(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
BigLaw firms get defensive about their "deals" with trump in their response to Congress [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-05-23
Last month, some Democratic House members led by Rep. Dave Min (CA-47), a former law professor, and Rep. April McClain Delaney (MD-6) wrote letters to nine BigLaw firms that caved to trump’s demands for pro bono services. The letters asked whether the firms’ capitulation could make them liable for various crimes including RICO:
These letters request a detailed explanation about whether these agreements pass legal muster or potentially open these firms up to liability under federal and state statutes, including: violating federal bribery law, which prohibits anyone, under threat of both criminal and civil liability, from corruptly offering and promising something of value to public officials with the intent to influence their official acts. (18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1) );
); aiding and abetting violations of the federal Hobbs Act, which prohibits obstruction, delay, or affecting commerce by extortion under color of official right (18 U.S.C.§ 1951);
violating federal anti-fraud “honest services” statutes, which prohibit schemes to defraud the public of the honest services of public officials using mail and wire communications (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341/1343, 1346, 1349 );
); violating federal racketeering law, which prohibits the participation in an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity ( 18 U.S.C. § 1962);
violating state laws, such as New York Penal Law § 200.03, which prohibits offering or agreeing to confer benefits valued over $5,000 on a public servant with the understanding that such public servant’s actions will be influenced thereby. […] The letters are requesting more information from the leadership of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, and Milbank LLP.
(I wrote about the Congressional letters in detail here. That diary included a poll on whether the law firms would grow a spine and a skeptical majority of 62% said No. We were, unfortunately, correct.)
Well, it turned out that eight of the firms responded that their compliance with trump’s extortion demands was both legal and ethical (“Big Law firms double down on their Trump deals in letters to Congress,” Business Insider, May 21)
White-shoe law firms that made deals with President Trump are doubling down on their commitments, insisting in letters to Congress that the agreements were legal and ethical. […] "Your suggestion that the Firm may have violated federal law, state law, and rules of professional conduct in entering into the agreements is wholly without merit," the law firm Simpson Thacher said in one letter. […] Min told Business Insider he disagreed with the law firms' responses and said he and other Congressional Democrats were considering their next steps. He said the law firms might have violated state laws as well as federal laws, and said investigations and enforcement activities could take place in other jurisdictions — or once Democrats take power. […] The law firms "can disavow the agreements," he added. "If they don't do that and continue to perform — for example, if they decide to represent January 6 protesters… then I think you have very clearly a circumstance where they violated a number of laws."
You can read the law firms’ responses in full here.
Let’s look at the extortion demands that the firms agreed to. The source for the following quote is about another law firm, Susman Godfrey, that did not cave to trump and instead filed a lawsuit alleging that the executive order targeting them was an unconstitutional threat to the rule of law, but all the firms were similarly threatened:
The executive order against Susman Godfrey seeks the suspension of security clearances issued to any of the firm’s lawyers; restricts access to government buildings for firm employees; bans the government from providing resources to Susman Godfrey, including compartmentalized information facilities; bans government hiring of Susman Godfrey employees; and calls for termination of government contracts for which Susman Godfrey has been hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts. Trump’s executive order “effectively seeks to create a new condition of government contracting—that contractors not work with Susman Godfrey,” the suit says. That is an unconstitutional condition that interferes with a First Amendment right to associate and a due process right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, according to the suit, which also cites other alleged constitutional violations.
The EO threatened not only the law firms but also threatened their clients with loss of their government contracts. The fact that eight of the targeted law firms are defending their agreements as legal and ethical is not only reprehensible, it’s dangerous to the rule of law that we’ve been taught is paramount in a democracy. Why didn’t all the firms fight their extortion demands the way Susman Godfrey did, based on the unconstitutionality of the demands?
And though the firms that caved claimed they tailored the work they agreed to perform in accordance with their principles, did they really think that whatever they agreed to wouldn’t be twisted by trump? Milbank, for instance, agreed to provide legal assistance to law enforcement officials and first responders. That sounds like reasonable work except trump unleashed law enforcement in another executive order (“Biglaw Firms In League With Donald Trump Now Have To Defend Cops That Kill Black And Brown People,” Above the Law, April 29):
Donald Trump’s aggressive and questionable use of Executive Orders to turn the country into a far-right hellscape continues. Last night, he signed an EO that ramps up the police state — targeting sanctuary cities that have refused to go along with Trump’s vision on immigration. Specifically, the EO seeks to use the military to run point on domestic law enforcement (Posse Comitatus Act, be damned!) and insulate police officers from legal consequences (because I guess qualified immunity isn’t enough). It’s some dystopian shit. But thanks to the cowardly capitulation of multiple firms, this is also a Biglaw story. The EO specifically provides the following: The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action to create a mechanism to provide legal resources and indemnification to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities for actions taken during the performance of their official duties to enforce the law. This mechanism shall include the use of private-sector pro bono assistance for such law enforcement officers. So… the Biglaw firms that inked deals with Trump (Paul Weiss, Kirkland, Latham, Skadden, Milbank, Willkie, Simpson Thacher, A&O Shearman, and Cadwalader) to get out from the right-wing doghouse will be asked — or, more ominously, assigned — to work on defending police officers accused of using excessive force. Huh, it looks like providing the Trump administration with $950 million in a pro bono payola slush fund was a terrible idea. Who would have guessed, except literally everyone?
Here’s what the law enforcement EO does from a police perspective:
The second section provides “legal resources and indemnification to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities for actions taken during the performance of their official duties to enforce the law.” Nine major law firms have committed to offering a total of $940 million in pro bono legal work for this and other causes favored by the Trump administration. Law enforcement agencies and the governments that sponsor them are generally required to indemnify (provide legal defense and pay most damages) law enforcement officers who are sued due to actions they took in the scope of their duties, even if those actions resulted in harm. One problem with this arrangement is that the attorney for the officer(s) and the attorney for the government are often the same person, even though the interests of the two parties are not exactly the same. The officer(s) are generally most interested in being vindicated and clearing their names, while the government’s primary interest is to minimize costs. Because the government’s interest is usually the one that takes precedence, many civil lawsuits are settled privately over the objections of the defendant officers, who want their day in court. Because litigation is expensive, the government often sees a settlement as the less costly option, even when the case for the officers is strong. The availability of pro bono legal support for law enforcement officers may change this paradigm, at least in the short term.
IOW, “Forget settlements, we can be as brutal as we ‘need’ to because trump will get us top-shelf legal defense for free.” And Milbank will go to work defending the offenders.
How did Milbank respond to the Congressional inquiry? I’d summarize it as “go pound sand” (“Trump’s Biglaw Bootlickers Say Quiet Part Out Loud In Letters To Congress,” Above the Law, May 22, emphasis in source)
Business Insider collected all nine May 8 responses to the Min and Delaney inquiry and while they largely reiterate the “LOL, wut” response previously reported, the letters offer a more comprehensive view of how these firms spin the unspinnable. Some are curt and insultingly dismissive of congressional inquiry. Others go into some detail with their “non-denial denials.” And yet none actually, you know, answer the questions. When we say, “curt and insultingly dismissive,” we mean a response like this one from Quinn Emanuel representing Milbank: On April 2, 2025, Milbank’s Chairman sent an internal email to firm personnel concerning the Agreement. That communication was picked up by the American Lawyer and continues to be available online. We respectfully refer you to that message… They told congressional representatives that they wouldn’t answer their questions but they could go get an American Lawyer subscription and check out a reprinted email to staff. First of all, if it helps, we also reprinted the email at Above the Law and we aren’t behind a paywall. You’re welcome. Second, they told congresspeople that they weren’t going to answer their specific questions and to look it up on Law.com! Assuming for the sake of argument that the email directly addressed all of the questions posed — it doesn’t — how hard is it to copy and paste? Does Quinn Emanuel charge so much by the hour that Milbank can’t afford to have the email turned into a letter?
Yeah, have fun, Milbank, defending law enforcement personnel, even ICE’s secret police, from charges of excessive force and other illegal activity.
Whatever the law firms thought they were signing up for, it’s clearly not what trump had in mind (“‘Pray I Don’t Alter It Any Further’: What Darth Vader Should Teach Law Firms About Settling With Trump,” Above the Law, April 10):
Trump has proposed using the free legal services that the firms thought they’d committed to conservative-friendly — but that would nonetheless remain causes of the firms’ choosing — to handle coal leases for the administration’s proposed CoalPunk AI revolution and to negotiate tariff deals… before he realized tariffs were tanking the economy. It’s not just Trump speaking out of advanced dementia either, with Stephen Miller, who relishes his role as a Stormtrooper, echoing this sentiment describing the deals as part of an initiative to bank a billion in free legal services. Meanwhile, a Heritage Foundation group has approached the surrender firms asking for free legal work and citing their Trump pledges. So far the law firms aren’t acknowledging these alterations to the deal. But the White House remains very clear: x Trump says he will assign the law firms which cut deals with him to coal regulation cases. We asked the firms. None responded. But the White House did… "[Trump] looks forward to putting their pro bono legal concessions toward implementing his America First agenda"… — Sam Stein (@samstein) April 10, 2025 “Assign.” […] And what are the firms gonna do about it? Other than privately mumble that “This deal is getting worse all the time!” they’re going to go along with it because they’re already pot committed at this point. Reversing course now doesn’t get them anything but an even harsher executive order that they’ve already told the whole market they don’t have the courage to fight. These firms thought they were buying peace. What they bought was a public admission that they could be shaken down. And at every stage from here on, the terms will change. Because bullies don’t honor deals. They escalate. You give them access to a tibanna gas mine, and next thing you know, they’re freezing your friends in carbonite and conscripting you as the shadow Justice Department.
Unfortunately, as Rep. Min told Business Insider, he and other Congressional Dems must consider their next steps since they’re not getting any support from RepubliCons. Since the law firms might have violated state laws as well as federal laws, investigations and enforcement activities would have to take place in state and local jurisdictions — “or once Democrats take power.”
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/5/23/2323975/-Eight-BigLaw-firms-defend-their-deals-with-trump-to-Congress?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
