A law associate making $300,000 a year at Skadden Arps quit over the firm's deal with Donald Trump
When Rachel Cohen took a job as an associate at Skadden Arps in Chicago three years ago, she expected long hours, some tedious work, and extremely good pay. What she wasn't expecting was to be thrust into the middle of a crisis involving her white shoe firm and the president of the United States.
In the first few months of his administration, Donald Trump has taken aim at policies he disagrees with in both the public and private sector. But law firms as a category have come under special scrutiny; Trump has signed a number of executive orders targeting specific major legal practices by name.
Trump accuses these firms of things like undermining elections, unlawful hiring practices, and attempting to limit constitutional freedoms through certain pro bono work. But the firms that he has targeted all have one thing in common: They have previously butted heads with Trump, or supported Democrats. The increased and unprecedented scrutiny have prompted nine firms, including Paul Weiss, Willkie Farr, and Skadden Arps, to preemptively strike deals with the president, pledging a total of $940 million in free legal work thus far.
'Skadden is pleased to have achieved a successful agreement with President Trump and his Administration," executive partner Jeremy London said in a March 28 statement posted by Trump on the president's social media platform, Truth Social. 'We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our Firm.'
Cohen could not have felt more strongly that the firm was taking a wrong turn. 'I felt the firm was on the wrong side of history,' she says.
Cohen was brought into the firm as a financial specialist to work on large M&A transactions, and had been there a little under three years when Skadden made the announcement. Cohen said she first started noticing a slight shift in attitude at the firm after the president began taking aim at other major legal practices.
'When Trump started coming for law firms based on past representation, it was so outside the bounds of the normal and a clear intimidation technique, so I was shocked when there was no immediate response from the company; it struck me as strange,' she says. Skadden did not reply to Fortune's request for comment.
On March 17 the firm was among many hit with a demand letter from acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Andrea Lucas, requesting information about the firm's DEI-related employment practices, alleging a potential violation of the Civil Rights Act.
With many associates, including herself, seeing the letter as a 'clear intimidation tactic,' Cohen assumed at this point that Skadden would speak up and strike back, but that didn't happen. 'We knew nothing because the firm wouldn't talk about it,' she says.
Feeling concerned about the firm's future and what she saw as its lackadaisical approach to the president's demands, Cohen went to the press to address her concerns. She expected to be disciplined by management for her actions, which she says were clearly against company policy. But besides a couple light-hearted warnings, the company did nothing. Cohen says that she believes that was because it was looking to mitigate bad press on the issue.
'They were going to just let me stomp my feet and tucker myself out like a toddler and then push me out at the end of the year once the media attention died off,' Cohen says. Skadden did not reply to Fortune's repeated requests for comment.
In the meantime, in addition to committing 'at least' $100 million in pro bono legal work for causes the administration supports, Skadden has also made efforts to dismantle DEI programs, by overhauling their current hiring strategy and putting an end to their employee resource groups, Bloomberg Law reports.
Cohen wasn't the only one who was outraged. Earlier this month, a group of more than 80 alumni from Skadden sent a letter to London protesting the firm's deal with Trump.
'In light of Skadden's position, it is outrageous and self-interested that rather than fulfilling the legal profession's oath and standing in solidarity with fellow law firms that were fighting to uphold the Constitution, Skadden caved to bullying tactics instead,' the letter states.
Concerned that the firm was moving in a direction that violated her own ethics, Cohen quit Skadden on March 20. In doing so, she left behind a compensation package that she estimates would be more than $300,000 this year.
Cohen isn't the only one to leave her job at a major law firm over its arrangements with the Trump administration.
A leading federal contracts lawyer at Perkins Coie reportedly left the firm over its deal with Trump, and more than half a dozen associates at other firms have quit publicly due to their company's deals with the president. This includes lawyers who previously worked at Kirkland, Latham, Simpson Thacher, and Willkie Farr, which have all made deals with the administration to offer pro bono services as well as commitments to 'not engage in illegal DEI discrimination,' the president announced on Truth Social last month. None of these firms responded to Fortune's repeated requests for comment.
Some law student organizations are also taking a stance. One current JD student at Georgetown Law, Caleb Frye, says the student group he helps run, which works to place top graduates at major energy-focused law firms, recently sent a letter to Skadden canceling a networking event with the company due to its deal with Trump.
'We go to big firms like Skadden because we think that we're going to get the best training opportunities, the best career development,' Frye, student and co-president of the Georgetown Energy Law Group, tells Fortune. 'But now, I can't look people in my group in the eye and tell them that they're going to get the best training opportunities at a firm that isn't even willing to litigate on behalf of its own constitutional rights.'
Earlier this month, the National Institute for Workers' Rights filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Skadden. The group alleges that the firm engaged in unfair labor practices by making efforts to restrict the email access of employees expressing concerns, submitting resignations, and planning 'coordinated rejections of recruitment activities' over its Trump agreement. Skadden did not reply to Fortune's repeated request for comment.
Some law firms that were targeted by Trump are pushing back on the administration. After the president issued an executive order against Susman Godfrey, accusing the firm of weaponizing the American legal system and 'degrading the quality of American elections,' the firm sued him. On April 15, a federal judge granted the firm's request for temporary relief from the order, the New York Times reported.
As for Cohen, she's unsure of her future, but says it will likely be outside of the legal profession. She says she feels what Skadden is doing is much larger than just promising free legal work to the president, adding the company's actions have led her to question the ethics of management and reduced her faith in the entire legal system.
'I don't know if there's a law after this,' says Cohen. 'It seems like the country is moving towards kangaroo courts and I'm certainly not going to commit myself to the practice of law as a full-time job until I see how things unfold.'
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
11 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Americans are questioning the value of a college degree. Trump is joining the debate.
President Donald Trump wants to tweak a traditionalfeature of the American dream: a college degree. Trump has continued to escalate his battle with Harvard University, threatening to cut off the Ivy League school from federal funding if it does not meet the administration's demands, which include eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and cracking down on campus activism. The latest threat against Harvard, however, floated shifting funding to trade schools, an alternative path to a four-year college degree. "I am considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land," Trump wrote in a May 26 post on Truth Social. "What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!" The White House's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, added onto the president's comments in an interview with Fox News: "Apprenticeships, electricians, plumbers, we need more of those in our country, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University. And that's what this administration's position is." Over the past few years, a growing number of Americans have started to question the value of a college degree due to high costs and a tough labor market, making trade schools and apprenticeships a favorable alternative. It marks a shift in the standard American dream, in which a four-year college degree had been viewed as a step to middle-class success. However, Jon Fansmith, assistant vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, told Business Insider that taking funding away from Harvard and other research institutions isn't the answer to boosting investment in trade schools. "The money that he is talking about withholding from Harvard is money that Congress provided to research agencies to perform advanced scientific and biomedical research," Fansmith said, adding that Harvard earned grant money because "they had the best researchers, the best laboratory facilities, the best understanding of how to advance that science," he continued. "You can't simply take that money and use it for another purpose." Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Department of Education, told BI that "American universities that are committed to their academic mission, protect students on campus, and follow all federal laws will have no problem accessing generous taxpayer support for their programs." 'Two very separate stories' Higher education doesn't have the same draw that it once did. Some Gen Zers previously told BI that despite being taught that college was the primary path to success, they felt they could make a living by directly entering the workforce or going to trade school. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. What is your job title? (1 of 2) Entry level position Project manager Management Senior management Executive management Student Self-employed Retired Other Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . That's why Trump's push to invest more in trade schools is important, Fansmith said — they help Americans get a stable career to support themselves and their families, and the federal government can help support those schools by asking Congress to approve more funding, not redirecting the funding unilaterally. "There are two stories here. One is this administration's attack on Harvard, and the other is, what is the role of trade schools, and is there a need for more support for trade schools? And as much as the president's trying to conflate the two, those are two very separate stories," Fansmith said. While Trump's big spending bill proposes some provisions to expand Pell grant eligibility to short-term programs, it does not detail a significant funding increase for trade schools. The Trump administration's rhetorical focus on trade schools isn't new. Before he won the 2024 election, Linda McMahon, now Trump's education secretary, wrote an opinion piece in The Hill advocating for the expansion of Pell Grant eligibility to workforce training programs. "Our educational system must offer clear and viable pathways to the American Dream aside from four-year degrees," she wrote. Trump also signed an executive order on April 23 to strengthen and expand workforce development and apprenticeships programs, which McMahon called a "significant step in ensuring every American can live their American Dream." Congress' role in rethinking education For years, Democratic lawmakers have been pushing for greater access to postsecondary education options, like free community college, and there has been bipartisan agreement on the need to boost apprenticeships and workforce programs without redirecting funding from higher education institutions. Amid the heightened focus on alternatives to a four-year college degree, the New York Federal Reserve said in a recent report that college still pays off; the median worker with a college degree earns about $80,000 a year, compared to $47,000 for a worker with just a high school diploma. Trump hasn't yet implemented his idea to redirect Harvard's federal funding to trade schools, and it's unclear how, or if, he will attempt to follow through. While he has already withheld billions of dollars from Harvard and other schools across the country for failing to meet his administration's political demands, the moves have been met with lawsuits, and Fansmith said it's likely more legal action would ensue should Trump attempt to move around funding without congressional approval. "We're talking about spending money that Congress said would go to support really critically needed research into things like cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes, and other things that impact everyday Americans' lives, and give it to trade schools," Fansmith said. "Trade schools are great schools. They have lots of benefits. They deserve a lot of federal support, but not just to make a political point at the expense of Harvard." Jason Altmire, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities — a group that represents for-profit colleges — said in a statement that Trump's focus on trade schools "is an investment in America's workforce." "The best way to support trade schools is to reduce the regulatory burden facing private career schools while increasing funding that allows students interested in the trades to choose the highest quality school," Altmire said.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Viasat Stock Floated Higher Today
It benefited from a growing dispute between President Trump and Elon Musk. If the latter loses federal government business for Starlink, Viasat could potentially poach such clients. 10 stocks we like better than Viasat › Satellite stocks were in vogue in late trading on Thursday, thanks to a rapidly escalating spat between two of the most high-profile individuals in the world. A beneficiary of this was Viasat (NASDAQ: VSAT), which ended up booking a 2.6% gain in its share price on the day. That made it an outperformer in light of the S&P 500 index's 0.5% decline. Earlier in the day, a social media war of words erupted between President Trump and former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk. That occurred just after Musk, on his X (formerly Twitter) platform, leveled criticisms against Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill currently making rather jagged progress through the Senate. In one of several responses on Trump's favored social media platform, Truth Social, the president made what can easily be taken as a direct and unambiguous threat to Musk's various businesses. He wrote that "The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts." Among Musk's businesses, which of course include Tesla, are SpaceX and Starlink. The latter company counts federal government agencies such as the Departments of Defense and Commerce as its clients. If such revenue sources were indeed to be cut off suddenly, the move would have quite a detrimental effect on Space X. Its loss would surely be rivals' gain; hence the interest in Viasat. The company provides satellite services that rival those of Starlink. Of course, so far there have been tough words but no action in regards to shutting off the federal taps that flow to Musk's business. Personally, I wouldn't trade Viasat or any potential beneficiary on rhetoric alone right now, but this is a rapidly developing story that's worth monitoring for anyone invested in satellite or space stocks presently. Before you buy stock in Viasat, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Viasat wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,538!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $869,841!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 789% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Eric Volkman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Viasat Stock Floated Higher Today was originally published by The Motley Fool Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Boston Globe
27 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
My father helped create public media. He'd say we need it now, more than ever
Now the Trump administration is not only trying to end public media but also attempting to claw back more than $1 billion in public media funds that Congress has already approved. Those who support this move Advertisement But there are problems with that argument. First, commercial media executives understand that attention is currency, and Advertisement Second, paid subscriptions are expensive, and many Americans simply can't afford them. Public media is a bargain by comparison. Third, commercial media companies don't have the incentive to operate in the public's best interest; they do have the incentive to convert eyeballs into revenue sources. For example, in youth programming, the focus is often on the commercials, selling toys and sugary snacks to kids. And content for kids on platforms such as YouTube can range from vapid to dangerous at a time when busy parents often use screen time to supplement entertainment or education. For these parents, it has become exhausting to choose what's OK for their children, and even more exhausting to know which platforms are trustworthy. The truth is, at a time when half of kids don't have access to preschool, federally funded, responsible content is a great investment in the next generation. Lastly, the commercial market has also collapsed for news. According to the Advertisement Access to reliable information is crucial in a democracy. As Bill Moyers once Like libraries and schools, public media offers access to knowledge and critical thinking, which is essential for learning and for democracy. The government should strengthen — not undermine — nonprofit educational media, especially now. I hope that my Dad's call for 'public interest' media prevails, rather than the alternative: an expensive wasteland even more vast — and dangerous — than he could have ever imagined.
