As Big Law folds to Trump, some D.C. firms are fighting

Catch up quick: Trump began this process by signing executive orders targeting firms that had employed or represented his critics, including two major firms headquartered in the District: Covington & Burling, targeted for representing former special counsel Jack Smith, and WilmerHale, which employed former special counsel Robert Mueller.

• Chicago-based Jenner & Block had previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a member of Mueller's staff and a prominent Trump critic.

Paul, Weiss — which has an office in D.C. — was the first firm to cut a deal. They argued that $40 million in pro bono work was a small price to pay compared with the money, clients and even top talent it could have lost if it chose to fight.

• As more firms have capitulated, Trump has been able to extract significantly bigger concessions using significantly less leverage, even from firms with which he appears to have no personal grievance.

Four recent agreements came from firms that were placed under investigation for their internal diversity policies — a less severe threat than Trump's early tactic of revoking lawyers' security clearances.

• They each agreed to provide $125 million worth of work on issues that both Trump and the firms support.

The other side: WilmerHale and two other prestigious law firms targeted by Trump — Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie, both of which have offices in downtown D.C. — have opted to fight his threats in court rather than make a deal.

• Others, like D.C. firms Covington and Arnold & Porter, have signed an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie and others seeking permanent injunctions against Trump's executive orders.

The intrigue: None of the law firms that have capitulated to Trump are headquartered in D.C., though many, like Skadden, have large footprints.

State of play: Legal news site Above the Law created the "Biglaw Spine Index." The spreadsheet of 200 of the largest firms in the U.S. (based on Am Law's 2024 ranking) tracks their responses to Trump, DEI efforts, and more.

• While the response to Trump by some is capitulation versus action, most firms fall into the "silence" category.
• "A lot of firms are trying to keep their heads down," Kathryn Rubino, a senior editor at Above the Law, tells Axios. Their thinking: "If they do nothing, maybe they won't be noticed by the administration."

Between the lines: Rubino says the head-in-sand strategy isn't particularly effective "given the most recent round of capitulations, which seemed less about retaliation and more about building [Trump's] pro bono war chest."

• Though the administration hasn't publicly stated a financial goal, Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller told NYT last week: "The numbers are adding up."

What we're watching: It remains unclear what millions of dollars of pro bono work will entail — Trump has hinted at everything from helping the coal industry to fighting antisemitism — whether he can legally force firms to undertake projects, and what it means reputationally for the firms that folded.

• As is often the case with Trump, firms are in uncharted territory. The American Lawyer points out, Trump's definition of pro bono significantly differs from the legal norm.
• As one legal ethics professor told the publication: "What President Trump is talking about is more accurately described as free legal work for the government. He has been talking about these agreements like he has received hundreds of millions of dollars of free work in his personal piggy bank."

Meanwhile, applications to law schools at Georgetown, Howard and elsewhere are skyrocketing. Some students say the current political climate is a factor — and many in the legal world and beyond are taking note of where firms land on Trump's tactics and those that acquiesce.