A wave of leading U.S. corporations, including Microsoft, Oracle, Morgan Stanley, and McDonald's, are reducing or severing ties with major law firms that agreed to deals with the Trump administration earlier this year, according to The Wall Street Journal. At least 11 companies have reassigned legal work, citing reputational and conflict-of-interest concerns after the firms accepted pro bono obligations in exchange for lifted executive sanctions.
The targeted firms-among them Paul, Weiss; Kirkland & Ellis; Skadden; Simpson Thacher; Latham & Watkins; A&O Shearman; and Willkie Farr & Gallagher-pledged an estimated $1 billion in pro bono legal services aligned with administration priorities. Some of the work reportedly includes defending police officers accused of misconduct.
The Trump administration in February issued executive orders directing federal agencies to revoke security clearances, cancel government contracts, and restrict access for law firms that had represented political adversaries or challenged Trump-era policies. Several firms filed legal challenges, while others entered agreements with the White House to avoid operational disruptions.
Paul, Weiss was among the firms that faced immediate internal fallout after reaching a settlement, with four senior partners resigning to launch a new firm. One general counsel told the Journal she felt "physically ill" upon learning of the firm's decision.
At a high-profile legal luncheon in May, Brooke Cucinella, senior counsel at hedge fund Citadel, told peers she favored firms that resist political pressure, according to the Journal.
Microsoft raised formal concerns to Latham & Watkins, which temporarily lost its spot on the company's preferred counsel list. "The Latham agreement created concerns about potential conflict of interest issues that could have affected the firm's ability to represent Microsoft," said Jon Palmer, the company's general counsel. Latham was reinstated after the firm provided "the strong assurances we needed."
Law firms that challenged the executive orders in court-including Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey-have seen an uptick in business from corporations eager to reward their stance. Federal judges have ruled in their favor, calling the orders retaliatory and unconstitutional.
"Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution," wrote U.S. District Judge John Bates, appointed by President George W. Bush. He said the orders sought to "chill legal representation" based on disfavored clients or causes. In a separate opinion, Bates ruled that Jenner & Block was targeted "because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed."
Jenner & Block stated in March: "[Making a deal with the White House would mean] compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA."
Willkie Farr & Gallagher, which also agreed to terms with the administration, employs Doug Emhoff, the husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris. Emhoff reportedly urged the firm's leadership to reject the deal, according to The New York Times, but was unsuccessful.
