Major U.S. Law Firms Defend Trump Agreements Amid Lawmaker Scrutiny

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Five top U.S. law firms—A&O Shearman, Cadwalader, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and Kirkland & Ellis—have publicly defended their controversial agreements with the Trump administration, insisting that their core principles and client independence remain intact. The firms issued their responses in letters dated April 28 to Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who had requested details about the nature and consequences of the deals.

Law Firms Reaffirm Independence Despite Political Pressure

The firms clarified that, despite pledging hundreds of millions in pro bono legal services to causes supported by the White House, they have not compromised their autonomy:

• A&O Shearman, Cadwalader, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher explicitly stated they retained full discretion over the clients and cases they accept.
• Kirkland & Ellis emphasized its continued commitment to offering pro bono services “on a non-partisan basis to a wide range of underserved populations.”

The letters did not confirm whether the firms had dropped any existing pro bono clients or taken on new clients following their agreements with the Trump administration.

  

What

Where

Search Jobs

Lawmakers Accuse Firms of Undermining the Rule of Law

Blumenthal and Raskin, both prominent Democrats, sharply criticized the law firms’ responses. In a joint statement, they argued that the firms’ replies “raised more questions than they answered.”

“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,” the lawmakers declared.

The Democratic leaders accused the firms of complicity in President Trump’s broader efforts to weaponize the legal profession and co-opt private attorneys as personal defenders of his political interests.

Background: Trump’s Executive Orders Target Law Firms

The controversy stems from a series of executive orders issued by President Trump in February 2025. The orders targeted law firms accused of:

• Weaponizing the legal system by pursuing litigation against Trump or his allies.
• Engaging in allegedly discriminatory employment practices.
• Representing political adversaries or causes Trump opposes.

Four of the five firms—A&O Shearman, Latham, Simpson Thacher, and Kirkland—faced penalties under these orders, including:

• Revocation of security clearances for attorneys.
• Restricted access to federal buildings.
• Threats to cancel federal contracts held by their corporate clients.

In response, several firms filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the orders. Notably, Perkins Coie recently succeeded in persuading a federal judge in Washington to invalidate the executive order levied against it.

Firms Strike Deals to Protect Business Interests

In total, nine law firms have pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to avoid or resolve enforcement actions under Trump’s directives. The firms have defended these agreements as necessary to:

• Shield their businesses from potentially crippling executive actions.
• Prevent investigations into their hiring and employment practices initiated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

In their recent letters, A&O Shearman, Kirkland, Latham, and Simpson Thacher disclosed that their agreements with the Trump administration also resolved an EEOC inquiry launched in March 2025.

The Broader Impact on the Legal Industry

This unprecedented situation has sparked intense debate within the legal community and beyond:

• Critics argue the deals undermine the independence of the legal profession and set a dangerous precedent for government coercion.
• Supporters contend the firms had little choice but to comply to protect their clients and employees from retaliatory government actions.

The controversy underscores the delicate balance major law firms must navigate between business interests, professional ethics, and political pressures.

---

Key Takeaways

• Five major U.S. law firms defended agreements with the Trump administration, asserting they retained client independence.
• Democratic lawmakers criticized the firms for allegedly enabling Trump’s political agenda and undermining the rule of law.
• Trump’s executive orders penalized firms for perceived legal opposition and employment practices.
• Nine firms total pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono work to avoid punitive actions.
• The dispute raises complex questions about legal ethics, government overreach, and the role of law firms in politically charged environments.