There is a version of the Biglaw capitulation story where the nine firms that bent a knee to Donald Trump did some pro bono work on behalf of veterans, ate a news cycle, and moved on. That is the version the firms have been selling since jump, but the reality is quite a bit different.
Today, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Rep. Jamie Raskin, and Sen. Adam Schiff sent a letter to Skadden executive partner Jeremy London, the third such letter, for those keeping score, asking the firm to explain how it advised Intel on handing the Commerce Department a 10 percent equity stake in the company while simultaneously doing free legal work for that same Commerce Department. The lawmakers would like an answer by August 4, but, based on Skadden’s track record… they should not hold their breath.
A refresher on how we got here, because the ledger is worth restating in full. When Trump started issuing unconstitutional executive orders designed to bring the legal profession to heel, a handful of firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — sued and are winning, repeatedly. More than twice as many bent a knee instead. Paul Weiss went first, settling six days after Trump’s executive order for $40 million in pro bono services and the elimination of its DEI programs. Skadden followed with $100 million — preemptively, before any order existed — plus a pledge to fund at least five Skadden Fellows a year, which promptly cost the Skadden Foundation its executive director. Willkie Farr and Milbank each matched Skadden’s $100 million, also preemptively. Then Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, and A&O Shearman came in at $125 million apiece — $500 million total, with their EEOC DEI investigations conveniently evaporating in the process — and Cadwalader rounded out the group at $100 million. Kirkland, it later emerged, tried to recruit the rest of Biglaw into the deal, and it and Simpson hired a top Trump fundraiser’s lobbying shop on the way in. Grand total: $940 million in pro bono payola for whichever causes strike the president’s fancy.
What work can and will count towards the firms’ pro bono obligations under the deals is a bit of an unknown. Paul Weiss and Kirkland turned up doing free legal work for the Commerce Department on Trump’s trade agenda, the very tariff work A&O Shearman had drawn a line at, which raised the awkward question of whether volunteering services to a federal agency violates the Antideficiency Act. The new letter revives that theory and adds a fresh wrinkle.
See, in March, an Intel shareholder sued in Delaware Chancery over the company’s agreement to hand Commerce an $11 billion stake worth 9.9 percent of its equity. The complaint was recently unsealed in full, and it is not kind to Intel’s outside counsel. Shareholders allege the board handed over the equity “for no meaningful consideration in response to extortionary threats by the government,” while “advised by legal counsel [Skadden] that itself was conflicted due to its pro bono promises to the President.” The complaint further alleges that “Skadden apparently never opined as to whether the Stock Agreement was lawful,” and that no evidence shows the board was ever told about Skadden’s conflicts at all.
Of course, this conflict was pretty obvious when the representation surfaced last August; indeed, it seemed a fact pattern too on-the-nose for a professional responsibility exam. The lawmakers say it is “hard to understand” how this doesn’t put Skadden crosswise with the Model Rules and its fiduciary duty to Intel.
The letter also notes that Skadden’s outside counsel, in responding to the last round, declined to deny that the firm has done free work for a federal agency. It simply asserted that the firm does not agree such work would violate its Trump agreement or “any statutes, regulations, or ethical standards.” Which, tbh, is the legal equivalent of a shrug.
And this is now a well-worn groove. Blumenthal and Raskin made the opening volley in April 2025. Reps. Dave Min and April Delaney urged the firms to disavow the deals outright. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse warned the nine they’d be dragooned into fossil fuel’s service. The firms’ collective response to all of it amounted to “what deals?” Kirkland got its fourth letter in March. American Oversight sued for the records after FOIA requests got it nothing. And the administration that supposedly bought these firms’ peace has since subpoenaed all nine and noticed depositions of the partners who signed, including London himself.
Skadden has now stonewalled Congress on the theory that this all blows over eventually. Unfortunately for them, the problem now has a case number.
Earlier: Skadden Makes $100 Million ‘Settlement’ With Trump In Pro Bono Payola
Skadden Advises Intel On Trump Deal, Because What Are A Few Obvious Conflicts Among Friends?
Paul Weiss & Kirkland Doing Free Trump Commerce Department Work As Part Of ‘Please Don’t Hurt Us, Daddy’ Deals
Lawmakers Ask Paul Weiss And Kirkland To Explain Why Trump Work Isn’t Totally Illegal
Democrats To Kirkland & Ellis: For The Fourth Time, What Exactly Did You Promise Trump?
Trump Turns On Capitulating Biglaw Firms HAHAHAHAHA
The DOJ’s Biglaw Subpoena Explanation Raises More Questions Than It Answers
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1 The post Skadden Said Its Trump Deal Raised No Ethical Issues. Intel’s Shareholders Disagree. appeared first on Above the Law.
from Above the Law https://ift.tt/juUSBvR
via IFTTT