Trump’s Law Firm Showdown
The law profession’s response to President Trump’s campaign against perceived enemies within the profession continues to diverge, with Milbank becoming the fourth major U.S. law firm to strike a deal with the White House, while Perkins Coie has chosen to fight back in court.
New York-headquartered Milbank committed $100 million in free legal services to mutually agreed-upon initiatives with the White House and pledged not to engage in diversity-based hiring, mirroring agreements reached by other firms threatened with punishment for alleged ideological bias against the president.
In a letter to employees, Milbank Chairman Scott Edelman (pictured above) explained that the firm only made commitments it was “happy to make,” noting that the administration had approached them with concerns about pro bono and diversity initiatives.
“The administration’s expressed concerns about big law firms, and in some cases its entry of Executive Orders against particular firms, have created uncertainty for law firms like ours. With this agreement, we believe we have gone a long way to putting these issues behind us,” Edelman wrote.
The Growing Divide in Legal Responses
The contrasting approaches from the biglaw firms targeted in the executive orders highlight a deepening rift within the profession. While some firms are choosing to negotiate with the administration, others are challenging Trump’s executive orders in court.
On the same day as Milbank’s announcement, Perkins Coie asked a Washington judge to throw out Trump’s executive order sanctioning the firm over its hiring practices and legal work for Democrat Hillary Clinton.
In its filing, Perkins Coie argued that allowing the order to stand would “set a grave precedent” by permitting the president to punish lawyers for their choice of clients, potentially putting the firm’s “solvency and very existence at risk.”
The Trump administration countered in its own filing, dismissing Perkins Coie’s claims about the order’s impact as “pure conjecture and speculation.”
Trump has signed executive orders targeting five law firms so far, aiming to curb their business with the federal government. These firms either have ties to attorneys who have challenged Trump’s policies or have been involved in such challenges themselves.
Three firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—have sued to block these orders and have convinced judges to temporarily halt key provisions while litigation continues.
On March 28, two U.S. judges blocked parts of Trump’s orders targeting Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, with one judge describing as “disturbing” the apparent targeting of Jenner for its representation of transgender people and immigrants.
Other firms have chosen to negotiate preemptively. Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Skadden Arps reached agreements with Trump before being hit with orders. Wall Street law firm Paul Weiss struck a deal after being targeted with an order suspending security clearances for its lawyers and restricting their access to federal buildings and officials.
Milbank partner Neal Katyal, (pictured) a lawstar we have reported on previously and also a vocal Trump critic and former acting U.S. solicitor general under President Obama, currently represents a former federal official suing over alleged wrongful termination.
Katyal also represented Hawaii in challenging the first Trump administration’s travel ban on people from certain Muslim countries. He has not commented on the firm’s deal with the White House.
