In a development that is sending shockwaves through the legal industry, five of the nation’s most powerful law firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, A&O Shearman, and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft—have agreed to provide $600 million in legal services to the Trump administration.
These deals, announced Friday, April 11, 2025, bring the total value of pro bono commitments made by top firms under pressure from former President Donald Trump to a staggering $940 million.
Notably, none of the five firms that settled last week were the subject of prior executive orders or known public animosity from Trump. That distinguishes this latest wave of agreements from earlier deals struck by law firms like Paul Weiss, which settled only after Trump’s administration threatened to strip its lawyers of security clearances and jeopardize its clients’ federal contracts.
Legal Industry on Edge
The abruptness and scale of these settlements have provoked alarm across the legal profession.
“Trump is forcing elite, large, profitable, and influential firms to settle—even when there’s no adversarial history with him—to show that no firm is safe,” said Kevin Burke, a former leader at Hinshaw & Culbertson and a current USC law professor. “The intent is to establish a new compliance standard and stigmatize resistance by law firms.”
Burke and others say these agreements are more than mere legal housekeeping—they represent a systemic erosion of the legal industry’s independence. By coercing firms into providing free services under veiled threats, critics argue, Trump is undermining the profession’s foundational commitment to the rule of law.
A Strategic Power Play
Legal insiders describe the situation as a strategic maneuver designed to intimidate and control.
“Once Trump discovered that many big law firms were cowards and that he could extort free legal services from them by illegally threatening them, I think he decided, why limit himself to firms that had actually done things to piss him off,” said Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law professor and organizer of a legal challenge to one of Trump’s executive orders.
Kirkland & Ellis, the most prominent of the newly settled firms, is viewed as especially emblematic of the shift. Known for its aggressive business model and staggering revenues—$8.8 billion in 2023—Kirkland proactively approached the administration to discuss a settlement, according to sources.
A statement from Kirkland framed the deal as pragmatic:
“We made the decision to pursue this solution because at our very core our mission is to protect and support our people and our clients, and this agreement does both.”
Uncharted Legal Terrain
This latest chapter in Trump’s clash with Big Law began with executive orders targeting firms perceived as political enemies—WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, among them. Those orders accused the firms of participating in the “weaponization” of legal institutions against Trump, citing their connections to Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann.
Today, four firms continue to fight Trump’s orders in court. Nine others, including the five that settled Friday, have chosen to avoid confrontation by contributing legal services. Covington & Burling remains the lone firm to neither contest nor settle.
The stakes for these firms go beyond litigation. Many are deeply involved in private equity and corporate transactions that depend on favorable regulatory decisions from federal agencies. Avoiding the risk of falling out of political favor has become a key business concern.
Undermining a Pillar of Democracy?
Observers warn that these developments pose a broader threat to democratic institutions.
“The legal profession really holds itself out to be an important pillar of democratic governance,” said Maya Sen, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “By attacking law firms and the legal industry, you kind of undermine that pillar.”
Sen, who co-authored a 2016 study showing that Kirkland’s attorneys lean more conservative than those at peer firms, emphasized that Trump’s apparent targeting of the legal sector—not Hollywood or academia—suggests a calculated effort to dismantle a perceived check on his power.
A Legal Slush Fund?
Trump has hinted at using the nearly $1 billion in pledged legal services for a variety of policy goals, including supporting coal industry leases, trade negotiations, and potentially legal challenges to federal regulations.
“This way he can have his own giant legal slush fund, and also scare many big firms away from ever being adverse to him,” said Lemley.
Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, described the tactics as “transactional about things that might surprise others because they have not been made transactional before, such as permission to go on operating as a large law firm.”
As more firms weigh whether to resist or comply, the industry faces what some see as a defining moment.
“If we fail to respond—collectively, courageously, and clearly—we risk normalizing a future where silence is safety and independence and commitment to the rule of law is punished,” Burke said.
