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an executive order (14237) restricting its access to federal buildings and government contracts; that order was later withdrawn after the firm agreed to revise certain policies.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.

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.

Introduction: Legal Integrity Under Fire

The American legal industry is facing a crisis of conscience. As former President Donald Trump’s administration intensifies its retaliatory campaign against major U.S. law firms, resignations, internal protests, and widespread unease have gripped BigLaw. Once-powerful institutions now find themselves caught in the crosshairs of executive overreach—and many attorneys are refusing to stay silent.

Trump’s Legal Offensive: A Campaign of Retaliation

In early 2025, the Trump administration launched a coordinated legal assault targeting high-profile firms with histories of litigation or investigative work related to the former president. Measures include:

• Revocation of federal security clearances
• Cancellation of government contracts
• Mandated disclosure of firm affiliations and past representations
• DOJ and EEOC-led investigations into DEI policies

Among the law firms directly affected are:

• Covington & Burling
• Jenner & Block
• Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
• Perkins Coie
• Susman Godfrey
• WilmerHale

The goal? Punish firms for perceived political opposition and force compliance through legal and economic pressure.

A Split Response: Legal Challenges vs. Concessions

The legal community’s response has been starkly divided. Some firms have chosen to fight back in court, while others have sought to avoid confrontation by entering controversial agreements with the administration.

Firms Fighting Back:

• Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the executive orders, arguing that the actions violate First Amendment protections, due process rights, and principles of attorney-client privilege.
• These lawsuits have drawn support from law professors, bar associations, and civil liberties groups.

Firms Yielding to Pressure:

Others have chosen compliance in exchange for regulatory leniency. Notable examples include:

• Paul, Weiss committed $40 million in pro bono services to administration-aligned causes, prompting the withdrawal of orders targeting the firm.
• Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom pledged $100 million in pro bono work, dismantled internal diversity initiatives, and ceased advocacy work on progressive legal issues.
• Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, the oldest law firm in New York City, similarly committed $100 million in support to causes favored by the administration.

Internal Resistance: Resignations and Ethical Uprisings

These capitulations have not gone unchallenged within the firms themselves. Across BigLaw, attorneys are pushing back—some publicly, others by walking away.

High-Profile Resignations:

• At Skadden, associate Rachel Cohen published an internal memo condemning the firm’s actions before being terminated. Associates Brenna Trout Frey and Thomas Sipp soon followed with their own resignations.
• At Cadwalader, dozens of attorneys have quietly exited in protest, citing discomfort with the firm’s cooperation and the optics of aligning with politically charged causes.

Growing Dissent:

• At several firms, attorneys have initiated internal petitions and debates urging leadership to reconsider concessions.
• Anonymous letters shared with The National Law Journal describe “an atmosphere of fear, confusion, and moral compromise” among associates and partners alike.

Government Pressure: Investigations and Oversight

The administration has also empowered federal agencies to investigate firms it perceives as hostile. These efforts include:

• EEOC Investigations into law firm hiring, promotion, and DEI practices
• DOJ reviews of law firms’ advocacy for voting rights, LGBTQ+ protections, and reproductive freedom
• Scrutiny of pro bono litigation involving civil rights or environmental cases

These steps have triggered concerns that the government is weaponizing its oversight authority to coerce political alignment from the private legal sector.

Backlash from Academia and the Bar

Legal academics and professional associations are pushing back. Highlights include:

• Over 80 law school deans signed an open letter warning that recent actions threaten the independence of the legal profession.
• The American Bar Association condemned the use of executive orders to punish firms for their client choices and policy positions.
• Student organizations from Harvard Law, Yale Law, and Stanford Law have staged protests and called on firms to stand firm against coercion.

Broader Implications: A Profession at a Crossroads

This crisis signals a pivotal shift in the identity and values of the legal profession. Attorneys are increasingly being forced to weigh:

• Professional loyalty vs. ethical integrity
• Client representation vs. political compliance
• Firm culture vs. personal values

As the legal field grapples with these dilemmas, one thing is clear: silence and neutrality are no longer viable options.

Conclusion: The Fight for Legal Integrity Has Begun

The Trump administration’s crackdown on law firms has ignited a legal and ethical reckoning. While some firms choose quiet capitulation, others—and the attorneys within them—are rising to defend the foundational principles of justice, free representation, and the rule of law.

The decisions made in this moment will shape the legal industry for decades to come. Will the profession choose courage—or compromise?

Suggested Image Ideas:

1. A gavel cracking over a U.S. Constitution document (symbolizing legal conflict and executive overreach)
2. An attorney packing a briefcase and leaving a high-rise office (representing resignation)
3. Split image of law firm buildings—half illuminated, half in shadow (symbolizing the profession’s internal divide)

FAQs

Q: Why is the Trump administration targeting law firms?
A: The administration alleges that firms previously investigated or opposed Trump through litigation or advocacy are politically biased. Many see the actions as retaliatory and unconstitutional.

Q: What are the pro bono agreements being made?
A: Several firms have pledged tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono work on causes aligned with the Trump administration, reportedly to avoid legal or regulatory action.

Q: How are attorneys responding?
A: Some have resigned in protest or published public criticisms. Others remain at their firms but are organizing internal resistance or calling for leadership accountability.

Q: What does this mean for law students and junior attorneys?
A: Many are reevaluating where they want to work based on a firm’s response to these pressures, prioritizing values like independence, justice, and civil rights.

Q: Are these executive orders being challenged in court?
A: Yes. Firms like Perkins Coie and WilmerHale are suing the federal government, arguing that the orders violate constitutional rights and professional standards.

The post Big Law in Turmoil: Surge of Resignations as Trump Administration Targets Major Firms first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Leading U.S. and international law firms are handling fewer corporate deals in 2024, but the ones they manage are more valuable than the previous year. This pattern mirrors a broader trend in global mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity, marked by a significant rise in deal values but a decrease in deal volumes.

Global M&A Value Sees Significant Growth

In the first nine months of 2024, the value of announced global M&A deals hit $2.3 trillion—a 16% increase from the same period last year. This represents the strongest first nine-month period for dealmaking since 2022, according to data released by the London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG). While the financial value of deals soared, the number of transactions plummeted to an eight-year low. Over 35,500 deals were announced, a sharp 20% drop from the same timeframe in 2023.

Kirkland & Ellis Leads in Principal Advising

Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis maintained its position as the top principal adviser in LSEG’s rankings by deal value, working on 556 global deals worth a staggering $295 billion. However, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom edged out Kirkland as the top adviser in overall global announced deals, handling 159 deals valued at $331 billion, including those withdrawn or called off.

One of the year’s standout deals, the $36 billion acquisition of Cheez-It maker Kellanova by candy giant Mars, saw Kirkland and Skadden on opposing sides. Skadden advised Mars, while Kirkland represented Kellanova.

Goodwin Procter and Latham & Watkins Among Top Players

Goodwin Procter, a Boston-based firm, secured the No. 1 spot for the highest number of deals, overseeing 603 transactions worth $91 billion. Meanwhile, Latham & Watkins ranked second in terms of deal value, handling 458 global deals valued at $273 billion. Notable transactions for Latham included advising SRS Distribution in its acquisition by Home Depot and assisting Skydance Media with its acquisition of Paramount Global, one of Hollywood’s oldest film studios.

Market Uncertainty Lingers Despite Strong Activity

Despite the rise in M&A deal values, market uncertainty remains a concern for dealmakers. According to Mark Bekheit, Latham’s global vice chair of M&A, headwinds persist in the market, including ongoing scrutiny from government agencies and the recent U.S. Federal Reserve rate cut. Some dealmakers expect a slowdown in the fourth quarter as companies delay major transactions until after the upcoming U.S. elections. However, Bekheit remains optimistic about continued deal activity through the end of the year, noting that many unannounced deals are still in progress.

Outlook for Q4 and 2025 Remains Optimistic

Other legal experts share a hopeful outlook for the rest of the year. Michael Weisser of Kirkland & Ellis pointed to a strong M&A pipeline, while also noting that external factors such as the U.S. elections and geopolitical events could influence the market moving into 2025. David Barkus, co-leader of Holland & Knight’s corporate M&A practice, expects an increase in deal activity regardless of the election’s outcome.

In conclusion, while the number of M&A transactions is decreasing, the deals that are closing are larger and reflect a robust market for corporate mergers and acquisitions. Despite potential challenges, the outlook for M&A activity remains optimistic as law firms continue to adapt to evolving market conditions.

The post Law Firms Navigate Fewer but Larger Deals Amid Global M&A Surge first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Harrison Barnes has recently been the target of criticism from Above the Law for publishing a set of resume guidelines for attorneys.

Another day, another negative article from Above The Law writer Joe Patrice (Note: I use the word “writer” loosely as it’s unclear based upon his work whether he qualifies as the same). Instead of being happy it’s Friday (or, I don’t know, smiling), Joe has chosen to kick off the weekend by once again picking apart recruiter Harrison Barnes for simply doing his job:  sharing his extensive knowledge of the legal industry’s hiring practices, particularly big law firms, based upon his two decades of experience as a legal recruiter.

As a side note, we have noticed that these articles tend to be published every time Barnes gets a legal victory against their biggest advertiser. Click here to view the $42,500 judgment against Kinney Recruiting and Robert Kinney that Barnes recently received in court.

Specifically, Mr. Patrice, as I’m sure he’s encouraged to do so by his employer Above the Law (a/k/a the Negative Nancy of the legal blogosphere), spends paragraphs picking apart a recent article by Barnes listing certain items that should be removed from a resume when submitting to some of the most prestigious law firms on the globe; a list which suggests removing  certain formatting and content blocks, inappropriate word usage, and whether or not you are a member of Mensa (who cares, by the way).

Also on this list, like it or not, are items such as your affiliation and/or memberships in certain organizations, including any religious, ethnic or LGBT organizations. That’s right, Barnes said it. His goal, as a top legal recruiter, is to get you a job. As a lawyer.  In Corporate America. If you’re offended or shocked that Barnes outright says that these affiliations or memberships should not be included on your resume submission to oh, let’s say, Skadden Arps, I’d urge you to read a newspaper or simply look around and join us in the real world (Welcome. We’re glad to have you). If you don’t like the realities of what Barnes has to say, then work to change it like the rest of us do. However, misguiding what appears to be your generally negative attitude towards everyone and pinning it on Mr. Barnes is amateur and desperate at best, especially when Barnes himself states he is just the messenger.

If you insist on obsessing about Barnes, which by the way is an issue you may want to discuss with your therapist, perhaps you should write a piece on Barnes’ recent article entitled: Two Fatal Deficiencies that Prevent 99% of Attorneys from Achieving Greatness which discusses searching for and maintaining that inner positive energy and drive throughout your legal career in order to be successful. Maybe even comment on his article entitled: Travel Ideas for Attorneys and who knows, maybe an attorney will read it, get inspired to take a trip and return to the office a nicer, more tolerant person and it will all be because of you. Whatever you do, try and change the narrative from the negative to the positive instead of attacking and mischaracterizing Barnes’ recruiting advice as somehow hateful when he is simply maximizing legal candidates’ chances of getting hired by passing on his knowledge of the legal market, based upon his experience, to the very people that are seeking to join it.

I’m going to do you a favor and not even address your comparison of the legal world to the television industry, because the difference between watching a commercial that makes you want to go out and buy Cheerios as opposed to trying to get a job so you have the money to even eat cereal, are two very different things not worthy of my time (remember, I’ve already wasted a bunch of it today reading your article). I will say that your naivety makes me question whether you’ve actually ever  been in the sink-or-swim corporate world, at any level. I have to admit, I laughed out loud when you said not to remove certain activities from your resume just because they identify who are – “maybe it costs you a job somewhere – if it does you don’t want to work there anyway.” Sure. Ok. And then I’ll just get on my magic carpet and meet my unicorn friends for lunch at Nobu.

Listen, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone that does not agree that many industries, not just the legal industry, are plagued by prejudice in whatever form and no one is downplaying just how disturbing such prejudices are. However, perpetuating that cycle by mindlessly attacking an individual for your own ad clicks is a turn off. The system needs to be changed. The legal industry, among others, is in desperate need of a revamp, but change comes from within and in small, calculated steps, not in the form of over-exaggerated articles like yours, trying to take down a recruiter whose job is to place people in an environment that I’m pretty sure they knew existed when they signed up for law school.

I urge you to refocus your energy and become part of the solution, rather than the problem. Maybe do a yoga class to increase your endorphins. Maybe try a shot of wheatgrass to get your circulation going. But either way do something positive because in this new millennial world, being miserable isn’t cool.

You can read the article by Joe Patrice on Above the Law here: http://abovethelaw.com/2015/08/how-to-make-your-resume-shine-for-racist-homophobic-misogynists/

The original article written by Harrison Barnes can be found here: https://www.bcgsearch.com/article/900042905/6-Things-Attorneys-and-Law-Students-Need-to-Remove-from-their-Resumes-ASAP-if-They-Want-to-Get-Jobs-with-the-Most-Prestigious-Law-Firms/

Read more about Above the Law’s attacks on Harrison Barnes here:

SLIME FOR CASH: Above the Law Joins Albert’s (a.k.a. Robert Kinney’s) Decade-Long Ballistic Cyberbullying Campaign to Destroy Competitor for Firing Him

The post What is Wrong With Above the Law and Joe Patrice? first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

With Skadden’s sole partner in Vienna, Austria, leaving for Austrian law firm CMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz, Skadden is closing its Vienna office. Skadden had launched its office in Austria in 1993 when Wachter expressed his wish to move to Vienna.

However, instead of using Skadden’s office for large mergers and acquisitions, supposedly he has been using Austrian and international law firms with a bigger presence in the city. He will continue to accept work from Skadden as an external counsel, but Skadden is shutting down the office decreasing its overhead.

Stephan Hutter, the Frankfurt corporate transactions and capital markets partner of Skadden stated the situation clearly to Legal Week. He said, “Had Wachter not decided to go to Austria we wouldn’t have opened there, it wasn’t a big enough market and it’s never really developed into a critical mass.”

Hutter will be leading Skadden’s Austrian practice from Frankfurt.

He also said, “Nobody was forcing Rainer out, it was a strategic decision which coincided with his plans for early retirement.”

However, Wachter does not seem to be retiring though he may have availed the early retirement option at Skadden, since he recently turned 55.

Wachter had in the beginning of his career been with the same law firm which he would be joining. He told the media, “It is almost like coming home.”

Peter Huber, the managing partner of CMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz said, “Rainer Wachter joins as one of Austria’s most famous lawyer personalities in corporate transactions,” exhibiting full faith and confidence in Wachter.

The fate of the two associates and one trainee who were in Skadden’s Vienna office is still not known.

Skadden, however, issued a polite statement from the firm saying, “We wish Rainer well.”

According to Hutter, the Vienna office had little significance to Skadden under current circumstances, and he said, “Vienna had mainly been a service hub in addition to some corporate stuff.”

The post Skadden Arps Closes Vienna Office first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Antoinette Bush is leaving Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom to become the global head of government affairs for News Corporation. Bush, who is generally considered to be one of the country’s leading female minority attorneys, joins News Corp after working with the company to reach a $134 million settlement related to the high-profile voicemail hacking scandal in Britain.

Bush joined Skadden in 1993, leaving briefly to work for Northpoint Technology before returning to the firm. She is currently the partner-in-charge of Skadden’s communications group. Prior to joining Skadden, she served as a senior counsel to the communications subcommittee of the U.S. Senate’s Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, where she helped author the Cable Television Act of 1992.

In addition to her work in with Skadden and the federal government on communication issues, AM Law reports that Bush and her husband have aligned themselves with the Democratic Party. Her husband Dwight is a leading donor to the party, and is on the board of several financial institutions. Bush’s stepfather is an attorney that served as an adviser to former President Bill Clinton, and her cousin is currently a senior adviser to the White House. Bush and her husband were also major fund raisers for President Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. With such deep ties to Democratic organizations, it is peculiar that Bush would align herself with the conservative-leaning News Corp.

Beyond the most recent wire-tapping scandal, Skadden has a long work relationship with News Corp, helping the company acquire a minority stake in the YES Network, sell a streaming video company, and buy Dow Jones & Company.

The post Partner Leaves Skadden for News Corp first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Flom was a New York native and began his education by taking night classes at City College of New York, while working a day job as an office boy in a small law firm.  During World War II he served in the US Army, and then got his law degree from Harvard University with the help of the GI Bill.  The following year he was the first associate hired by the three founders of Skadden, and became a partner in 1954.

In the 70’s, Flom brought M&A into the mainstream of corporate law and served as lead counsel in numerous hostile takeovers.

Joseph Flom was the founding trustee of the Skadden Fellowship Foundation, whose mission is “to give Fellows the freedom to pursue public interest work.”  In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the foundation.

The post Josheph Flom Dead at 87 first appeared on JDJournal Blog.