Trump: Skadden approached White House
Top US firm Skadden has struck a pre-emptive deal with President Donald Trump to provide at least $100m in pro bono services to avoid facing an executive action like other law firms.
It comes as the two latest practices named in executive orders, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, obtained temporary restraining orders to stop key aspects coming into effect.
As with the earlier orders against other firms, President Trump sought to isolate the firms from any contact or work with the federal government, including on behalf of clients.
On Friday, the president took to his Truth Social platform to announce that Skadden had approached his administration to declare its “strong commitment to ending the weaponization of the justice system and the legal profession”.
The agreement will see Skadden provide “at least” $100m in pro bono legal services “to causes that the President and Skadden both support”.
This will relate to assisting veterans and other public servants, ensuring fairness in the justice system, and combatting antisemitism, and represent the full political spectrum, including “conservative ideals”.
Skadden also “affirms its commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention” and said it would not engage in “illegal DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] discrimination and preferences”.
It would also not deny representation to “clients, such as members of politically disenfranchised groups, who have not historically received legal representation from major national law firms, including in pro bono matters, and in support of non-profits, because of the personal political views of individual lawyers”.
Skadden executive partner, Jeremy London: “Skadden is pleased to have achieved a successful agreement with President Trump and his administration. We engaged proactively with the President and his team in working together constructively to reach this agreement.
“The firm looks forward to continuing our productive relationship with President Trump and his admin. We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our firm.”
In an email to all staff, Mr London said Skadden acted after learning the White House was preparing an executive order and said it struck the deal when “faced with the alternatives”.
“Not everyone will agree with the decision we made today, and I have great respect for the differing views that make us stronger as a firm.
“But I firmly believe that an agreement centered around our pro bono work and complying with the law was an acceptable outcome to ensure Skadden will continue to thrive long into the future. This agreement does not change who we are.”
On LinkedIn, Skadden associate Brenna Trout Frey announced she had resigned as a result, accusing the firm of “a craven attempt to sacrifice the rule of law for self-preservation”.
She described Mr London’s message as an attempt to “convince some of the best minds in the legal profession that he did us a solid by capitulating to the Trump administration’s demands for fealty and protection money”.
The deal follows one a week earlier by Paul Weiss, which committed to $40m of pro bono work, and generated considerable criticism, not least from 141 former associates, who in a joint letter said: “We expected the firm to be a leader in standing up for the legal profession, the adversary system, and the right to counsel.
“Instead of a ringing defense of the values of democracy, we witnessed a craven surrender to, and thus complicity in, what is perhaps the gravest threat to the independence of the legal profession since at least the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy.”
The executive order targeting WilmerHale said the firm has “abandoned the profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States”.
It attacked the firm for hiring Robert Mueller and two of his colleagues following their investigation into President Trump’s links with Russia, and said WilmerHale “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends, supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race, backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders, and furthers the degradation of the quality of American elections, including by supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote”.
Jenner & Block was targeted for hiring another member of Mr Mueller’s team, Andrew Weissmann, whom the executive order traduced, and for its pro bono work too, including its “attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex”.
According to Reuters, Washington-based US District Judge Richard Leon called the WilmerHale order retaliatory and granted its request to block key parts of the directive, as did fellow US District Judge John Bates for Jenner & Block, saying that “it threatens the existence of the firm”.
Finally, a coalition of 21 Democratic state attorneys general last week issued an open letter to the legal community about the orders against individual firms, attacks on judges and also the broader threat of action against lawyers who bring “partisan” litigation against the federal government.
The letter said: “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…
“Any doubt that these tactics will have their intended effect if the legal community does not speak to condemn these inappropriate attacks on law firm independence should be dispelled by Paul Weiss’s acquiescence to them…
“Law firms must refuse to bow to illegal and unconstitutional threats of retribution for having the temerity to represent clients and cases opposing the administration.”
Leave a Comment