When the Trump regime coerced large law firms into a position of submissiveness earlier this year, I had an image in mind when it was announced that the firms would perform some pro bono work on issues “consistent with the administration’s agenda.” My assumption was something along these lines: The firms would take on pro bono work for the usual kinds of clients–impecunious individuals, individuals in constitutional/civil rights cases, public-interest groups in need of assistance–but in “right”-coded rather than “left”-coded cases. A typical example might be an evangelical Christian plaintiff in a Free Exercise case, a conservative academic experiencing an incursion on her academic freedom, an amicus brief on behalf of an anti-abortion rather than pro-choice group (although Trump’s actual views on abortion, or abortion not involving a personal acquaintance, are anyone’s guess), or something of the sort. I say “coded” because what codes as left or right is not always quite the same as what is actually left or right and certainly not the same as what is conservative or liberal. Conservatives used to be opposed to qualified immunity or the illegal or unlawfully excessive use of force by law enforcement, for example.
But the examples I had in mind, while not necessarily all my cup of tea, made some sense. The big law firms’ pro bono work does code left, and everyone understands this. And, to the extent that any of this work requires the financial support or expertise of large law firms at all, certainly there are potential clients with “right”-coded cases that are in just as much need as potential clients with “left”-coded cases. Given that they lack expertise in both areas, there is no particular reason why the firms might not throw their resources at a victims’ rights case as at a death penalty habeas case. The assumption that the work is all purely and sincerely ideologically driven seems inaccurate to me. There are bottom-line reasons to do this work: it’s a useful element in recruiting, since left-coded work draws potential associates and partners for whom doing this work is an essential part of managing the brobdingnagian cognitive dissonance between their self-images and their actual life choices. But it also encourages a self-perpetuating cycle in hiring, leaves valuable pro bono work undone, fails to provide additional job satisfaction for more conservative members of the firm, and gives up good marketing opportunities for a substantial chunk of the client market. That, at least, was the sunny-side version of the pro bono aspect of the deal, although it left in place the fact of our executive branch behaving like the Mafia and of major law firms opting to be live, servile dogs instead of dead (or wounded, or mildly inconvenienced) lions. Nor did it address the broader problem that rather than do both things, the firms–well aware from decades of past business experience that Trump does not keep his promises or honor his deals–would just cut back on pro bono work altogether or cut back specifically on any pro bono case, no matter how meritorious, that might be seen as left-coded. Still, representing, say, veterans is a worthy endeavor. (And one the firms were already doing.)
I was not alone, or without reason, in my assumptions about the pro bono component of the law firms’ admission of defeat. It is unfortunately true that Donald Trump tends to lie in official White House documents, but here was what Trump’s executive order on the coerced deal with Paul, Weiss said about it: the firm will “dedicat[e] the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during my term in office to support causes including assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism; and other similar initiatives.” And here’s the Washington Times, translating a social media post by Trump into English, on the Wilkie Farr deal: “The pro bono work will be done to assist veterans and other public servants like military members, Gold Star families, law enforcement and first responders, Mr. Trump said on social media.” Based on a brief look at social media, this was the commonly perceived reading of the deal. (I also did some searching on blogs and social media for comments from the few apologists for Trump who are law professors and frequent commentators; because most right-of-center law professors are conservatives, it’s a small number. In keeping with my general view that the first rule for Trump apologists and supplicants is to avoid the pesky details, there was virtually nothing to be found one way or the other, except for a mostly irrelevant tu quoque argument in a post at the Volokh blog.)
The Times today reports that two of the firms that submitted to pressure, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden Arps, have been leaned on to work on trade deals for the Commerce Department. This is consistent with earlier reports that Trump had said, after the fact, that “the pro bono work included helping the administration on trade deals and could even be applied to representing him in a personal capacity.” The story suggests that the leaning is being done by the president’s personal lawyer, Boris “pay to play” Epshsteyn. It’s not clear whether the work is actually being performed pro bono. Following standard practice, the spokespersons asked to comment gave fatuous non-responsive responses.
It should be clear that despite Trump’s best efforts, the federal government is not impecunious. Nor–having taken an estimated 3.4 billion dollars in corrupt, ill-gotten gains so far from this presidential term–is Donald Trump. Given the Trump family’s 140-year tradition of avoiding military service, it’s unsurprising that Trump is not a veteran. If the law firms have done any work on the trade deals–hard to say, not least because it’s not clear whether there have been any deals or what the deals actually say–I trust that they charged their regular fees. And if asked to do any work for him personally on a pro bono basis, I trust that they will tell him to go pound sand.
Posted by Paul Horwitz on August 14, 2025 at 11:00 AM