Fourth firm reaches pro bono deal with Trump to avoid potential order punishing its government clients
Milbank is the fourth law firm to reach a settlement with President Donald Trump that calls on the firm to provide pro bono services on issues that they both support. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Milbank is the fourth law firm to reach a settlement with President Donald Trump that calls on the firm to provide pro bono services on issues that they both support.
Milbank will provide at least $100 million in pro bono services in areas that include assisting veterans and public servants, ensuring fairness in the justice system and fighting antisemitism, according to the April 2 announcement on Truth Social, Trump’s social media platform.
Another example of pro bono listed in the agreement is working with the exoneration and resentencing review unit at the Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice at Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, part of an existing pro bono partnership. The firm also pledged to include partners with diverse political ideologies on the pro bono committee to ensure that pro bono practices “represent the full political spectrum.”
Milbank also affirmed a commitment to merit-based employments practices and to refrain from illegal discrimination and preferences related to diversity, equity and inclusion. And the firm agreed that it won’t deny representation to clients, including pro bono clients, because of the personal political views of individual lawyers.
The settlement helps Milbank avoid a punitive executive order that could, among other things, call for a reassessment of the firm’s client contracts with government.
Three other settling firms agreed to similar terms. Two of them—Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom—agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono services to mutually supported pro bono projects. The third—Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison—reached a $40 million pro bono agreement.
Publications with coverage include Reuters, Law.com (here and here), Law360 and Bloomberg Law.
A Milbank partner is former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, described by Reuters as “a vocal Trump critic” who is representing the chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board in a lawsuit over her ouster.
Willkie hired Douglas Emhoff, the husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, and also employed two lawyers who worked for a congressional committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack. The other targeted firms have employed lawyers who worked on matters or with people adverse to Trump.
Trump began issuing executive orders penalizing disfavored firms in February, beginning with a Feb. 25 order targeting Covington & Burling. Three other firms sued in response to the orders. They are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie. All three have obtained temporary restraining orders pausing parts of the executive orders.
The Covington & Burling executive order called for the suspension of security clearances issued to Covington & Burling lawyers who aided former special counsel Jack Smith, who oversaw investigations of Trump. It also calls for government agencies to end engagements with Covington & Burling.
Beginning with Perkins Coie, the executive orders penalizing firms called for suspension of lawyers’ security clearances, restricted employee access to government buildings, blocked government hiring of firm employees, and required agencies to take steps to terminate contracts with the firms and their clients, if the firm provided services in connection with the client contract.
An internal statement by Milbank chair Scott Edelman, published by Law.com, explained one reason for the settlement.
“As a large law firm that does a majority of its work on transactional matters, we are dependent on our ability to navigate client issues in all parts of the executive branch,” the statement said. “We believed that it was in the best interests of the firm and its clients to resolve the Trump administration’s concerns in a way that would foster our working relationship and avoid what could have been an unnecessary confrontation.”
When Paul Weiss settled, its chairman Brad Karp said the firm was facing an “existential crisis” because of the order. Other firms were trying to exploit its situation, Karp said, “by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys.”
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
