Latest news with #probono
New York Times
25-05-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Trump Allies Look to Benefit From Pro Bono Promises by Elite Law Firms
President Trump has tossed around many ideas about how elite law firms can fulfill their commitments to provide free legal work for causes he supports, among them fighting antisemitism, negotiating coal leases, hammering out trade deals and defending police officers accused of misconduct. Greta Van Susteren, the conservative media personality and lawyer, had her own idea of how one of those elite firms, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, could make good on the pro bono promises. She wanted the large law firm to help a friend of a friend sue a local Michigan judge. So Ms. Van Susteren gave the head of Skadden's pro bono practice a call about her friend's friend, a 47-year-old veteran, who she said had been unfairly issued a protective order in his divorce proceeding that violated his civil rights. Skadden, Ms. Van Susteren said, initially told her that it could not represent this person and later offered in an email to play 'some sort of support role' in the case. The current Newsmax host, who formerly worked for Fox News, was not satisfied. Ms. Van Susteren took to X, the social media site, to blast Skadden, calling it 'disgraceful,' and tagged Mr. Trump. 'I was annoyed, ' Ms. Van Susteren said in an interview. 'I wanted them to actually help this veteran.' Earlier this year, the Trump administration agreed to spare Skadden and eight other large law firms from executive orders that could have crippled their businesses in exchange for commitments from those firms to collectively provide nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal work and represent clients from all political points of view. Now individuals and organizations allied with Mr. Trump are starting to request that the firms make good on the free legal work they committed to perform, according to 11 people briefed on the outreach, including some who requested anonymity to discuss internal law firm business. In an email to Ms. Van Susteren, reviewed by The New York Times, Skadden wrote that her request to help the veteran was one of 'many outreaches for assistance' the firm had received 'in the wake of our agreement with the White House.' Veterans, in particular, are reaching out to large firms like Skadden, Kirkland & Ellis, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, having learned about the deals through media coverage and Mr. Trump's posts on Truth Social. Kirkland anticipated that news of its deal with Mr. Trump last month would lead to an influx of individual requests for legal help from the public, so the firm set up a separate email address for people looking for legal assistance, according to two people familiar with the matter. The firm also was concerned that lawyers and staff working on pro bono matters could receive threats and harassment from the public, another person briefed on the matter said. At Paul Weiss, which was the first major firm to reach a deal with Mr. Trump, many of the requests have come from veterans, one of the groups that the president suggested the firms could help. Some veterans have viewed the deals as an open invitation to ask for free legal work. In recent months, several have called Paul Weiss's pro bono department asking for help on a range of issues, including their rental leases and medical benefits, two people with knowledge of the requests said. Such requests are highly unusual for a large firm like Paul Weiss. Like many other elite law firms, it has typically relied on public interest groups to first review any pro bono requests before an internal law firm committee formally approves them. The idea is to make sure that pro bono resources are directed toward cases that will have a large impact. Just two months after striking the deals with Mr. Trump, law firms are in uncharted territory. They are trying to make good on their pro bono commitments to Mr. Trump while not giving up their autonomy to choose cases or alienating their staff, who want to work on legal issues that broadly serve the public's interest. But the firms are unsure about how to satisfy the terms of their pro bono commitments, or how to keep track of the work that might qualify as part of those commitments, according to three people briefed on the matter. While Mr. Trump has suggested certain issues and causes the law firms could help with, a White House official said the administration has not made any direct requests of the law firms to provide pro bono work to a particular group or individual. The White House official said he was not aware of Ms. Van Susteren's outreach and declined to comment on it. Still, some interest groups are trying to seize this unusual moment to obtain free legal work. One of them is the Oversight Project, a conservative group affiliated with the Heritage Foundation. The group has sent letters to dozens of big law firms, including some that settled with the White House, asking each of them to provide up to $10 million in pro bono legal work to support litigation brought by conservative groups. Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, said some law firms had rejected his request without giving reasons. But he said some firms were continuing to talk to his organization 'in good faith.' The Oversight Project focuses on investigating government activities that it believes are examples of the weaponization of the legal process. Steven Banks, a lawyer who headed up pro bono for Paul Weiss before leaving a few weeks ago, said Mr. Trump and his allies were stretching the definition of pro bono legal services. Last month, Mr. Trump issued an executive order that said law firms could be enlisted to defend police officers who were 'unjustly' treated in performing their jobs. (William Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, a coalition of police unions and associations, said he was not aware of any law enforcement group seeking pro bono help from one of the law firms that settled with the White House.) Mr. Banks, who once ran the Legal Aid Society in New York, said he understood how some veterans might have gotten the wrong impression that Mr. Trump's deals with law firms guaranteed them the right to free legal help from one of these big firms. Even before the deals were announced, most big law firms routinely did work on veterans issues, such as working with groups that advocate for Gold Star families — survivors of service members who died on active duty. But simply being a veteran is not enough to qualify for free help, since pro bono resources typically go to those who have limited incomes or who have an issue that involves the government threatening someone's rights or civil liberties, Mr. Banks said. 'Pro bono is about representing the less powerful against the more powerful,' he said. At many large law firms, pro bono work can be an important tool to recruit lawyers who want to be part of a firm that does public interest work in addition to representing high-paying corporations. But some large firms have begun to decline pro bono assignments that could be seen as challenging the administration's policies on issues like immigration to stay on Mr. Trump's good side. At Kirkland, a group of junior attorneys have said they won't abide by the pro bono terms of their firm's deal with Mr. Trump. The lawyers have let it be known internally that they do not want to work on any matters that count toward fulfilling the firm's commitment to provide free legal work as part of the agreement with the White House, according to three people briefed on the matter but not authorized to talk publicly about internal firm issues. Skadden's deal with the White House in late March to provide $100 million in pro bono work caught the attention of Chuck Lang, a high school friend of Ms. Van Susteren's. In an interview, he said he had hoped she could use her connections to the White House — her husband works in the administration — to assist his veteran friend in Michigan. Mr. Lang said that the veteran, who believed his civil liberties had been violated, fit the definition of someone deserving of pro bono legal assistance. The veteran, Mr. Lang explained to Ms. Van Susteren, wanted help suing a judge who he said had wrongly issued a protective order against him in a divorce proceeding because his former wife works for the judge and is her friend. Under the protective order, Mr. Lang said, the veteran could not see his children without supervision or own a firearm. The veteran, Mr. Lang said, had spent over $200,000 in legal fees and supervision costs. Suing a sitting judge under any circumstance is tough. But Ms. Van Susteren said she was hoping that Skadden would be up for the challenge. Skadden suggested that the veteran first hire a local lawyer, outlining the firm's reasoning in an April email to Ms. Van Susteren, which was reviewed by The Times. 'As we are sure you can appreciate, there are times when the legal needs of a prospective client are best addressed by other counsel who possess more specialized expertise or local experience,' Skadden explained in the email. The veteran, the email continued, would be 'best served with local counsel and our firm playing some sort of support role.' In a separate email to the veteran, which was reviewed by The Times, Skadden said once he had found a local lawyer that person should 'reach out directly to us to discuss how we can best support their efforts.' Ms. Van Susteren said Skadden should have provided more help. 'Most people don't know how to find lawyers and need extra help,' she said in an interview. 'That task is something that they could have helped him do.'
Wall Street Journal
23-05-2025
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Trump's Campaign Against Elite Law Firms Suffers Another Defeat in Court
In a matter of weeks, President Trump's campaign against the legal industry racked up commitments from law firms to provide some $1 billion in pro bono work for causes favored by the White House. In court, the effort has met a much different fate: One gut punch after another. The latest blow landed Friday, when a federal judge in Washington struck down Trump's executive order against the law firm Jenner & Block. The ruling from U.S. District Judge John Bates extended a string of defeats the administration has suffered against law firms that have challenged executive orders targeting their businesses.
The Guardian
18-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
US lawyers set up own firms to lead legal fightback in face of Trump onslaught
As Donald Trump wages a blunt attack on major law firms and the justice department, some lawyers are starting their own law firms and challenging the administration's effort to cut funding and punish civil servants. The decision to start the firms come as the judiciary has emerged as a major bulwark against the Trump administration. More than 200 lawsuits have been filed challenging various Trump administration policies. And there have been more than 70 rulings blocking the administration from executing various policies. Daniel Jacobson thought the knowledge of niche rules governing administrative and funding laws he had accumulated as general counsel in the office of management and budget during Joe Biden's administration would be 'totally useless' in normal times. But when the Trump administration quickly began mass cuts in funding for agencies, programs and groups he saw a 'gap in the market'. Many of the groups affected by the cuts were organizations that could not afford to pay major law firms steep legal fees. Jacobson, a former associate at Arnold & Porter, thought his specialized knowledge combined and his litigation experience could help. He started his own firm in February. Jacobson's decision came as many firms have been wary of taking on pro-bono work challenging the administration's interests. As Trump has directed punishing executive orders at firms that challenged him, several of the country's largest and most prestigious law firms have reached agreements in which they have agreed to provide pro-bono legal services that align with both the firm and the Trump administration's interests. Jacobson's firm already has five cases, including ones to block efforts to dismantle the National Endowment for the Humanities and an office of management and budget page tracking appropriations. The firm is now staffed with six attorneys who previously served as lawyers in various government agencies, including the Department of Education, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the federal programs bench of the justice department, which defends the executive branch and agencies in civil litigation. 'I don't need to worry about trimming my sails out of fear of being targeted or something like that. I can just take the cases that I think are important and should be taken,' Jacobson said in an interview earlier this month. Earlier this year, major law firms reported a swell in applications as lawyers applied for jobs amid a mass exodus from government service. But after firms began striking deals with the Trump administration in March, the attractiveness of working at the firms may have cooled. Some lawyers have quit major firms in protest. 'The new firms are a response to the political moment and what's happening to lawyers and other people in society that are being targeted,' said Scott Cummings, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who studies legal ethics. 'They're doing it in this very specific context, that I think is great, because they're also filling in gaps now that we're seeing happening in the context of these big law firms that are no longer that interested maybe in bringing cases that are going to put them on the wrong side of the government.' Clayton Bailey and Jessica Merry Samuels, two justice department attorneys, quit their government jobs this year and launched their own firm earlier this month focused on protecting civil servants targeted by the Trump administration. Bailey was working in the federal programs bench when Trump won the election, and initially thought there was a chance he would be able to continue the non-partisan work that justice department lawyers have long been able to do. He quickly realized that wasn't going to happen. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion 'As soon as I sort of got that feeling that I was gonna get things that were being done that were unlawful, that I was going to be asked to defend, I realized that it wasn't gonna be the place for me for the next four years,' he said. He considered joining a non-profit organization or a major law firm, but ultimately decided to start his own firm. 'It offers you the autonomy to be creative in the work,' he said. At least one more high-profile lawyer also recently set out on his own. Abbe Lowell, a longtime Washington attorney, left his partnership at the firm Winston & Strawn to start his own firm in May defending officials who have faced attacks from Trump. Their clients include Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who had his security clearance revoked by Trump, Miles Taylor, a former homeland security official who also had his security clearance revoked, and the New York attorney general, Letitia James. The firm's first two hires were Rachel Cohen and Brenna Trout Frey, associates who quit their jobs at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom after the firm signed an agreement capitulating to Trump. 'I was drawn to work somewhere that can move faster than traditional legal organizations,' Cohen said. 'While many places are doing important work, the need for rapid action right now is immense and often best accomplished by smaller, high-performing shops that respond both proactively and reactively to the near-daily shifts in the American legal system.'
Reuters
16-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
New York bill targets free legal work pledged to Trump
May 16 (Reuters) - Democratic New York state lawmakers have introduced legislation that would bar law firms in the state from requiring employees to do free legal work performed as part of an agreement the firm made with the Trump administration. The proposed bill would also prohibit such work from counting toward New York's pro bono requirements for lawyers to practice law in the state. New York State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Micah Lasher in a Friday statement said the measure is "in response to President Trump's coercive and unlawful extortion of private law firms," leading to agreements between some firms and the White House. Nine major firms have reached deals with President Donald Trump to devote a total of $940 million in pro bono legal work to causes the administration favors, such as supporting veterans or combating antisemitism. Many of them have defended the deals as necessary to protect their business from executive orders or from a probe of their hiring practices. The agreements came after Trump issued orders penalizing prominent firms he accused of "weaponizing" the legal system against him and his allies. Four law firms are suing the administration over the orders against them. New lawyers applying for admission to the New York bar are required to complete at least 50 hours of pro bono work, and lawyers must report their pro bono hours when they file to renew their membership to the state bar, the lawmakers said. The new legislation, if passed, would exempt any pro bono hours stemming from an agreement between a firm and the federal government "under which the federal government specifies the recipient or recipients or type or types or nature of such legal services," according to the current text of the measure. "This disgraceful discrimination undermines the very pro-bono initiatives President Trump has championed to ensure justice for all," White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement. Fields said the bill would restrict affordable legal representation for New Yorkers "simply for being veterans or Jewish." The proposed bill does not say lawyers cannot receive pro bono credit for specific types of cases unless they are undertaken "pursuant" to Trump's law firm deals. The legislation is expected to be considered by the state Senate Judiciary Committee next week, according to Hoylman-Sigal, who said it is expected to be approved. A spokesperson for New York Governor Kathy Hochul said her office does not comment on pending legislation. Law firms that have struck deals with the Trump administration have faced criticism over the agreements from lawyers, Democratic U.S. lawmakers and others, in part due to the pro bono pledges. Trump last month directed the U.S. Justice Department to mobilize law firms to defend police officers unjustly accused of misconduct free of charge. The president has also made repeated comments about "using" the firms that settled with him for particular projects, including working on trade deals. Neither the administration nor the law firms have so far disclosed any pro bono assignments stemming from the agreements.
Wall Street Journal
08-05-2025
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Venerable New York Firm that Struck a Deal with Trump Is Losing Lawyers
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft struck a deal with President Trump last month intended to secure the future of New York's oldest law firm. Instead the pact is backfiring, adding to an exodus of lawyers that has placed the firm on uncertain footing. Cadwalader already was facing troubles, including imminent attorney departures, before its April 11 deal with the White House in which it avoided a punitive executive order by pledging at least $100 million of pro bono work to support the president's priorities. The agreement now is pushing more lawyers to leave, people familiar with the matter said, spurred by anger that the firm capitulated to Trump instead of fighting back against an administration campaign that many in the industry believe to be unconstitutional.
