Executive Power vs. The Independent Bar: An Analysis of the Trump Administration's Campaign Against Big Law

by Gemini Advanced, Deep Research with 2.5 Pro. Warning, LLMs may hallucinate!

I. Executive Summary

This report analyzes the unprecedented campaign initiated by the second Trump administration, starting in early 2025, against prominent U.S. law firms ("Big Law"). Utilizing executive orders, federal contract leverage, security clearance suspensions, EEOC investigations into Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, and public threats, the administration targeted firms associated with political opponents, investigations into the President, or legal challenges to its policies. Key targeted firms included Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, Covington & Burling, and Susman Godfrey, among others.

The administration's motivations appeared primarily retaliatory, aimed at punishing perceived adversaries and intimidating the broader legal profession to deter representation of clients opposing its agenda. Objectives also included redirecting substantial pro bono resources towards administration-favored causes (nearly $1 billion secured through settlements), dismantling DEI initiatives within firms, and demonstrating executive power by extracting concessions from elite institutions.

These actions provoked significant legal challenges and widespread condemnation, raising grave constitutional concerns regarding the First Amendment (retaliation against protected speech, petition, association), Sixth Amendment (right to counsel), and Fifth Amendment (due process), as well as threatening the separation of powers by undermining the independence of the bar. Ethical concerns centered on the potential for bribery or extortion in the settlement deals, conflicts of interest created by coerced pro bono, and the erosion of the rule of law.

The response from Big Law was fractured. Several firms (Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey) successfully sued the administration, obtaining court orders blocking key sanctions based on likely constitutional violations. However, a larger group of firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and others, negotiated settlements. These deals typically involved massive pro bono commitments ($40 million to $125 million per firm), agreements to limit or review DEI practices, and affirmations of political neutrality, in exchange for avoiding or rescinding punitive executive actions. Firms cited existential business threats, particularly the risk of losing government contractor clients, as justification for settling. Critics decried these deals as capitulation that undermined professional values and set a dangerous precedent.

The consequences included immediate internal dissent and resignations at settling firms, potential long-term reputational damage, and ongoing ethical and legal risks associated with the coerced agreements. Resisting firms faced litigation costs but bolstered their standing as defenders of principle. Employees experienced ethical dilemmas and career uncertainty. The conflict exposed deep divisions within the legal profession and created a potential chilling effect on legal representation for those challenging the government. Firms that settled may face future scrutiny, particularly under a different political administration.

The analysis concludes that the administration's actions posed a fundamental threat to the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law. While settlement offered short-term relief from immediate threats, the strategy of legal resistance, grounded in constitutional principles and ideally supported by professional solidarity, appears to be the most prudent course for preserving the integrity and long-term viability of law firms facing such pressures. Vigilance, ethical clarity, and collective action are crucial for the legal profession to withstand future attempts to weaponize government power against the independent bar.

II. Introduction

Beginning in early 2025, the second administration of President Donald Trump initiated a series of unprecedented actions targeting several prominent U.S. law firms, collectively often referred to as "Big Law".¹ This period marked a significant escalation in tensions between the executive branch and segments of the legal profession. The conflict transcends typical political disputes, representing a fundamental challenge to the established independence of the legal profession, the constitutional right to counsel, and the broader principles underpinning the rule of law in the United States.²The administration explicitly framed its actions as necessary to hold certain firms "accountable" for activities deemed detrimental to its interests or national security.⁷

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the Trump administration's campaign against Big Law. It examines the specific actions taken, the apparent motivations and objectives behind them, the relevant historical context, the significant legal and ethical dimensions raised, the varied responses from the targeted law firms—ranging from vigorous legal challenges to negotiated settlements—and the subsequent consequences for the firms, their employees, and the legal system itself. The analysis draws upon publicly available information, including news reports, official statements, legal filings, and expert commentary, to offer a detailed perspective on these events.

The significance of this conflict cannot be overstated. The administration's actions have raised serious concerns about a potential chilling effect on the willingness of lawyers and law firms to represent clients whose interests diverge from, or are directly opposed to, those of the executive branch.⁸ Furthermore, these events risk eroding democratic norms by appearing to weaponize government power against perceived political adversaries, potentially undermining public trust in both the legal profession and governmental institutions.² The long-term implications for the structure and independence of the legal industry, and its ability to function as a check on government power, remain a critical area of concern.² This report aims to illuminate the complexities of this situation and its potential ramifications.

III. The Administration's Campaign Against Big Law

A. Catalog of Actions: Tactics and Targets

The administration's campaign against major law firms deployed a range of tactics, moving beyond mere rhetoric to utilize the formal powers of the executive branch. Central to this effort was the issuance of executive orders (EOs) and presidential memoranda specifically targeting individual firms, beginning in February 2025.¹ The initial wave of firms subjected to these directives included Covington & Burling (targeted via memorandum on February 25), Perkins Coie (EO issued March 6), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (Paul Weiss) (EO issued March 14), Jenner & Block (EO issued March 25), Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (WilmerHale) (EO issued March 27), and Susman Godfrey (EO issued in early April).¹

These executive actions consistently imposed a suite of severe sanctions designed to cripple the firms' operations and relationships.¹ Key punitive measures included:

• The immediate suspension of any active security clearances held by individuals employed by the targeted firms, pending reviews often lacking clear procedural guidelines.¹

• Denial of access to all federal government buildings, including courthouses, for employees of the targeted firms.¹

• Directives compelling federal agencies to review and terminate existing government contracts held by the targeted firms.¹

• A requirement that all federal government contractors disclose any business relationships with the targeted firms, carrying an implicit threat that continuing such relationships could jeopardize the contractors' own federal business.³

• Prohibitions preventing federal employees from engaging professionally with employees of the targeted firms.³

• A ban on hiring employees from the targeted firms into any position within the federal government.¹

Beyond the direct sanctions via EOs, the administration utilized the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to exert pressure. The EEOC initiated investigations into the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) hiring and employment practices of approximately 20 major law firms, demanding extensive information about applicants and internal policies.¹ Notably, these EEOC investigations were later withdrawn for several firms as a component of settlement agreements reached with the administration.¹⁶

This administrative pressure was amplified by public rhetoric from President Trump and his allies. Firms were publicly branded as "dishonest," "dangerous," or accused of "weaponizing" the justice system.¹ President Trump stated that law firms needed to "behave themselves" ¹, while prominent ally Steve Bannon explicitly threatened targeted firms, stating, "what we are trying to do is put you out of business and bankrupt you".³¹ Further underscoring this intent, a March 22, 2025, memorandum directed the Attorney General to prioritize seeking sanctions against lawyers and firms engaging in litigation deemed "frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious" against the administration.⁷

The administration's actions also singled out specific individual lawyers whose work or associations were deemed offensive. Names like Marc Elias, Peter Koski, Mark Pomerantz, James Quarles, Jack Smith, Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller, Aaron Zebley, and Mark Zaid appeared in EOs or related statements, often serving as the stated justification for targeting the firms with which they were, or had been, affiliated.¹

The coordinated use of multiple levers of executive power—EOs imposing direct sanctions, EEOC investigations into internal practices, contract terminations, access restrictions, and public threats—indicates a deliberate and systematic campaign designed to exert maximum pressure on the targeted firms and, by extension, the broader legal profession.⁶ The pattern of targeting was not random; it consistently correlated with firms or lawyers perceived by the administration as adversaries or obstacles.

Furthermore, the administration frequently justified its actions against entire law firms based on the conduct or affiliations of specific individuals, including former partners who had left the firms years prior.⁶ Linking the institution to the perceived transgressions of individuals, such as Robert Mueller's past association with WilmerHale or Andrew Weissmann's with Jenner & Block, served as a pretext for imposing broad, firm-wide sanctions.¹ This tactic effectively punished firms by association, aiming to generate internal pressure and deter firms from associating with anyone considered an enemy of the administration.

B. Unpacking Motivations and Objectives

The administration's multifaceted campaign against Big Law appears driven by a confluence of motivations, primarily centered on retribution, intimidation, and the assertion of executive control over perceived institutional adversaries.

The most prominent driver was retaliation. The EOs and accompanying statements explicitly cited firms' past actions as justification for the punitive measures. This included representation of political opponents like Hillary Clinton (Perkins Coie) ⁴, association with individuals who led investigations into President Trump, such as Special Counsels Robert Mueller (WilmerHale) and Jack Smith (Covington & Burling), or prosecutors like Andrew Weissmann (Jenner & Block) ¹, involvement in legal challenges to administration policies concerning election laws or immigration ³, and pursuing litigation against administration allies, exemplified by Susman Godfrey's representation of Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News.¹⁶ Federal judges reviewing the EOs explicitly noted this retaliatory motive ⁶, and the administration's own language often confirmed it.⁷

A closely related objective was intimidation aimed at producing a chilling effect across the entire legal profession.¹ By making high-profile examples of powerful firms, the administration sought to deter other lawyers and firms from taking on clients, causes, or cases perceived as adverse to its interests or allies. Evidence of this chilling effect emerged in reports of Biden-era officials and public interest groups struggling to find legal representation for challenges against the administration, as firms grew wary of becoming the next target.¹ Some commentators noted that firms might become hesitant to take on any politically salient cases, regardless of merit, due to the risks involved.⁴

The administration also aimed to control and redirect the substantial pro bono resources commanded by Big Law.² Many large firms dedicate significant attorney time to pro bono work, often supporting civil liberties organizations, immigrants, or other groups whose activities might run counter to the administration's agenda.² The settlement agreements explicitly required firms to dedicate vast sums—totaling nearly $1 billion—in pro bono services towards causes championed by the administration, such as supporting veterans, combating antisemitism, ensuring "fairness in the justice system," and potentially aiding industries like coal or advancing specific trade policies.²⁵ President Trump himself referred to these coerced commitments as a potential "legal war chest" ³⁷, transforming pro bono work from a public service obligation into a political tool extracted under duress. This represented a novel tactic, co-opting private resources for political ends and raising significant questions about the integrity and independence of pro bono initiatives. The sheer scale of the commitments ($940M reported ¹⁸) and their directed nature underscored the strategic intent behind this maneuver, potentially creating future conflicts for firms obligated to serve administration priorities while also representing clients adverse to them.¹⁸

Another clear objective was dismantling or curtailing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives within law firms.¹ The administration publicly characterized DEI programs as "unlawful" discrimination based on race and gender ¹, and the EEOC probes served as a mechanism to investigate and pressure firms on these grounds.¹Settlement agreements frequently required firms to disavow "illegal" DEI considerations, commit to "merit-based" hiring, or adopt policies of "political neutrality".¹³ The focus on DEI served multiple purposes: it aligned with the administration's broader ideological stance, provided a seemingly legitimate basis for investigation and leverage, and offered a tangible concession that firms could make in settlements to signal compliance with administration priorities. This attack on DEI, however, risked alienating diverse talent within the firms and undermining years of effort to broaden representation in the legal profession.²⁴

Finally, the campaign against Big Law served to extract concessions and demonstrate executive power.¹⁵ By targeting these powerful and prestigious institutions, the administration aimed to force them to "bend the knee" ¹⁸, showcasing its ability to compel compliance even from elite segments of society. This was part of a wider effort described as a "retribution campaign by Trump designed to reshape civil society".¹⁵ The settlements, regardless of the specific terms or the firms' justifications, served as public demonstrations of the administration's leverage and success in achieving its aims.¹⁶ President Trump's remark about receiving substantial financial commitments from firms he acknowledged had done "nothing wrong" starkly highlighted the coercive dynamic at play.¹³

IV. Historical Parallels and Context

While the scale and methods of the second Trump administration's actions against Big Law appear largely unprecedented, examining historical instances of executive pressure on perceived opponents provides valuable context.

A. Nixon's Enemies List

The most frequently cited historical parallel is the "Enemies List" compiled during the presidency of Richard Nixon.⁴⁷ Similar to the Trump administration's targeting, Nixon's "Political Enemies Project" aimed to use the machinery of the federal government to punish individuals and groups deemed political adversaries.⁴⁷ Nixon's list, which grew to include hundreds of names, encompassed politicians, journalists, academics, entertainers, labor leaders, and organizations critical of his administration.⁴⁷ The explicit goal, as articulated by White House Counsel John Dean, was "to use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies" ⁴⁸—a sentiment echoed in the motivations behind the Trump EOs. Nixon and his aides primarily sought to weaponize the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to initiate audits and investigations against those on the list.⁴⁷ The comparison gained traction during the Trump-Big Law conflict, with at least one federal judge explicitly invoking the "Red Scare" and McCarthy era—periods associated with government blacklisting based on political affiliation—when questioning the administration's justification for suspending security clearances en masse.¹⁵

However, there are notable differences. While Nixon's efforts reflected a similar impulse towards political retribution, his attempts to systematically weaponize the IRS against the entire list were reportedly hampered by resistance within the agency and were ultimately less effective in directly damaging his targets compared to the Trump administration's approach.⁴⁷ The Trump administration utilized executive orders and memoranda to impose immediate, concrete sanctions—such as suspending security clearances, terminating contracts, and restricting building access—that directly threatened the business viability of major law firms.³ Furthermore, the Trump administration successfully extracted tangible concessions in the form of massive pro bono commitments and policy changes (regarding DEI) through settlement agreements, a feature largely absent from the Nixon-era enemies project.¹⁶

The recurrence of such tactics across different administrations decades apart suggests a persistent temptation for executive power to be deployed against political opponents. Yet, the Trump administration's actions against Big Law arguably represent an escalation, particularly in the directness, scope, and effectiveness of the measures used specifically against the legal profession. While Nixon's targets were diverse, the Trump campaign focused intensely on the legal infrastructure perceived as supporting his adversaries.⁶ The overt use of EOs to impose potentially ruinous sanctions ³ and the extraction of nearly $1 billion in coerced settlements ²⁸ arguably set a more potent and potentially dangerous precedent for the weaponization of executive authority against the independent bar than the less systematic IRS pressure under Nixon.⁴⁷

B. Other Precedents

Other historical instances involved pressure on lawyers representing unpopular clients, though typically through different means. Lawyers who represented Guantanamo Bay detainees following the 9/11 attacks faced significant challenges during the George W. Bush administration.⁴ This pressure included public criticism from government officials questioning their patriotism or values ⁵⁵, difficulties in accessing clients held in military detention ⁵⁸, navigating restrictive rules governing communication and representation ⁵⁴, and even instances where interrogators reportedly impersonated lawyers.⁵⁴ Some firms faced pressure to drop these representations.⁴

However, these challenges, while significant, generally did not involve direct executive orders imposing punitive sanctions on entire law firms as institutions based on their representation choices.¹³ The pressure was often more indirect, involving political condemnation, systemic obstacles within the specific context of Guantanamo detention, or challenges to the lawyers' professional conduct rather than firm-wide economic sanctions mandated by the White House.⁵⁵

The crucial distinction lies in the mechanism of pressure. While representing controversial clients has historically carried reputational and sometimes professional risks, the Trump administration's actions marked a shift towards the formal, direct use of executive power—through EOs, contract leverage, security clearance suspensions, and EEOC probes—to impose severe financial and operational penalties on law firms themselves. This institutional targeting represents a significant departure from past episodes of pressure, which more often focused on individual lawyers or created systemic hurdles rather than wielding direct executive sanctions against the firms employing them.

V. Legal, Constitutional, and Ethical Fault Lines

The Trump administration's campaign against Big Law triggered profound legal, constitutional, and ethical concerns, challenging foundational principles of the American legal system.

A. Constitutional Infirmities

Multiple constitutional provisions were implicated by the administration's actions, forming the core of the legal challenges brought by resisting firms and the condemnations issued by legal organizations and experts.

• First Amendment Violations: The most prominent argument centered on the violation of First Amendment rights. The executive orders were widely seen as unconstitutional retaliation against firms for exercising their rights to freedom of speech (through advocacy), freedom to petition the government (by filing lawsuits on behalf of clients), and freedom of association (by choosing whom to represent and employ).² The EOs themselves often explicitly cited the firms' past representations (e.g., Perkins Coie/Clinton, WilmerHale/Mueller associates) or litigation activities (e.g., challenging election or immigration laws) as the basis for the sanctions.³ Federal courts granting temporary restraining orders (TROs) against the EOs found that the targeted firms demonstrated a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claims, noting evidence of "retaliatory animus" and concluding that the orders ran "head on into the wall of First Amendment protections".⁶ Punishing lawyers or firms based on the viewpoint of their clients or the content of their advocacy constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination under established First Amendment jurisprudence.³

• Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel: The actions posed a direct threat to the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to counsel. By targeting law firms for representing clients disfavored by the administration, the EOs created a chilling effect that could deter lawyers from taking on cases against the government or representing politically unpopular individuals or causes.¹ This undermines the fundamental principle that everyone is entitled to legal representation and that lawyers should not be penalized for fulfilling their professional duty to represent clients zealously.¹ If lawyers fear retribution, access to justice for those challenging government actions is severely compromised.⁴

• Fifth Amendment Due Process: Significant due process concerns arose from the manner in which sanctions were imposed.⁶ The blanket suspension of security clearances for all attorneys at a targeted firm, without individualized assessment, notice, or a meaningful opportunity to contest the decision, appeared to violate basic procedural fairness requirements. Judge Beryl Howell, presiding over the Perkins Coie case, expressed "deep unease" and sharply questioned the Justice Department about the lack of clear procedures for these suspensions.¹⁵Commentators also noted that the EOs, by punishing firms for past actions that were legal when undertaken, resembled constitutionally prohibited bills of attainder (legislative punishments without trial) or ex post facto laws.¹⁴

• Separation of Powers: The administration's campaign represented an encroachment by the executive branch on the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession.³ An independent bar is essential for the proper functioning of the adversarial legal system and for the courts to serve as an effective check on executive and legislative power. By attempting to intimidate lawyers and dictate which clients or causes are permissible to represent, the executive branch sought to undermine this independence, thereby weakening the judicial branch's ability to adjudicate disputes fairly and hold the government accountable.³

The administration's strategy was concerning precisely because it simultaneously attacked multiple constitutional safeguards. Targeting a firm for its client representations infringed upon First Amendment rights of speech, petition, and association; it chilled the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for potential future clients; and when executed through summary procedures like mass security clearance suspensions, it violated Fifth Amendment due process rights.³ This multi-pronged assault threatened the structural integrity of the legal system and the separation of powers designed to protect it.³

B. Statutory and Ethical Concerns

Beyond the constitutional violations, the administration's actions and the resulting settlements raised serious statutory and ethical questions.

• Potential Criminal Violations: Democratic lawmakers formally raised concerns that the settlement agreements between law firms and the Trump administration could potentially violate several federal criminal statutes.¹² They questioned whether the firms' offers of substantial pro bono services, made under threat of punitive EOs, could constitute bribery—offering something of value (free legal services) to influence an official act (the rescission or avoidance of an EO). They also raised the possibility of aiding and abetting extortion under the Hobbs Act, given the coercive context ("illegal shakedown" ⁴⁴) in which the deals were struck. Further concerns included potential violations of federal honest services fraud statutes and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, as well as state-level anti-bribery laws.¹² President Trump's own statement acknowledging the firms had likely done nothing wrong yet still provided significant financial commitments added fuel to these concerns.¹³

• Assault on Rule of Law and Independence of the Bar: The entire campaign was widely condemned by legal organizations, including the American Bar Association (ABA), numerous state and local bar associations, law school deans, and civil liberties groups, as a fundamental assault on the rule of law and the independence of the legal profession.¹ The core principle at stake was the necessity for lawyers to represent clients zealously and ethically, without fear of government retribution based on the client's identity or cause.¹ The administration's actions were seen as an attempt to intimidate lawyers into silence or compliance, thereby undermining a critical pillar of democratic society.²⁴ The subsequent Justice Department memo restricting departmental engagement with the ABA further signaled hostility towards established legal institutions.¹⁸

• Ethical Dilemmas for Firms and Lawyers: The situation created acute ethical dilemmas for law firms and the lawyers within them.¹ Firm leadership had to weigh their fiduciary duties to protect the firm's financial health, clients, and employees against their broader professional obligations to uphold the rule of law and resist unlawful pressure.⁴¹ The settlements themselves, born from what lawmakers termed "coercive and illegal measures" ¹³, presented significant ethical hazards. Agreeing to provide potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono services directed by the very administration that had threatened the firm's existence raised serious questions about compromised independence and potential conflicts of interest.¹² If a firm was obligated to provide pro bono services supporting administration initiatives, could it ethically and effectively represent a client challenging those same initiatives? Furthermore, the controversy exposed ethical concerns about professional conduct within the industry itself, particularly regarding allegations that some firms attempted to poach clients and lawyers from targeted rivals perceived as vulnerable.²³

• ABA Model Rules Implications: While specific disciplinary actions were not reported, the conduct raised questions under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The alleged poaching attempts were cited by lawmakers as potentially violating Rule 8.4(d), which prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.²³ More broadly, the pressure exerted by the administration risked compromising lawyers' fundamental duties, such as the duty of candor towards tribunals (Rule 3.3), if lawyers felt compelled to align their arguments or actions with administration preferences rather than the merits of the case and their clients' interests.¹⁸

The settlements, therefore, represented more than just business decisions; they carried substantial ethical weight. Negotiated under duress ¹³, these agreements risked making the settling firms appear complicit in the administration's efforts to undermine the rule of law.¹² The potential for conflicts of interest arising from the directed pro bono work ¹⁸ and the questions raised about potential violations of anti-bribery and anti-extortion laws ¹² created ongoing ethical liabilities for the firms involved.

This intense pressure also exposed and perhaps exacerbated divisions within the legal profession. Despite calls for unity ⁴¹, Big Law fractured in its response. Some firms sued vigorously ¹, others settled quickly or preemptively ¹, many remained silent ¹, and some were accused of seeking advantage amidst the turmoil.²³ While hundreds of firms signed amicus briefs supporting Perkins Coie, many of the largest and highest-earning firms conspicuously did not.¹⁰ This lack of a unified professional front arguably weakened the collective ability to resist the administration's campaign and highlighted a potential tension between individual firm business interests and broader professional solidarity.¹⁰

VI. The Fractured Response of Big Law

Faced with unprecedented executive pressure, the targeted law firms adopted divergent strategies, leading to a fragmented response across the industry. Some chose direct confrontation through the courts, while others opted for negotiation and settlement, either after being targeted or preemptively to avoid sanctions.

A. Firms Mounting Legal Challenges

A significant group of targeted firms chose to contest the administration's actions in federal court. Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey all filed lawsuits challenging the legality and constitutionality of the executive orders directed at them.¹ Covington & Burling, which faced a narrower memorandum focused primarily on security clearances for specific lawyers assisting Special Counsel Jack Smith, did not initiate litigation.²³

The lawsuits filed by the resisting firms consistently argued that the executive orders were unlawful and unconstitutional.² Their core legal arguments centered on violations of the First Amendment (retaliation for protected speech, petition, and association), the Fifth Amendment (lack of due process), and the Sixth Amendment (infringement on the right to counsel), as well as violations of the separation of powers doctrine. They characterized the EOs as blatant acts of presidential retaliation designed to punish them for representing clients or employing lawyers deemed adversaries by the administration.¹⁵

These legal challenges met with notable initial success. Federal district judges in Washington, D.C., granted TROs in the cases brought by Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and later Susman Godfrey, temporarily blocking the enforcement of key provisions of the EOs.⁶ The blocked provisions typically included the restrictions on access to federal buildings and the directives concerning termination of federal contracts or disclosure requirements for contractors using the firms. In granting these TROs, judges explicitly cited the firms' likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their constitutional claims, often pointing to the apparent "retaliatory animus" motivating the orders and the serious constitutional harms they posed.⁶ While the TROs provided immediate relief from some of the most damaging sanctions, initial rulings sometimes left the status of the security clearance suspensions less certain, creating ongoing concern for firms and clients requiring cleared counsel.¹⁵

B. Firms Striking Deals

In contrast to the firms that pursued litigation, a larger group of prominent law firms chose to negotiate settlements with the Trump administration. This group included firms targeted by EOs as well as firms that acted preemptively, apparently to forestall being targeted.

Paul Weiss was the first firm subjected to an EO (March 14) to publicly announce a settlement. Just six days later, on March 20, President Trump issued a new EO revoking the first one, stating that Paul Weiss had agreed to terms.¹ The agreement reportedly included a commitment to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services for administration-supported causes, conduct an audit of its hiring practices, disavow "illegal" DEI policies, and adopt a policy of political neutrality.²

Following the Paul Weiss deal, a cascade of similar agreements emerged, involving firms that had not been subjected to specific EOs but were potentially targets of the ongoing EEOC probes or feared future executive action. These included:

• Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Skadden): Announced March 28, agreed to $100 million in pro bono for administration-favored causes and review/limit DEI practices.¹

• Milbank LLP: Agreed to $100 million in pro bono.¹

• Willkie Farr & Gallagher: Agreed to $100 million in pro bono.¹

• Kirkland & Ellis: Agreed to $125 million in pro bono and other free legal services; administration agreed to withdraw EEOC probe.¹²

• Latham & Watkins: Agreed to $125 million in pro bono and other free legal services; administration agreed to withdraw EEOC probe.¹²

• Simpson Thacher & Bartlett: Agreed to $125 million in pro bono and other free legal services; administration agreed to withdraw EEOC probe.¹²

• A&O Shearman (Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP): Agreed to $125 million in pro bono and other free legal services; administration agreed to withdraw EEOC probe.¹²

• Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft: Agreed to $100 million in pro bono and other free legal services.¹²

In total, these nine firms committed approximately $940 million in pro bono and other free legal services through these deals.¹⁸ The agreements also typically required firms to affirm commitments to merit-based hiring, disavow "illegal" DEI practices, and agree not to deny services based on political viewpoint.¹⁶

The following tables summarize the targeted firms and their responses, and provide details on the settlements reached.

Continue reading here (due to post length constraints): https://p4sc4l.substack.com/p/this-report-provides-a-comprehensive