Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP—one of the nation’s premier corporate law firms—has announced plans to end its stand-alone sustainability and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) practice group. The move marks a significant strategic shift in how the firm integrates sustainability across its broader legal services. The restructuring coincides with the planned retirement of Dave Curran, co-leader of the group, who has been instrumental in developing the firm’s ESG and sustainability initiatives over the past several years.

Curran will officially step down from his leadership role at the end of 2025 but will remain with the firm in an advisory capacity. In this new role, he is expected to focus on emerging intersections between corporate governance, technology, and sustainability—particularly as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly central to business ethics and compliance frameworks.

The Broader Shift in ESG Strategy

Paul Weiss’s decision to dissolve its independent sustainability practice comes amid an evolving legal and political environment surrounding ESG. Over the past two years, ESG has become a politically charged term, with some U.S. states and policymakers challenging the role of environmental and social initiatives in corporate decision-making.

Reflecting this shift, Paul Weiss had already begun to move away from the explicit “ESG” label earlier this year, updating its website to emphasize “sustainability and governance” instead. The change mirrors a broader trend across the legal industry, as major firms rebrand or reorganize their ESG groups to avoid political scrutiny while continuing to meet client demand for sustainability and compliance expertise.

Integration Across Practice Areas

According to sources familiar with the restructuring, Paul Weiss’s move does not represent a withdrawal from sustainability work but a deeper integration of ESG principles throughout its corporate, litigation, and regulatory practices. By embedding sustainability considerations into existing practice groups, the firm hopes to offer a more holistic approach to client service.

Leading this new integrated structure will be Carmen Lu, who joined Paul Weiss from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz earlier this year. Lu brings extensive experience in corporate governance, executive compensation, and compliance. She will coordinate ESG-related work across departments, ensuring that sustainability remains an embedded element of the firm’s client advisory services rather than a standalone niche.

Building on a Legacy of ESG Leadership

Paul Weiss was among the first major U.S. firms to establish a dedicated ESG advisory practice in 2020. The initiative reflected a growing demand from investors and corporations for guidance on ethical business practices, transparency, and sustainable operations.

A year later, the firm launched the Sustainability and Law Institute, led by Curran, to foster collaboration between the legal community, academia, and the business world. The Institute hosted conferences and partnered with universities to advance dialogue around sustainability and corporate responsibility.

However, in recent months, the Institute’s website was taken down, signaling the firm’s broader consolidation of sustainability functions. Still, the legacy of the Institute remains influential within Paul Weiss, shaping its continued commitment to responsible business and governance practices.

Dave Curran’s Continued Influence

Curran’s leadership helped position Paul Weiss at the forefront of ESG law. His work not only guided corporate clients through regulatory and reputational challenges but also elevated the discussion around sustainability in the legal industry.

Following his retirement from daily practice, Curran will continue to advise the firm on strategy, focusing on the ethical dimensions of artificial intelligence, sustainability, and global corporate risk. His continued involvement highlights the firm’s intent to stay engaged with the rapidly evolving landscape of technology-driven governance.

A Growing Industry Trend

Paul Weiss’s restructuring reflects a larger trend in BigLaw. Many firms have started rethinking their ESG practices—either rebranding or integrating them into broader corporate structures. While the political climate has complicated the public use of the term “ESG,” the demand for sustainability expertise remains strong.

Corporate clients still face increasing regulatory scrutiny, particularly from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is rolling out rules requiring companies to disclose climate-related risks. As a result, law firms continue to adapt their ESG services to help clients comply with these new mandates without drawing political fire.

Looking Ahead

By integrating sustainability across its practice areas, Paul Weiss aims to deliver a more seamless and comprehensive approach to advising clients on governance, compliance, and corporate responsibility. The firm’s leaders emphasize that this shift strengthens, rather than diminishes, its long-term commitment to sustainability and ethics in business law.

As the legal sector continues to evolve, Paul Weiss’s move may signal the next stage of ESG practice development—where sustainability becomes a core part of every legal function rather than a separate specialty.

Looking for Opportunities in ESG and Corporate Governance Law?

As firms like Paul Weiss reshape their sustainability strategies, opportunities are emerging for legal professionals with expertise in ESG, compliance, and sustainability advisory. Whether you’re a recent law graduate or an experienced attorney, now is the time to explore how your skills align with this growing area.

Visit LawCrossing.com today to discover the latest sustainability, corporate governance, and compliance legal jobs across top firms and organizations. Find your next career move in a field that’s defining the future of business law.

The post Paul Weiss Phases Out Stand-Alone Sustainability Practice as Co-Leader Retires first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The legal industry is witnessing a profound shift in priorities. The wealthiest U.S. law firms—long dominated by dealmakers and corporate rainmakers—are now racing to expand their litigation practices as courtroom and regulatory battles intensify across industries.

Firms such as Kirkland & Ellis, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, Davis Polk & Wardwell, and Paul Hastings LLP have all significantly increased their litigation ranks, with headcount growth of 22% or more since early 2024, The move underscores a new competitive front in Big Law: not just competing for billion-dollar deals, but for the top trial lawyers capable of handling high-stakes disputes.

Litigation Overtakes Deals as the Industry’s Growth Engine

For years, corporate and M&A work defined the upper tier of Big Law profitability. Firms funneled their resources toward mergers, private equity deals, and cross-border transactions. But with global deal flow slowing, that balance has shifted dramatically.

Data from the 50 highest-grossing law firms shows that litigation departments—once viewed as secondary to transactional practices—are now driving growth. Across firms that reported detailed figures, litigation headcounts rose by over 5%, outpacing corporate expansion.

This rise comes as transactional workloads decline. Over the past ten quarters, litigation-related billable hours have grown by 2.8% per quarter, while M&A work has fallen by about 1.8%. Those numbers highlight a clear pivot: courtroom activity is thriving while dealmaking lags.

Profitability and Performance Defy Old Assumptions

Historically, corporate deals have been viewed as more profitable than litigation because they tend to produce steady revenue from major clients. However, new evidence suggests the opposite may now be true for certain firms.

A report by Citi’s Law Firm Group found that firms with strong litigation concentrations are outperforming expectations on profitability metrics. High realization rates (the proportion of billed hours actually collected) and steady case demand have fueled stable earnings even as deal pipelines shrink.

Paul Hastings LLP provides a prime example. Its litigation revenue has surged by 60% in just four years—a remarkable climb that reflects strategic investment in disputes work. Chair Frank Lopez recently emphasized that the practice operates on equal footing with the firm’s renowned transactional group:

This parity marks a new era for law firm business models. The most successful firms are no longer defined solely by their ability to close billion-dollar mergers—they’re now judged by their capacity to defend, prosecute, and navigate high-stakes legal challenges.

Recruitment Wars: Stockpiling Litigators for the Future

With demand surging, firms are engaged in aggressive lateral and associate hiring campaigns to fortify their litigation benches. Among 33 firms that disclosed first-year litigation associate data, those that expanded the most included several of the nation’s top profit leaders—Sullivan & Cromwell, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Ropes & Gray, and Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom.

This recruiting push is not limited to New York or Washington, D.C. Firms are building litigation depth in regional offices as well, betting on growing demand across financial services, technology, and healthcare sectors.

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, for example, expanded its business-trial practice by over 17% year-on-year, largely by attracting partners from firms that underinvested in litigation. Chair Luke Bergstrom noted that the expansion was part of a deliberate strategy to strengthen the firm’s national trial platform amid rising client demand.

A Measured Rebuild to Pre-Pandemic Strength

Despite this rapid growth, the proportion of litigators at top firms still trails pre-pandemic levels. In 2019, litigators represented just over 30% of attorneys at the highest-grossing firms. By 2022, that share had dipped to 27.2% amid the M&A boom, before climbing back to 28.8% in 2024.

The trajectory suggests a steady, strategic rebuild rather than a short-term spike. Many firms view the resurgence of litigation not as a temporary correction but as a realignment of priorities. The market now rewards firms with balanced portfolios capable of weathering cyclical deal downturns.

As one senior partner put it, “For high-end, bet-the-company litigation, the demands have increased year-over-year for the last three or four years.” Complex regulatory regimes, environmental litigation, and antitrust enforcement are expected to fuel this demand well into 2026.

The Strategic Takeaway

The message from the data is unmistakable: litigation is no longer a supporting act—it’s a star performer in the Big Law arena. As firms battle for premier trial talent and invest heavily in dispute-resolution practices, the gap between diversified firms and transaction-dependent ones may widen further.

For aspiring associates, litigators, and lateral partners, this is a pivotal moment. Opportunities in high-stakes litigation are expanding faster than ever, particularly at elite firms seeking to future-proof their practices. Those with courtroom expertise, regulatory acumen, or class-action experience are in prime position to advance their careers.

For legal professionals looking to break into or advance within the nation’s top litigation practices, now is the time to act. Visit LawCrossing.com to explore exclusive litigation job openings at top-tier law firms and discover how you can position yourself for success in the fast-growing world of high-stakes legal advocacy.

The post Richest Law Firms Bulk Up Litigation Teams as Demand Spikes first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Foley Hoag LLP has made a strategic leadership move, bringing on Jessica Maroney Shillito, formerly of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, as the firm’s new Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). The appointment reflects Foley Hoag’s continued investment in promoting inclusivity and addressing the evolving expectations around workplace equity in the legal sector.

Shillito joins Foley Hoag at a crucial time when law firms across the U.S. are recalibrating their DEI strategies amid mounting external and internal pressures. The legal industry’s commitment to diversity initiatives has been under a microscope, following political and social debates challenging corporate DEI programs. In response, many firms are reinforcing leadership roles in this area to reaffirm their dedication to inclusion and equitable representation.

A Proven DEI Leader

At Paul Weiss, Shillito served as part of the firm’s DEI team, working under Chief Inclusion Officer Danyale Price, a veteran leader who has helped shape the firm’s award-winning inclusion programs for nearly two decades. During her tenure, Shillito contributed to firmwide initiatives that supported attorney engagement, inclusive leadership development, and community partnerships aimed at improving representation within the legal profession.

Now stepping into a top leadership role at Foley Hoag, Shillito will lead a four-person DEI team and co-chair the firm’s diversity committee. Her responsibilities will include implementing firmwide strategies to advance equity, promoting cultural competency, and ensuring accountability at every level of the organization.

In a statement shared by Foley Hoag, Shillito said she is “deeply honored to join a firm that recognizes the importance of inclusion not just as a value, but as a professional standard that enhances both client service and firm culture.” She emphasized the importance of “building a workplace where authenticity, respect, and opportunity are central to success.”

Foley Hoag’s Ongoing DEI Commitment

Foley Hoag’s decision to expand its DEI leadership underscores the firm’s long-standing commitment to inclusive excellence. Over the past decade, Foley Hoag has received recognition for its initiatives to support underrepresented attorneys, including mentorship programs, inclusive recruiting practices, and firmwide education around cultural awareness and bias reduction.

The firm’s Managing Partners have also publicly reaffirmed their belief that fostering diversity is essential to innovation and client service. “We see inclusion as both a moral and strategic imperative,” one partner said in a recent internal memo. “Jessica’s leadership will help us deepen that commitment and build stronger frameworks for accountability.”

In recent years, Foley Hoag has joined a number of other firms in establishing measurable DEI goals—ranging from increasing diverse representation in partnership ranks to improving retention rates among minority attorneys. Shillito’s appointment aligns with these broader objectives, as the firm seeks to turn DEI principles into sustainable practice.

Navigating the Changing Landscape of DEI in Law

Shillito’s move comes amid a shifting environment for DEI programs nationwide. Following recent legal and political challenges to corporate diversity initiatives, many law firms have faced questions about how best to pursue inclusion while ensuring compliance with new legal frameworks.

Despite the uncertainty, industry experts say that law firms remain steadfast in their belief that diverse teams deliver better client outcomes, innovation, and workplace morale. “DEI isn’t just a moral choice—it’s a business necessity,” said one legal analyst familiar with the matter. “Firms that invest in genuine inclusion will continue to attract top talent and maintain credibility with modern clients.”

By hiring a leader from Paul Weiss—a firm known for its high-profile social justice initiatives and strong DEI reputation—Foley Hoag signals that it intends to remain proactive and resilient in this evolving landscape.

The Broader Implications for Legal Recruiting

Foley Hoag’s recruitment of Shillito also reflects a broader trend in the legal industry: a growing demand for professionals with DEI expertise who can navigate both the operational and cultural challenges within firms. As diversity metrics increasingly factor into client evaluations, law firms are seeking leaders who can balance compliance, advocacy, and measurable impact.

According to legal industry observers, more firms are now hiring directors and chiefs of diversity who bring strategic management experience and data-driven insight—skills that align DEI goals with firm profitability and long-term growth.

Shillito’s cross-firm transition demonstrates that such expertise is highly valued—and transferable across leading firms. It also suggests that the next generation of DEI leadership in law will be expected to combine compassion with strategy, and advocacy with measurable outcomes.

Looking Ahead

With this new appointment, Foley Hoag appears poised to enhance its national reputation as a progressive, inclusive law firm that invests in its people. The firm’s commitment to empowering diverse talent, promoting equity, and creating authentic inclusion positions it well for the next phase of industry evolution.

Shillito’s arrival marks not just a personnel change, but a reaffirmation of Foley Hoag’s belief that inclusion is integral to legal excellence. As the DEI landscape continues to evolve, the firm’s leadership move may well serve as a blueprint for others navigating similar challenges.

Explore Legal Career Opportunities

If you’re inspired by Foley Hoag’s leadership in diversity and want to be part of a forward-thinking law firm, explore thousands of exclusive, direct-from-employer legal jobs at LawCrossing.com. Whether you’re a DEI professional, an attorney, or an aspiring law firm leader, LawCrossing connects you with the most comprehensive database of legal opportunities in the U.S.—many you won’t find anywhere else.

Stay informed. Stay connected. Build your future with LawCrossing.

The post Foley Hoag Recruits DEI Leader from Paul Weiss Amid Industry Scrutiny first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The New York attorney disciplinary authority has declined to launch an ethics investigation into several prominent U.S. law firms accused of unethical conduct in connection with business arrangements tied to former President Donald Trump. The decision effectively ends a months-long effort by a group of legal scholars who had pressed the state to scrutinize the firms’ dealings.

Complaint Alleged Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Breaches

Earlier this year, a coalition of law professors filed a formal complaint with the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division Attorney Grievance Committee. The group alleged that nine of the nation’s most powerful firms had pledged nearly $1 billion worth of legal services to Trump administration initiatives in exchange for leniency or favorable regulatory treatment.

The complaint named Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, the first firm to enter into such an arrangement, along with A&O Shearman, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Milbank LLP, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.

According to the professors’ submission, the alleged deals raised “serious concerns of quid pro quo” behavior—suggesting the firms may have offered extensive legal aid to government causes in exchange for the rollback of administrative actions, sanctions, or investigations into their corporate clients.

The complainants urged the committee to open a formal inquiry, compel testimony under oath, and subpoena relevant internal records, arguing that the transactions represented a profound breach of professional ethics and public trust.

Ethics Committee: Business Decisions Fall Outside Its Scope

In a written response dated September 2, Jorge Dopico, the committee’s chief counsel, stated that the panel would not pursue the matter at this time. Dopico emphasized that the committee typically does not intervene in matters of “firm management or client selection,” which fall outside the scope of enforceable attorney misconduct under New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct.

While the committee did not entirely dismiss the concerns raised, it concluded that decisions regarding representation, client intake, and allocation of pro bono resources generally do not warrant disciplinary review unless there is evidence of direct fraud, coercion, or a clear conflict of interest.

The committee’s decision effectively halts the ethics inquiry—at least for now—but leaves open the possibility that it could be revisited should new evidence emerge.

No Comment from Law Firms

None of the nine firms named in the complaint have publicly commented on the matter. Representatives for the firms either declined to respond or did not return requests for comment.

Legal observers note that the firms maintain significant government, corporate, and litigation practices, and several have previously represented clients both for and against Trump-linked entities. Many also maintain substantial pro bono and public interest portfolios, which could complicate the optics of the allegations.

A Broader Debate on Legal Ethics and Political Influence

The professors’ complaint highlighted broader concerns about the integrity of the legal profession and the role of major law firms in politically sensitive dealings. The group argued that the arrangements, if substantiated, could erode public confidence in the independence of the bar and blur the line between advocacy and influence-peddling.

They further contended that the firms’ cooperation with the Trump administration could be interpreted as an attempt to curry favor or avoid regulatory retaliation, raising the specter of potential violations of Rule 8.4 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or actions prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Despite these concerns, the grievance committee found no clear legal grounds to proceed, as the transactions appeared to be contractual or policy-driven rather than acts of individual attorney misconduct.

Lingering Legal and Political Implications

Some of the law firms mentioned continue to face challenges related to executive orders and policies implemented during Trump’s tenure. These include disputes over access to federal contracts, government advisory roles, and restrictions tied to national security clearances. In several cases, federal courts have intervened to limit or block portions of those orders.

The rejection of the ethics complaint does not preclude future scrutiny. The legal scholars behind the filing have submitted a petition for reconsideration, urging the committee to revisit the issue and set clearer boundaries on how law firms may engage with politically active administrations.

If the committee agrees to reopen the matter, it could test the extent of ethical oversight applicable to corporate law firms when political considerations intersect with their client or pro bono commitments.

An Ongoing Conversation About Professional Responsibility

The case underscores a larger debate within the legal community about the accountability of large law firms and the mechanisms available to ensure transparency in their dealings with government entities. While ethics committees traditionally focus on individual lawyer misconduct—such as misappropriation of funds, client neglect, or conflicts of interest—institutional conduct remains a murkier area.

Legal ethicists argue that as law firms grow larger and more intertwined with political and corporate power, bar regulators may need to revisit their oversight frameworks to maintain public confidence in the profession’s independence.

For now, the New York Attorney Grievance Committee’s decision signals restraint, leaving these ethical and political questions largely in the hands of public opinion—and perhaps future reform.

Explore More Legal Industry News and Career Opportunities

Stay ahead of major developments in the legal world. Whether you’re tracking firm ethics cases, leadership changes, or evolving professional standards, LawCrossing offers exclusive access to thousands of verified legal job listings directly from employers.

Discover your next opportunity and advance your legal career today—visit LawCrossing.com.

The post New York Ethics Panel Declines to Investigate Trump-Linked Law Firm Deals 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.

Congressional Democrats are ramping up pressure on some of the nation’s most powerful law firms, questioning whether their work for the Trump administration violated federal ethics laws — or even came close to crossing into illegality.

In a series of letters sent last week, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) demanded that Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP provide detailed explanations of the legal services they provided to the Commerce Department under the Trump administration.

At the heart of the inquiry are concerns that the firms’ agreements — some of which reportedly involved massive pro bono pledges and policy concessions — may violate federal statutes such as the Antideficiency Act, which bars government agencies from accepting voluntary services except under very narrow circumstances. Lawmakers are seeking documentation that shows whether the services were provided for free, whether discounted billing arrangements were in place, and what internal approvals the firms secured before entering these deals.

A Closer Look at the Agreements

The scrutiny comes after revelations that several BigLaw firms struck deals with the administration to regain access to federal contracts or to reverse punitive executive orders targeting them. Paul Weiss, for example, allegedly agreed to provide $40 million worth of pro bono legal services in exchange for relief from a Trump-era order that restricted its ability to represent certain clients. The firm also reportedly scaled back or eliminated its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as part of the arrangement.

In total, nine firms are believed to have pledged nearly $940 million in legal work aligned with administration priorities. While such commitments were framed as voluntary public service, critics argue that they amount to coercion — a situation where firms were forced to “pay to play” simply to maintain normal access to federal work.

“These arrangements raise serious ethical questions,” Blumenthal said in a statement. “When the government pressures law firms to give up policy positions or make massive legal commitments to stay in good standing, we risk undermining the independence of the legal profession.”

Legal and Ethical Implications

The lawmakers’ concerns extend beyond the Antideficiency Act. They have also suggested that some of these deals could be viewed as bribery, extortion, or racketeering if the firms were effectively strong-armed into providing free services or political concessions. Such conduct, if proven, could have sweeping implications for attorney-client relationships and the delivery of pro bono services.

Moreover, the letters raise questions about potential conflicts of interest. If a firm is contractually bound to provide legal services that support administration goals, how can it fairly represent clients who are in litigation against that same administration? The fear is that such commitments may create subtle — or overt — pressure to avoid cases that could displease the White House.

Legal scholars have also weighed in, noting that while pro bono commitments are not uncommon, the scale and context of these arrangements are highly unusual. “What we are seeing here is not ordinary public-spirited service,” said one ethics professor. “It is a new form of political leverage applied to private law firms, with implications for access to justice and the independence of the bar.”

Political and Industry Reaction

The issue has ignited a broader debate about the role of BigLaw firms in Washington. Some industry insiders argue that the firms did what was necessary to protect their clients and employees from government retaliation. Others contend that by agreeing to the administration’s terms, they set a dangerous precedent that could be used by future presidents of either party.

Republican lawmakers have been quick to dismiss the investigation as political theater. “Democrats are trying to criminalize legal representation because they don’t like who the client was,” said one GOP aide. “These firms provided legitimate legal services, and that is not a crime.”

Still, the letters mark an escalation in congressional oversight of the private legal industry — an area that traditionally operates with considerable autonomy.

What Happens Next

The targeted firms have until early October to respond with detailed disclosures of their agreements, billing arrangements, and internal communications. Lawmakers have signaled that if the responses are incomplete or evasive, they may convene hearings or even subpoena documents.

The outcome could shape how law firms approach government work going forward. If Congress determines that such arrangements violate federal law, it could lead to restrictions on pro bono services for federal agencies, new disclosure requirements, or even sanctions against firms that participated.

As of now, Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis, and Skadden have declined to comment in detail, though they are expected to comply with the request for information. The legal community will be watching closely to see how these powerhouse firms navigate the mounting scrutiny — and whether this investigation changes the way BigLaw interacts with future administrations.

Looking for Your Next Big Career Move?
Political and legal turbulence can reshape the legal market overnight. Stay ahead of the curve by exploring thousands of open attorney jobs on LawCrossing — the most comprehensive legal job site. Whether you’re seeking BigLaw opportunities, in-house counsel positions, or public interest roles, LawCrossing gives you the tools to find the right job before anyone else. Don’t wait for the market to shift — start searching today.

The post Congress Turns Up the Heat on Paul Weiss, Kirkland and Ellis Over Trump-Era Legal Agreements first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Democratic lawmakers are escalating scrutiny of some of the nation’s most influential law firms, demanding transparency about their involvement in legal work for the Trump administration. The inquiry focuses on whether elite firms provided discounted or free legal services to the federal government while continuing to represent clients whose interests might conflict with those of the administration.

Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Adam Schiff (D-CA), together with Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), sent formal letters to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, and Kirkland & Ellis LLP. The letters requested detailed disclosures regarding work performed for the U.S. Commerce Department and other Trump administration agencies.

Background: Trump-Era Executive Orders and Legal Pressure

The inquiry stems from a series of executive actions by former President Donald Trump, which targeted law firms he accused of engaging in politically motivated litigation against his administration. These orders directed federal agencies to cancel contracts with certain firms’ clients and restricted attorneys’ access to federal facilities if they represented parties opposed to administration policies.

In response, some firms opted to provide discounted or pro bono legal services to the Commerce Department, aiming to preserve access and maintain federal contracts. Other firms challenged the orders in court, with several, including WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie, successfully arguing that the orders were unconstitutional.

The agreements reached by firms like Paul Weiss and Kirkland & Ellis were described in media reports as involving a “range of matters” for the Commerce Department, raising questions about the ethics and legality of such arrangements.

Lawmakers’ Concerns

The lawmakers emphasized potential conflicts of interest in their letters, noting that firms might struggle to zealously represent clients adverse to the administration while simultaneously providing free or reduced-cost legal services to federal agencies.

“If Paul Weiss is required to provide President Trump with free legal services, it may prove difficult for your firm to also zealously represent a client, pro bono or otherwise, adverse to the Administration,” the letter states.

Blumenthal, Schiff, and Raskin requested that each firm provide:

• The scope of any work performed for the Commerce Department or other federal agencies.
• Confirmation of whether services were provided at no cost or at reduced rates.
• A list of non-government clients or pro bono matters handled concurrently with these agreements.

Lawmakers stressed that accepting free or discounted services raises complex legal and ethical questions under federal law and professional responsibility standards.

Law Firm and Government Reactions

As of this report, the targeted law firms had not issued public responses to the letters. Representatives for Skadden, Kirkland, and Paul Weiss have historically defended such arrangements, maintaining that they do not compromise firm independence or client selection.

The Commerce Department and the White House declined to comment on the inquiry. Observers note that the lack of transparency has fueled concerns about potential political pressure on private legal practices.

Legal and Political Implications

The investigation highlights the broader tension between private law firms’ independence and government influence. Critics argue that agreements made under threat of lost access or contracts may undermine public confidence in the legal system and raise ethical concerns.

Legal ethics experts point out that arrangements where law firms provide discounted services to government clients while representing other parties could constitute a conflict of interest, potentially violating rules governing professional conduct. Courts have previously addressed similar questions in other high-profile matters, but the combination of political pressure and pro bono agreements in this context is unprecedented.

Additionally, the letters underscore the continuing oversight role of Congress in examining how private firms interact with federal agencies, particularly in politically sensitive matters. Lawmakers may pursue further hearings or investigations if initial responses from firms are incomplete or unsatisfactory.

Broader Context: Trump Administration Legal Battles

During Trump’s tenure, law firms faced intense scrutiny for their involvement in politically charged litigation, including challenges to election results, trade policies, and regulatory actions. The pro bono and discounted work arrangements reportedly arose as part of negotiations to preserve firm access to federal agencies amidst executive pressure.

Some firms welcomed these arrangements as a practical compromise, while others viewed them as ethically fraught. As the legal battles unfold in Congress and the courts, the situation could set precedents for how law firms navigate government pressure in the future.

What’s Next

Democratic lawmakers have set deadlines for firms to respond to the inquiries. Depending on the content of those responses, Congress could escalate the investigation with formal hearings, subpoenas, or additional oversight measures.

The outcome may influence how top law firms approach politically sensitive matters in the future, particularly when dealing with federal clients and administrations with strong partisan agendas. It also raises questions about whether professional responsibility rules adequately protect firms and clients in politically charged environments.

For now, the inquiry serves as a reminder that transparency, independence, and ethical integrity remain central to the reputation and operation of America’s most prestigious law firms.

Explore Legal Career Opportunities: While top law firms navigate high-profile investigations, your legal career shouldn’t wait. Visit LawCrossing to discover the latest openings at leading firms, government agencies, and corporate legal departments. Find your next role today!

The post Democratic Lawmakers Probe Top Law Firms Over Trump Administration Work first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Biglaw firms that pledged $125 million in pro bono work to the Trump administration now deny the deals amid backlash from clients, law students, and Congress.

Introduction

In a stunning reversal, several of the nation’s largest law firms—once eager to strike pro bono agreements with the Trump administration—are now scrambling to downplay or deny the very deals they brokered. What began as a strategy to avoid politically motivated executive orders has morphed into a public relations crisis, as firms face scrutiny from lawmakers, clients, and the next generation of attorneys.

The Origins: Trading Pro Bono for Protection

In early 2025, firms including Paul Weiss, Skadden, Willkie Farr, Milbank, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, A&O Shearman, and Cadwalader pledged over $125 million in free legal services. The goal? To shield themselves from Trump administration executive orders threatening to penalize firms perceived as politically oppositional or too aligned with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

The work was intended to focus on:

• Assisting veterans and public servants.
• Ensuring fairness in the justice system.
• Combatting antisemitism.

But as time passed, the nature of these agreements drew controversy.

Fallout: Client Losses and Law School Boycotts

As details of the pro bono commitments emerged—including rumors that firms might be compelled to defend police accused of brutality or assist in controversial federal enforcement actions—the backlash was swift:

• Corporate Clients Exit: Major companies, including Microsoft, pulled business from capitulating firms.
• Law Student Resistance: Top law students signed pledges refusing to work for participating firms, with some law school deans even advising graduates to weigh the political implications when selecting employers.

These reactions not only threatened firms’ reputations but also their talent pipelines and long-term profitability.

Congressional Scrutiny: “What Deals?”

Congressional Democrats demanded transparency. In response, the firms issued carefully worded letters claiming:

• The administration had no power to dictate client choices.
• Their pro bono work remained independent.
• No new restrictions had been imposed on their services.

A&O Shearman’s letter was among the most explicit, emphasizing the firm’s discretion in selecting clients within the agreed-upon service areas. Still, observers noted the irony: agreeing to $125 million in specific pro bono commitments necessarily restricts other possible cases, regardless of how firms framed it.

The Firms’ Dilemma: Legal Loopholes vs. Public Perception

While technically accurate that no formal “restrictions” were placed, the financial commitment limited the firms’ flexibility. Critics argued:

• Allocating $125 million to specific causes reduces capacity to take on other pro bono matters.
• Pledges to avoid DEI-related pro bono cases—a condition reportedly accepted by some firms—further constrained their service scope.

Moreover, by agreeing to these deals, the firms risked appearing complicit in the administration’s politicization of the legal industry.

Potential Retaliation: What Happens If Firms Resist?

Now, as some firms attempt to renege or reinterpret their commitments, they face a new threat: retaliation. The Trump administration has already suggested it could enforce the agreements more aggressively if firms refuse politically charged cases, such as:

• Defending law enforcement officers accused of misconduct.
• Representing federal immigration officials under legal scrutiny.
• Possibly defending Trump himself in post-presidency legal battles.

Failure to comply could trigger new executive orders or targeted penalties, leaving firms reliant on ongoing litigation by groups like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block to challenge the constitutionality of such orders.

Broader Implications for the Legal Industry

This episode exposes deep vulnerabilities in how law firms navigate political pressures:

• Risk of politicized pro bono commitments undermining attorney independence.
• Client trust erosion when firms appear to prioritize political expedience over principles.
• Talent pipeline disruption as law students demand higher ethical standards.

It also raises broader questions about the weaponization of executive power to influence legal services and professional autonomy.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Biglaw

The current backpedaling by Biglaw firms serves as a stark reminder: attempts to appease political forces often backfire. What was meant to be a strategic compromise has devolved into a reputational and operational quagmire, with firms now desperate to distance themselves from the very deals they once embraced.

The legal community—and the public—won’t soon forget.

The post Biglaw Firms Now Backpedaling on Controversial Pro Bono Deals With Trump Administration first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Jenner & Block Seeks Permanent Injunction Against Trump’s Executive Order

On April 28, 2025, Jenner & Block LLP, a leading U.S. law firm, is set to ask U.S. District Judge John Bates to permanently strike down a controversial executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The order sought to penalize the firm for its prior affiliation with Andrew Weissmann, a central figure in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference during the 2016 election.

The hearing will take place in Washington, D.C., at 10:30 a.m. ET (1430 GMT), marking a critical chapter in the escalating conflict between Trump’s administration and major law firms perceived to oppose him.

Why Jenner & Block Is Suing the Trump Administration

Jenner & Block filed suit shortly after Trump’s March 25 executive order, arguing that the order:

• Violates the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and association.
• Breaches the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process before the government can restrict rights or impose penalties.

The firm contends that the administration’s actions amount to retaliation for protected legal activities and affiliations, setting a dangerous precedent for political interference in the independent practice of law.

Trump’s order specifically targeted Jenner over its past employment of Weissmann, accusing the firm of ties to what Trump continues to call a “hoax” and “witch hunt” regarding the Russia investigation.

What Trump’s Executive Order Against Jenner & Block Entails

The executive order aimed to:

• Restrict Jenner’s attorneys from accessing federal buildings and meeting with government officials.
• Terminate government contracts involving Jenner’s clients.
• Intimidate firms through threats of federal isolation and financial penalties.

This move was seen as part of Trump’s broader pressure campaign against lawyers and law firms connected to investigations or causes he opposes.

Other Law Firms Also Fighting Trump Executive Orders

Jenner & Block is not alone. At least three other major firms have filed similar lawsuits:

• WilmerHale
• Perkins Coie
• Susman Godfrey

Judges presiding over all four lawsuits have issued temporary injunctions, preventing the White House from enforcing key parts of the executive orders while the cases proceed.

Meanwhile, to avoid being targeted, nine other prominent law firms — including Paul Weiss, Milbank, Simpson Thacher, and Skadden Arps — have pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono services to causes favored by the Trump administration.

(Read about law firms’ pro bono pledge here.)

The Broader Legal and Political Implications

Jenner & Block’s lawsuit goes beyond a mere business dispute. It raises urgent constitutional questions about:

• Government retaliation against private entities based on political affiliations.
• The erosion of the independence of the legal profession, traditionally protected from political pressure.
• The chilling effect on lawyers who represent unpopular or politically controversial clients.

The firm is also part of a larger coalition challenging the Trump administration’s policies affecting transgender rights and federal agency funding, indicating a growing legal resistance to executive overreach.

(Explore more about major corporate law firms suing the Trump administration.)

FAQs About Jenner & Block’s Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration

Q1: Why is Jenner & Block suing the Trump administration?
A: The firm argues that Trump’s executive order violates constitutional protections, punishing it for protected speech and affiliations related to the Russia investigation.

Q2: What was Jenner & Block’s connection to the Russia probe?
A: The firm previously employed Andrew Weissmann, who was a key prosecutor in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.

Q3: What other law firms are involved in lawsuits against the Trump administration?
A: Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey have also filed suits to block executive orders targeting them.

Q4: What constitutional rights are at stake?
A: The First Amendment (free speech and association) and the Fifth Amendment (due process protections) are central to Jenner’s case.

Q5: How have other firms responded to Trump’s pressure?
A: Some firms pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono services to causes supported by the Trump administration in exchange for avoiding executive order targeting.

The post Jenner & Block Moves to Permanently Bar Trump Executive Order in Landmark Free Speech Battle first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

President Donald Trump has escalated his campaign against what he describes as politically motivated and frivolous legal challenges by ordering a sweeping review of lawsuits filed against the federal government over the past eight years.

In a sharply worded memorandum released late Friday, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to lead an investigation into law firms and attorneys who have filed what he calls “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation”—particularly those that may compromise national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.

Legal System Under Fire: Trump Targets Alleged Abuses in Immigration and National Security Litigation

“Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity,” the memo stated. The directive marks a significant shift in how the federal government may respond to perceived legal overreach, especially as Trump and his allies intensify scrutiny of legal actors involved in politically sensitive cases.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Trump’s directive appears to focus heavily on immigration litigation, particularly cases involving asylum seekers. The memo accuses some immigration attorneys of coaching clients to lie or omit details in order to secure asylum—allegations Trump provided no direct evidence for but has echoed in recent speeches.

Legal Backlash and Judicial Pushback: Trump vs. the Judiciary

The president’s latest salvo comes amid growing tensions between his administration and the judiciary. Trump and several allies have recently called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who blocked the administration’s attempt to deport certain Venezuelan immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a rarely used statute.

Boasberg’s decision drew sharp rebuke from Trump, but it also triggered an unprecedented response from U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who publicly defended the independence of the judiciary. “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements with judicial rulings,” Roberts said in a statement seen as a rebuke to the president’s aggressive posture.

Focus on Law Firms: Paul, Weiss Deal Sparks Controversy

Trump’s memo followed a high-profile agreement with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, one of the nation’s most prominent law firms. Just a day earlier, Trump had announced he would withdraw a pending executive order that threatened to revoke the firm’s federal security clearances and government contracts. In return, Paul Weiss agreed to eliminate diversity and inclusion considerations in hiring practices and pledged $40 million in pro bono legal services aligned with the administration’s priorities.

This move sparked significant debate in the legal community, with critics warning that it could undermine diversity efforts and chill legal advocacy against government policies. Supporters argue that it reflects a growing effort to hold elite firms accountable for alleged partisan bias and misconduct.

A Broader Offensive: Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling Also Under Review

In addition to Paul Weiss, the Trump administration has recently issued directives against Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling, two firms known for their connections to Democratic Party figures and involvement in legal matters related to Russia investigations and Trump’s impeachments. These actions suggest a broader campaign to scrutinize law firms that have played a role in efforts to investigate or litigate against the former president and his allies.

Get An Unfair Advantage In Your Career With BCG Attorney Search-Upload your resume to receive matching jobs at top law firms in your inbox.

Legal analysts say the strategy is part of Trump’s long-running effort to reshape the legal landscape around federal litigation—particularly lawsuits that challenge executive authority on issues such as immigration, environmental regulations, and civil rights.

Political Implications and Legal Risks

Trump’s memorandum also raises questions about the use of executive power to target law firms engaged in litigation against the government. Legal scholars caution that such directives could clash with constitutional protections like the First Amendment right to petition the government and the independence of the judiciary.

“This is clearly part of Trump’s effort to delegitimize institutions that challenge him,” said a former Justice Department official, who added that any enforcement efforts could face legal challenges from civil liberties groups and the American Bar Association.

Still, the directive may resonate with Trump’s political base as he campaigns on themes of law and order, government accountability, and a crackdown on political partisanship within the legal system.

What Comes Next?

With Pam Bondi now tasked with investigating the conduct of attorneys and law firms over eight years—dating back to the beginning of Trump’s first term—legal observers are watching closely to see whether the Justice Department will take disciplinary action or refer cases for criminal prosecution.

Whether this results in a lasting policy shift or a new legal standard for challenging the government remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Trump is making the legal system itself a central battleground in his political and policy agenda.

Showcase your excellence—earn a BCG Attorney Search ‘Top Law Firm’ badge today!

The post Trump Orders Crackdown on “Frivolous Litigation” by Law Firms Targeting U.S. Government first appeared on JDJournal Blog.