It’s Trump, Not AI Threatening These Lawyers
Ben Thomson, LawFuel contributing editor
Skadden has cut a $100 million deal with the Trump administration to avoid becoming the next law firm target of presidential wrath. The firm preemptively approached the White House after learning they were in the crosshairs of a potential executive order, opting to pay what essentially amounts to a nine-figure insurance policy against Trump’s legal firm hit list.
Meanwhile, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale—the latest victims of Trump’s executive orders—have managed to secure temporary restraining orders against the presidential directives that threatened to cut them off from all federal government work.
Both firms found sympathetic ears in the judiciary, with Judge Richard Leon calling the WilmerHale order “retaliatory” and Judge John Bates noting that the Jenner & Block order “threatens the existence of the firm”.
The Art of the Deal
Skadden’s executive partner Jeremy London (pictured) announced the agreement with all the enthusiasm of someone reading a hostage statement, claiming the firm is “pleased to have achieved a successful agreement” and “engaged proactively” with Trump’s team.
The $100 million commitment, more than double what Paul Weiss pledged in its own capitulation last week, will go toward pro bono services for “causes that the President and Skadden both support,” including veterans, “ensuring fairness in the justice system,” and representing the “full political spectrum”.
The firm also promised to maintain “merit-based hiring” and avoid “illegal DEI discrimination” a key concern for an administration obsessed with dismantling diversity initiatives.
Skadden staff were told in a firm email that “not everyone will agree” with the decision, but insisted the deal “does not change who we are”.
The Exodus Begins
At least one Skadden associate isn’t buying what London’s selling. Brenna Trout Frey publicly announced her resignation on LinkedIn, calling the agreement “a craven attempt to sacrifice the rule of law for self-preservation”.
She’s likely not the last attorney who will decide that working for a firm that paid nine figures to appease a vindictive president isn’t exactly what they went to law school for.
Paul Weiss, which pioneered the “pay-to-stay-away” approach with its own $40 million commitment, has already faced blistering criticism from 141 former associates who signed a letter expressing their disappointment in what they called a “craven surrender” rather than a “ringing defense of the values of democracy”.
Trump’s executive orders against WilmerHale and Jenner & Block follows the playbook of being the subject of firms who have crossed the President.
WilmerHale earned Trump’s ire for hiring Robert Mueller and colleagues after their Russia investigation, while Jenner & Block was targeted partly for hiring Andrew Weissmann from Mueller’s team.
The Resistance Forms
A coalition of 21 Democratic state attorneys general has issued an open letter condemning the attacks on law firms, judges, and the broader threat against lawyers who bring “partisan” litigation against the federal government.
And a group of 700 attorneys has written in semilar vein to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The state attorney generals’ letter warns that “attacking attorneys because they argued a case against the government or zealously represented a particular client cuts to the heart of—and threatens to subvert the integrity of—the legal profession”.
Interesting times, indeed. Particularly for lawyers who only thought it was AI that was the threat to their existence.
It’s kind of wild to see the entire legal industry being flipped on its head because of political pressures. Kudos to those standing up for what they believe in though.
While it’s disheartening to see law firms capitulating under pressure, it’s not the first time we’ve seen the legal industry being influenced by strong political winds. The real question is, where do we draw the line?
Quite right. If we look back, there have been several instances where political pressures have influenced legal outcomes. Historical context is key in understanding these scenarios.
Ah yes, nothing says ‘democracy’ like a bunch of attorneys general ganging up. Because when has democracy ever been about individual choice and legal representation?
Do you think there’s a path back to neutrality for law firms, or is this the new normal? Genuinely asking because it seems like a slippery slope.
Can’t help but wonder if these lawyers thought they’d be in the center of a political storm when they passed the bar. Life’s weird, huh.
It’s an intricate dance between law and power. Each move calculated, each step a potential precedent. The situation, while concerning, is not without precedent.
At least there’s some pushback and not everyone’s giving in. It’s movements like these that remind me there’s still hope.
Frey’s move is bold, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking one resignation changes the game. It’s a drop in the ocean.
In a world where tech advancements often overshadow such legal battles, it’s intriguing to see the law still at the forefront of some of the most pivotal societal tensions.
Exactly! It’s refreshing to remember that not all battles are fought in the digital realm. The law still has teeth.
Law has teeth, yes, but do people still respect its bite is the question.
There are already 1000 resumes in of people looking to replace the one who quit