Law Firm Settlement Issues
I forgot to attach earlier today the below April 15, 2025 Crains Chicago Business item entitled, Why Trump’s deals with Big Law are nowhere to be found, which is below because so few of you have subscriptions to the publication. Sorry about that. This also gives me a chance to point you to another April 15, 2025 commentary on the implications of pro bono commitments from Above the Law entitled, Biglaw Calls It Pro Bono. Gimme A Break., which tees up the ethical attacks on those “deals” including the one by the Federalist Society member, adam Unikowsky, that I distributed yesterday.
Why Trump’s deals with Big Law are nowhere to be found
By Mark Weinraub Crain’s Chicago Business April 15, 2025 03:44 PM UPDATED A MINUTE AGO
Mark Weinraub is a banking and finance reporter for Crain’s Chicago Business. He joined Crain’s in 2023 from Reuters, where he spent the bulk of his career writing about commodities, agriculture, Chicago’s futures exchanges, government and other industries. Weinraub also previously worked in the agency’s Washington and New York bureaus. He is a graduate of Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism.
Chicago’s largest law firm has no formal agreement backing the deal it reached with President Trump, leaving the firm and others who’ve reached similar arrangements with little recourse should the president later have a change of heart.
Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis confirmed to Crain’s there is no written agreement with the president beyond what was announced on social media. Sources told Crain’s at least one of the other eight firms to reach deals also lacks a formal contract; others did not respond to requests for comment.
The deals, outlined in bullet points on the president’s Truth Social account, consist of pledges from the law firms to perform hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pro-bono work and promises not to “engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.”
“I would be very surprised if any of this were legally binding,” said Steven Schwinn, professor at University of Illinois Chicago Law. “I think it is politically binding. I would imagine he is going to do whatever he wants to do irrespective of what the firms do.”
As part of the deals, some of the firms won agreements to end the Trump administration’s investigations into their DEI hiring practices by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as promises they will not be the target of an executive order.
But without a contract, there is no guarantee the firms even won that concession, and no mechanism to fight back if Trump later alters the deals or makes claims beyond what was covered in the initial announcements, observers note.
“Trump has demonstrated that even if his personal signature is on it, it is not worth anything,” said Steven Harper, a former partner at Kirkland & Ellis and an adjunct professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law. Harper pointed to trade deals Trump made during his first administration that he is looking to renegotiate as proof of this.
The executive orders Trump has issued against several law firms, including Chicago’s Jenner & Block, seek to hamstring their operations by denying them access to federal buildings, canceling government contracts and revoking security clearances. The orders are brought against firms the President has deemed opposed to his administration’s actions, illustrated by the hiring of political rivals or providing representation in cases against him.
In addition to Kirkland & Ellis, the world’s largest law firm at $7.2 billion in revenue, firms with Chicago offices cutting deals to avoid such sanctions include Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Latham & Watkins and A&O Shearman.
The announcements of the agreements all have been made via President Trump’s Truth Social account and follow a similar boilerplate, highlighted by bullet points of the concessions the firms have made, including the value of the pro-bono work they will devote to causes supported by both Trump and the firms.
The social media posts said the pro bono work will include providing representation on behalf of veterans, members of the military, law enforcement and first responders. It also noted combating antisemitism.
Trump has already said he wanted to use the lawyers to help broker dozens of trade deals he’s looking to negotiate after announcing he was pausing higher “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly 60 countries. He also mused about using them for negotiations regarding leases with coal companies on federal lands.
Kirkland’s executive committee told its employees it will continue to determine the legal matters it handles, including in its pro bono work, according to an internal memo obtained by Crain’s.
But that might be out of the firm’s hands.
“You have given Trump all the leverage that he needs to be able to say, ‘here is the pro-bono cause that I want you to represent for me’,” Harper said. “They have lost the control over what they get to define as the pro bono representations that they want to make. He has a $940 million dollar war chest of Big Law free legal services.”
The bullet points also note the firms’ confirmation of their commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion and retention as well as the DEI language and claim the firm will not deny representation to clients because of the political views of individual lawyers.
The posts include a quote from the White House declaring victory and quotes from the law firm’s leaders noting the agreement is consistent with the firm’s long-held values. In some cases, including the deal with Kirkland & Ellis, the White House uses one quote and attributes it to leaders from separate firms.
Some firms — including Jenner, WilmerHale and Perkins Coie — are fighting the attacks, and have seen early success, winning temporary restraining orders halting enforcement of the order.
The victories the firms who made deals won also may be temporary.
“There is no evidence that anything prevents … the president from tearing up whatever agreement has been made and imposing even more restrictive or draconian orders,” said Aziz Huq, professor at University of Chicago Law