Trump strikes deals with five top firms as legal industry faces crackdown

WASHINGTON: U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that five more law firms had agreed to devote a total of at least $600 million in free legal work to causes he supports, marking new concessions offered by major firms facing a White House pressure campaign.

The agreements mostly mirror others struck with four firms in recent weeks, requiring them to shun diversity-based employment practices the administration deems illegal and work on pro bono projects approved by the president.

Kirkland & Ellis, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher and Latham & Watkins are set to provide $125 million in pro bono work each. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft would provide at least $100 million, Trump said in posts on his Truth Social account.

In all, nine law firms have pledged $940 million so far since Trump began issuing executive orders targeting firms over their connections to his perceived enemies or cases he opposes, despite rulings by federal judges finding his orders likely violate the U.S. Constitution.

Other firms have denounced the deals, warning they chill attorneys’ ability to choose their clients and challenge the administration.

Trump said at a cabinet meeting on Thursday that firms that settled with him “have paid me a lot of money in the form of legal fees” and that he may press them into service negotiating trade deals amid the White House’s aggressive tariff rollouts.

The president on Friday also said the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has withdrawn a probe into employment practices at Kirkland, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher and Latham as part of the agreements.

The agency’s acting chair sent letters last month to 20 law firms, warning their employment policies meant to boost diversity, equity and inclusion may be illegal and demanding responses by April 15.

Fight or cut a deal? Law firms face stark choice under Trump

Spokespeople for the five firms declined to comment or did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In statements from the firms shared by Trump, they each said the agreements were consistent with their principles.

Kirkland’s executive committee and Simpson Thacher chairman Alden Millard said in internal memos obtained by Reuters on Friday that their agreements would not force them to relinquish control over the pro bono cases they handle.

Kirkland and Simpson Thacher and at least two of the other firms were involved in litigation challenging Trump’s policies in his first term, related to issues such as voting and transgender rights or immigration.

The White House said in a statement that the firms with their agreements “have affirmed their strong commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession.”

Divided response

The agreements follow executive orders that Trump issued against five law firms he accused of subverting the legal system against him and his allies, citing their ties to his political and legal adversaries or their work related to cases he opposes.

The orders restricted their lawyers from accessing government buildings and officials and threatened to cancel federal contracts held by their clients.

Three of the firms, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, have sued over the orders and won rulings that temporarily blocked those provisions, convincing federal judges that they violated constitutional protections for speech and due process. Another, Susman Godfrey, also said it would fight Trump’s order against it.

Trump agreed to rescind an executive order against Paul Weiss after it became the first to settle with the White House, agreeing to donate $40 million in pro bono work.

Skadden Arps, Milbank and Willkie Farr reached similar deals without an executive order being issued against them, each agreeing to earmark $100 million in pro bono services for mutually agreed projects with the administration.

More than 800 law firms and lawyers signed onto a court brief on Friday supporting the legal challenges to Trump’s executive orders, calling them “undisguised retaliation” for their past work and saying they threaten to put the firms out of business.