Three of the most prominent U.S. law firms have declined to fully respond to demands from Democratic lawmakers seeking details about their legal work tied to agreements made with President Donald Trump earlier this year.
Congressional Inquiries and the Firms’ Responses
In late September, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), along with Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), sent letters to Kirkland & Ellis, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, demanding information about any legal work the firms might have conducted for the U.S. Commerce Department in 2025—including whether services were provided pro bono or at reduced rates.
Each firm replied but stopped short of providing substantive answers. Instead, they defended their discretion in choosing clients and indicated they are attentive to managing conflicts of interest and complying with ethical rules.
For instance, Kirkland & Ellis, via partner W. Neil Eggleston (formerly White House counsel under President Obama), stated that it was confident its agreement with the Trump administration did not implicate the concerns raised. Paul Weiss, in turn, made clear that any work it performed for the government—whether paid or free—would not be counted toward the firm’s previously announced $40 million pro bono commitment. Skadden rejected the characterization implied by the lawmakers’ inquiry, contending it had not violated statutes, regulations, or ethical obligations.
Background: The Trump-Law Firm Deals
The firms in question were part of a cadre that pledged nearly $1 billion in legal services, in connection with agreements with the Trump White House. These commitments were offered after Trump began issuing executive orders aimed at punishing firms perceived to have political or legal ties to his critics. In the case of Paul Weiss, for example, the firm was under threat from an executive order (14237) restricting its access to federal buildings and government contracts; that order was later withdrawn after the firm agreed to revise certain policies.
Such deals were controversial from the outset, with critics arguing they risk undermining the independence of the legal profession and blurring the line between advocacy and political accommodation.
Lawmakers’ Response: Ethics, Transparency, and Accountability
In their joint statement, Senators Blumenthal and Schiff and Representative Raskin sharply criticized the firms’ refusal to divulge details, declaring that their silence “speaks volumes about the moral crisis of the legal profession today.” They urged transparency and insisted that law firms should act as bulwarks against the erosion of the rule of law—not as bystanders or enablers.
The firms, in their replies, largely avoided taking a confrontational tone. They asserted that they were legally entitled to decline certain disclosures and emphasized their commitment to professional and ethical obligations.
Broader Implications for Big Law and Government Relations
This controversy is part of a larger struggle between parts of the legal industry and the Trump administration’s efforts to exert influence over major law firms. Some firms that resisted Trump’s pressure—such as Perkins Coie and WilmerHale—sued and obtained court orders blocking punitive executive actions. Others chose to negotiate, offering pro bono commitments in exchange for being spared from restrictions.
Critics argue that by entering into these deals, firms risk compromising their ability to represent unpopular or politically sensitive clients in the future. Supporters say the deals were a pragmatic means of preserving access to government clients and ongoing business relationships.
Still, the refusal of these law firms to provide full disclosure to Congress raises questions about accountability and whether the public should have insight into how private legal actors interact with government institutions under politically charged circumstances.
Conclusion
At present, because the law firms declined to provide substantive detail, the full nature of their work for the government—as well as the financial terms—remains uncertain. The standoff underscores the tensions between professional discretion, ethical obligations, and the public’s interest in oversight.
If the firms continue withholding information, the issue may not stay in the legal press—it could escalate into formal investigations, congressional hearings, or ethics enforcement actions. What is clear is that the controversy spotlights the delicate balance law firms must strike when serving both private clients and government institutions in a hyper-polarized political climate.
As political and legal scrutiny intensifies, opportunities for attorneys in government, compliance, and public policy law are on the rise. Stay ahead of the curve—explore exclusive legal positions across the nation on LawCrossing, the industry’s leading job board for attorneys, law students, and legal professionals. Don’t miss your chance to shape the future of law—start your search today!