“In recent weeks, two large law firms reached settlements with the Trump administration that stunned the legal profession \u2014 the first with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which pledged to commit $40 million in free legal work \u201cto support the Administration\u2019s initiatives,\u201d and the second with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which upped the ante to a $100 million commitment. The deals allowed the firms to avoid sanctions imposed by Trump\u2019s executive orders, including revocations of government security clearances held by the firms\u2019 lawyers and prohibitions on entering federal buildings.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“You can attribute the two deals mostly to the fact that what Trump is doing \u2014 using the power of the presidency to target law firms that he personally dislikes \u2014 is legitimately unprecedented. The full scope of the consequences from Trump\u2019s orders are far from clear, and large law firms are temperamentally conservative by nature. Faced with such uncertainty, surrender becomes an option.
The bottom line is that large law firms exist to make money \u2014 ideally lots of it \u2014 and they are generally not paragons of virtue, principle or self-sacrifice.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“it is a crime under federal law for public officials to engage in extortion, and the Justice Department\u2019s public guidance explains that the theory has been used against public officials \u201cserving on the federal, state and local levels.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trump is not the direct beneficiary of the pro bono work agreed to by the firms, but the DOJ guidance explains that the law applies even if the \u201ccorrupt payment went to a third party.\u201d Moreover, a person or company can be liable under the law if they are \u201ctruly the instigator of the transaction,\u201d so both sides of these deals could conceivably be held accountable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You could make similar arguments under federal bribery law \u2014 the line between bribery and extortion is often hard to parse in particular fact patterns \u2014 but of course, the Justice Department is not going to do anything about it, and Trump enjoys broad criminal immunity even after he leaves office. In theory, the law firms are at greater risk \u2014 a Justice Department in a new administration could always take an interest \u2014 but that seems highly unlikely.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“two effects are conceivable, at least at the margins. The first is that law firms will be less willing to take on political clients. The second is that law firms may prove less willing to hire former government lawyers involved in politically controversial cases \u2014 or even lawyers who they think may go on to do that sort of work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
More broadly, law firms may pull back on supporting pro bono work that could be controversial with the Trump administration or the Republican Party, including immigration-related cases.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
” In a democratic society, lawyers should not have to worry about whether the government will punish them for having clients or colleagues who are somehow associated with the political opposition. Likewise, private parties should be free to choose their own lawyers without having to worry that the government will be biased against their attorneys or will hamper their work for improper reasons.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n