potential Retaliation: What Happens If Firms Resist?
Now, as some firms attempt to renege or reinterpret their commitments, they face a new threat: retaliation. The Trump administration has already suggested it could enforce the agreements more aggressively if firms refuse politically charged cases, such as:
-
Defending law enforcement officers accused of misconduct.
-
Representing federal immigration officials under legal scrutiny.
-
Possibly defending Trump himself in post-presidency legal battles.
Failure to comply could trigger new executive orders or targeted penalties, leaving firms reliant on ongoing litigation by groups like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block to challenge the constitutionality of such orders.
Broader Implications for the Legal Industry
This episode exposes deep vulnerabilities in how law firms navigate political pressures:
-
Risk of politicized pro bono commitments undermining attorney independence.
-
Client trust erosion when firms appear to prioritize political expedience over principles.
-
Talent pipeline disruption as law students demand higher ethical standards.
It also raises broader questions about the weaponization of executive power to influence legal services and professional autonomy.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Biglaw
The current backpedaling by Biglaw firms serves as a stark reminder: attempts to appease political forces often backfire. What was meant to be a strategic compromise has devolved into a reputational and operational quagmire, with firms now desperate to distance themselves from the very deals they once embraced.
The legal community—and the public—won’t soon forget.
