Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, one of the leading law firms on Wall Street, has recently begun working with the United States Department of Commerce, according to official sources from the department. While the specifics of this engagement remain under wraps, the collaboration marks another significant development in the relationship between top-tier law firms and the federal government.

The Commerce Department has not publicly disclosed whether Simpson Thacher’s work is part of its previously announced pro bono commitments or a separate fee-based arrangement. However, this partnership comes on the heels of a broader trend wherein major law firms have pledged substantial pro bono support to government agencies, particularly during periods of heightened scrutiny of legal services and political alignments.

Background: The Pro Bono Agreement and Its Origins

In April of this year, Simpson Thacher joined eight other prominent law firms in a voluntary agreement with the U.S. government, pledging a collective total of nearly $940 million in pro bono work. Simpson Thacher alone committed to providing $125 million in pro bono legal services, reflecting a significant investment of the firm’s resources in support of federal agencies and public interests.

These agreements emerged amid a backdrop of contentious policy shifts introduced under the Trump Administration. Executive orders signed during that period sought to restrict federal contracts with law firms that had previously represented certain clients, engaged in politically sensitive activities, or had specific diversity and inclusion policies. This policy raised concerns across the legal community about potential constraints on firms’ ability to represent a broad range of clients without risking government work.

The pro bono pledges were seen as a strategic response by the firms involved — a way to maintain favorable relationships with the federal government while continuing to uphold their broader commitments to public service and legal ethics.

The Commerce Department Engagement

Details regarding the scope of Simpson Thacher’s current work with the Commerce Department have not been publicly revealed. The department confirmed the law firm’s involvement but stopped short of specifying whether the tasks fall under the firm’s prior pro bono commitments or constitute separate engagements.

This ambiguity has fueled speculation among legal observers and lawmakers alike. Some view the firm’s ongoing collaboration as a positive example of legal talent being leveraged to support government functions, particularly in complex regulatory and trade matters that fall within the Commerce Department’s purview.

Others express concern about the potential implications for the independence of law firms that simultaneously juggle pro bono commitments to the government and private clients whose interests may sometimes conflict with government policy.

Congressional Oversight and Calls for Transparency

Democratic lawmakers have taken an active interest in the pro bono agreements between the government and these nine major law firms, including Simpson Thacher. Members of Congress have pressed for greater transparency, seeking full disclosure of the terms of the agreements and the nature of the assignments being performed.

Despite these calls, participating firms have generally refrained from publicly revealing the precise details of their engagements. This reticence has sparked debate over whether the firms’ pro bono commitments might effectively serve as a form of political appeasement or whether they remain fully independent in their representation of clients.

It is noteworthy that some firms involved in the agreement have later taken on legal matters that directly challenge government policies or actions, underscoring the complex and sometimes contradictory dynamics in play. This has led commentators to question the long-term impact of these arrangements on legal ethics and the principle of client independence.

Legal Challenges to the Executive Orders

Several of the law firms that initially signed on to the pro bono pledge later mounted legal challenges against the executive orders that triggered the agreements. Notably, Perkins Coie LLP, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block LLP, and Susman Godfrey LLP filed lawsuits asserting that the executive orders infringed on their rights and were unconstitutional.

Federal courts ultimately sided with these firms, ruling the executive orders invalid and preventing their enforcement. These rulings highlighted concerns over the government’s authority to penalize law firms based on their client relationships or internal policies.

Simpson Thacher did not join these legal challenges but remains a key player in the evolving discussion around government contracts, pro bono work, and law firm independence.

Industry Implications

The involvement of Simpson Thacher and other elite law firms in government pro bono programs illustrates the ongoing balancing act within the legal industry. Firms seek to contribute meaningfully to public service while protecting their autonomy and client base.

The Commerce Department engagement is likely to involve high-stakes legal and regulatory issues, including trade enforcement, export controls, and international commerce, areas where Simpson Thacher has extensive expertise. The firm’s participation could provide critical support to the department’s complex initiatives, particularly at a time when global trade relations are evolving rapidly.

At the same time, the controversy surrounding these government agreements highlights the challenges firms face in navigating political pressures and public perceptions. The need for transparency, clear ethical guidelines, and robust client protections remains paramount.

Conclusion

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett’s work with the U.S. Commerce Department underscores the intricate and often delicate relationship between large law firms and government entities. While the firm’s commitment to providing pro bono legal services reflects its dedication to public interest law, questions remain about how these engagements intersect with broader political and ethical considerations.

As the legal community watches closely, the unfolding story will likely shape future policies governing government contracts, law firm pro bono commitments, and the limits of government influence on legal practice.

Looking to advance your legal career or explore new opportunities in law? Stay ahead of industry developments like Simpson Thacher’s engagement with the U.S. Commerce Department by visiting LawCrossing — your premier destination for legal jobs, internships, and career resources. Discover the latest openings at top firms, access expert career advice, and take the next step toward your future today!

The post Simpson Thacher and Bartlett Engaged by U.S. Commerce Department first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Three of the most prominent U.S. law firms have declined to fully respond to demands from Democratic lawmakers seeking details about their legal work tied to agreements made with President Donald Trump earlier this year.

Congressional Inquiries and the Firms’ Responses

In late September, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), along with Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), sent letters to Kirkland & Ellis, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, demanding information about any legal work the firms might have conducted for the U.S. Commerce Department in 2025—including whether services were provided pro bono or at reduced rates.

Each firm replied but stopped short of providing substantive answers. Instead, they defended their discretion in choosing clients and indicated they are attentive to managing conflicts of interest and complying with ethical rules.

For instance, Kirkland & Ellis, via partner W. Neil Eggleston (formerly White House counsel under President Obama), stated that it was confident its agreement with the Trump administration did not implicate the concerns raised. Paul Weiss, in turn, made clear that any work it performed for the government—whether paid or free—would not be counted toward the firm’s previously announced $40 million pro bono commitment. Skadden rejected the characterization implied by the lawmakers’ inquiry, contending it had not violated statutes, regulations, or ethical obligations.

Background: The Trump-Law Firm Deals

The firms in question were part of a cadre that pledged nearly $1 billion in legal services, in connection with agreements with the Trump White House. These commitments were offered after Trump began issuing executive orders aimed at punishing firms perceived to have political or legal ties to his critics. In the case of Paul Weiss, for example, the firm was under threat from an executive order (14237) restricting its access to federal buildings and government contracts; that order was later withdrawn after the firm agreed to revise certain policies.

Such deals were controversial from the outset, with critics arguing they risk undermining the independence of the legal profession and blurring the line between advocacy and political accommodation.

Lawmakers’ Response: Ethics, Transparency, and Accountability

In their joint statement, Senators Blumenthal and Schiff and Representative Raskin sharply criticized the firms’ refusal to divulge details, declaring that their silence “speaks volumes about the moral crisis of the legal profession today.” They urged transparency and insisted that law firms should act as bulwarks against the erosion of the rule of law—not as bystanders or enablers.

The firms, in their replies, largely avoided taking a confrontational tone. They asserted that they were legally entitled to decline certain disclosures and emphasized their commitment to professional and ethical obligations.

Broader Implications for Big Law and Government Relations

This controversy is part of a larger struggle between parts of the legal industry and the Trump administration’s efforts to exert influence over major law firms. Some firms that resisted Trump’s pressure—such as Perkins Coie and WilmerHale—sued and obtained court orders blocking punitive executive actions. Others chose to negotiate, offering pro bono commitments in exchange for being spared from restrictions.

Critics argue that by entering into these deals, firms risk compromising their ability to represent unpopular or politically sensitive clients in the future. Supporters say the deals were a pragmatic means of preserving access to government clients and ongoing business relationships.

Still, the refusal of these law firms to provide full disclosure to Congress raises questions about accountability and whether the public should have insight into how private legal actors interact with government institutions under politically charged circumstances.

Conclusion

At present, because the law firms declined to provide substantive detail, the full nature of their work for the government—as well as the financial terms—remains uncertain. The standoff underscores the tensions between professional discretion, ethical obligations, and the public’s interest in oversight.

If the firms continue withholding information, the issue may not stay in the legal press—it could escalate into formal investigations, congressional hearings, or ethics enforcement actions. What is clear is that the controversy spotlights the delicate balance law firms must strike when serving both private clients and government institutions in a hyper-polarized political climate.

As political and legal scrutiny intensifies, opportunities for attorneys in government, compliance, and public policy law are on the rise. Stay ahead of the curve—explore exclusive legal positions across the nation on LawCrossing, the industry’s leading job board for attorneys, law students, and legal professionals. Don’t miss your chance to shape the future of law—start your search today!

The post Top U.S. Law Firms Under Fire for Dodging Congress’ Questions on Trump-Era Deals first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Federal Judge Beryl Howell Denies DOJ Effort to Disqualify Her in High-Stakes Trump Executive Order Lawsuit

In a forceful rebuke to the Justice Department, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on Wednesday denied a motion seeking her disqualification from a lawsuit over former President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at the Democratic-aligned law firm Perkins Coie. The case, now shaping up as a constitutional showdown, centers on allegations that Trump is using federal power to retaliate against his political and legal opponents.

Howell, a senior judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accused the DOJ of launching “ad hominem attacks” to discredit her impartiality. In her ruling, Howell warned that the disqualification attempt represents a dangerous tactic designed to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

“This strategy is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and blame any loss on the decision-maker rather than fallacies in the substantive legal arguments presented,” she wrote in her opinion.

Trump’s Executive Order: A Direct Attack on Law Firms

The lawsuit stems from a March 2025 executive order signed by Trump, which effectively blacklisted Perkins Coie from federal government interactions. The order:

• Barred employees of the firm from entering federal buildings
• Directed agencies to terminate contracts with Perkins Coie clients
• Cited the firm’s previous political work, including representing Democratic campaigns and connections to Fusion GPS

The executive action prompted immediate legal action by Perkins Coie, arguing that the order unlawfully punishes the firm for engaging in protected political and legal activity. The firm’s court filings detailed the economic damage, including the loss of a 35-year relationship with a major government contractor—within just six days of the order’s issuance.

DOJ Claims Bias Over Trump Comments

DOJ officials Chad Mizelle and Richard Lawson filed the March 21 motion to disqualify Howell, citing what they allege is clear judicial bias. They pointed to remarks Howell made during a 2023 speech, where she warned of the “impact of big lies” in connection with January 6 prosecutions. At that event, hosted by the Women’s White Collar Defense Association, Howell expressed concern about public disregard for factual integrity—a sentiment the DOJ says indicates hostility toward Trump.

They also referenced a recent court hearing in which Howell remarked that Trump had a “bee in his bonnet” about Fusion GPS, the political research firm tied to the infamous Steele dossier.

“This court has repeatedly demonstrated partiality against and animus towards the president,” Mizelle and Lawson claimed.

However, Howell dismissed these arguments as lacking merit and reaffirmed her commitment to fairness:

“The parties will have the opportunity to present relevant evidence and legal arguments, which will receive full, fair, and impartial consideration, as does every case before this court.”

Broader Pattern: Trump’s Retaliatory Targeting of Law Firms

Perkins Coie is not alone. Trump’s latest executive orders also singled out Jenner & Block, directing federal agencies to:

• Revoke access to federal facilities for firm employees
• Investigate diversity hiring practices
• Revoke security clearances
• Cancel government contracts with Jenner clients

The targeting of law firms with perceived Democratic ties is unprecedented, marking a dramatic escalation in the weaponization of executive power against legal institutions.

Political Fallout: Stefanik Demands Judicial Investigation

The legal battle also has a political dimension. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), a vocal Trump ally, filed a formal complaint in December 2023 urging an investigation into Howell’s remarks at the 2023 white-collar defense event. Her request, currently pending with the Judicial Council of the D.C. Circuit, claims Howell’s comments reflect unacceptable political bias from the bench.

What’s Next for Perkins Coie v. DOJ?

The case—Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-00716—could become a landmark test of constitutional limits on executive power, particularly regarding retaliation, due process, and the First Amendment. With Howell remaining on the case, the spotlight now shifts to whether Trump’s sweeping executive actions will survive legal scrutiny.

This lawsuit may shape future debates over the independence of the legal profession, judicial impartiality, and political retaliation under color of law.

Related Articles:

• Trump Targets Law Firms Over Democratic Ties—Legal Experts Warn of Dangerous Precedent
• Perkins Coie Countersues DOJ Over Retaliatory Executive Order
• Fusion GPS: The Research Firm at the Center of Trump’s Legal Obsession
• Judicial Ethics Under Fire: Rep. Stefanik’s Push to Investigate Federal Judges

The post Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Bid to Disqualify Her in Trump Executive Order Case Targeting Perkins Coie first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Womble Bond Dickinson, a prominent law firm, has made significant strides in expanding its Government Contracts and Cross-Border Trade practice, welcoming esteemed partners Robert Broadbent and Cherylyn Harley LeBon to its Charlottesville and Tysons, Virginia offices, respectively. This strategic move bolsters the firm’s expertise and capabilities in areas of international trade, national security, government investigations, and corporate matters.

Robert A. Broadbent is a highly respected legal professional known for his extensive advisory roles in international trade and national security matters. His expertise encompasses a range of critical areas, including export controls, economic and trade sanctions programs, foreign direct investment, and defense project strategies. 

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

Cherylyn Harley LeBon brings more than 25 years of leadership experience to her role as a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson. Her impressive background includes serving as a Presidential appointee at the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. LeBon’s expertise extends to guiding clients through various stages of the federal procurement process, aligning with the SBA’s portfolio.

See also: Womble Law Firm Expands San Francisco Office with Acquisition of Trial Firm

This strategic expansion builds upon Womble Bond Dickinson‘s commitment to providing exceptional legal services in the realms of government contracts and cross-border trade. The addition of partners Broadbent and LeBon follows a series of impactful hires within the firm’s Government Contracts and Cross-Border Trade practice. Notably, partners Chris Lockwood, David Vance Lucas, and Richard Raleigh and global trade advisors Angela Ennis and John McCullough have joined the team.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Womble Bond Dickinson‘s investment in top-tier talent underscores its dedication to delivering unparalleled legal guidance to clients operating in complex and highly regulated sectors. With a focus on international trade, national security, government investigations, and corporate affairs, the firm continues to position itself as a trusted partner for clients seeking comprehensive legal solutions. As the legal landscape evolves, Womble Bond Dickinson remains at the forefront, equipped with a diverse and accomplished team that is poised to navigate intricate legal challenges and provide strategic insights for clients’ success.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Womble Expands Government Contracts and Cross-Border Trade with New Corporate Partners first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

As a taste to readers, in their most recent post, Crowell’s government contracts lawyers discuss the Government Accountability Office and “price realism” analysis.  Sounds fun.  Keep blogging ladies and gentlemen, the world needs to know what “price realism” is and how it is NOT “synonymous with a ‘price reasonableness’ determination.”

Crowell & Moring has more than 400 lawyers representing clients in litigation and arbitration, regulatory, and transactional matters. In addition to its Middle East presence, the firm has offices in Washington D.C., New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Orange County, Anchorage, London, and Brussels.

The post Blog To Discuss Ins and Outs of Government Contracts Launched By Crowell & Moring first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Foley & Lardner recently deferred for the second time its incoming IP associates, who will be starting next September. With the new influx of IP work from this contract, we can only hope the firm will reconsider that decision.

Foley & Lardner LLP is an international general practice law firm started in 1842 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It employs 1,000 attorneys and is the 24th largest firm in the United States.

The post Foley & Lardner Score Big Contract with NIH first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Warner, who retired from the Senate after finishing his fifth term last year, will work in the firm’s international practice. Warner will focus on climate change, government contracts, and defense issues.

Warner will not be lobbying for Hogan & Hartson, and the firm says it will strictly adhere to ethics laws.

Warner left the firm as a partner in 1969, when he joined the Department of Defense as undersecretary of the Navy. After serving as secretary of the Navy, Warner pursued elected office. In 1978, he was elected to the Senate, where he spent 30 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, eventually becoming chairman.

The 82-year-old Warner was once married to actress Elizabeth Taylor. He graduated from the University of Virginia Law School in 1953.

The post Former Senator Rejoins Hogan & Hartson first appeared on JDJournal Blog.