BigLaw firms tell Democratic lawmakers they maintained independence in pro bono deals with Trump
Two Democratic lawmakers aren’t satisfied with answers from five BigLaw firms asked to provide information on pro bono deals that they reached with President Donald Trump to avoid punitive executive orders.. (Image from Shutterstock)
Two Democratic lawmakers aren’t satisfied with answers from five BigLaw firms asked to provide information on pro bono deals that they reached with President Donald Trump to avoid punitive executive orders.
“The inability of the firms to provide serious answers calls for aggressive oversight and inspection of the president’s $1 billion shakedown for free legal services for pet causes,” said the lawmakers, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, in a statement provided to Reuters.
Publications covering the letters, in addition to Reuters, include Law.com and Law360.
The law firms are A&O Shearman; Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. All said they did not compromise their principles when they agreed to provide millions of dollars in pro bono assistance to matters supported by Trump and the firms.
Kirkland & Ellis said in its letter it would “continue to provide pro bono and other legal services on a nonpartisan basis to a wide range of underserved populations,” according to Reuters. The other firms said they retained independence to pick their clients and cases.
Four of the firms also indicated that the deals resolved an inquiry into their diversity efforts by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A fifth firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, wasn’t subject to the EEOC probe.
The five firms are the latest to respond to information requests from Blumenthal and Raskin. Firms that received earlier requests for information about deals are Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Milbank; and Willkie Farr & Gallagher.
Blumenthal and Raskin “were similarly not enthused” with responses from the first group of firms that were asked for information, according to Law360.
The firms reached the deals to avoid executive orders that, among other things, call for the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances and imperil their clients’ government contracts.
See also:
Recruitment of lawyers from Trump-targeted firms is ethics violation, Democrats’ letter says
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
