Trump Strikes Deal with Skadden Arps to Avoid Legal Sanctions \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Skadden Arps reached a deal with President Trump to provide $100 million in pro bono services and review its hiring practices, avoiding an executive order that has hit other firms. Meanwhile, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale filed lawsuits challenging similar orders as unconstitutional retaliation.
Trump-Skadden Deal Avoids Executive Order: Quick Looks
- Skadden Arps agrees to $100M in free legal services, revises hiring practices to avoid Trump’s order
- Deal announced same day other law firms sued over retaliatory executive orders
- Jenner & Block, WilmerHale challenge orders targeting their past ties to Mueller investigation
- Lawsuits argue orders violate constitutional protections for legal representation and free speech
- Trump orders threaten firms with revoked clearances and access bans from federal buildings
- Paul Weiss also settled with Trump administration; Perkins Coie won temporary legal relief
- Executive orders seen as effort to punish firms for perceived disloyalty or political associations
Deep Look
In a dramatic day for the U.S. legal industry, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, one of the world’s most powerful law firms, announced Friday that it had reached a deal with President Donald Trump’s administration to avoid being targeted by a sweeping executive order. The agreement requires the firm to provide at least $100 million in free legal services and reassess its hiring and diversity initiatives, effectively shielding it from the kind of penalties now facing several other prominent firms.
The announcement came just hours after two other elite firms, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, filed lawsuits in federal court challenging similar executive orders. Those firms argue that Trump’s actions represent an unconstitutional retaliation aimed at punishing them for past associations with attorneys who investigated the president.
Skadden’s Calculated Deal to Avoid Retaliation
Skadden’s managing partner Jeremy London sent a firm-wide message, obtained by The Associated Press, revealing that the administration had intended to issue an executive order targeting the firm for its pro bono work and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. After internal deliberation, Skadden decided that striking a deal was the best course of action to protect its interests and those of its clients.
“When faced with this information, we carefully considered what the right path would be for us,” London wrote. “We were guided by our determination to uphold the significant commitments and responsibilities we have to our clients, our people, and to the broader communities and society we serve.”
The deal may avert a damaging fight with the administration, but it has raised concerns about the precedent it sets, with critics warning that it could chill public interest law and workplace inclusion efforts in law firms across the country.
Other Firms Fight Back in Court
Meanwhile, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale took the opposite approach—filing federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s recent executive orders.
Jenner & Block’s suit highlights that one of its former attorneys, Andrew Weissmann, had served on Robert Mueller’s special counsel team during Trump’s first term. Though Weissmann left the firm years ago, the executive order alleges the firm is unfit for certain government business due to its past affiliations.
“Our Constitution, top to bottom, forbids attempts by the government to punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate,” reads the Jenner & Block complaint filed in D.C. federal court.
The order has already impacted Jenner & Block’s operations. According to the lawsuit, one client was informed they could no longer bring the firm’s lawyers to an upcoming meeting at a federal building.
WilmerHale’s lawsuit similarly claims retaliation, noting that Mueller himself was once a partner at the firm, along with other attorneys who played roles in the special counsel investigation. Though no longer affiliated with the firm, Trump’s executive order cited Mueller and others by name, linking them to WilmerHale’s eligibility to participate in federal legal matters.
“The Order makes no secret of its intent to punish WilmerHale for its past and current representations of clients before the Nation’s courts,” the firm stated in its complaint.
A Broader Crackdown on Legal Institutions
The lawsuits and Skadden’s deal follow a series of moves by the Trump administration to target law firms perceived as politically opposed to him. These executive orders threaten firms with:
- Revoked federal security clearances
- Restricted access to government buildings
- Suspension from receiving federal contracts or appointments
Other firms have responded in different ways. Perkins Coie filed suit and won a temporary restraining order, staving off enforcement of Trump’s directive. Paul Weiss, on the other hand, reached a deal similar to Skadden’s. Its chairman described the situation as an “existential crisis” for the firm.
These orders appear to have stemmed in part from Trump’s longstanding frustration with the Mueller investigation and other legal scrutiny during his first term. Many of the lawyers involved in those efforts have since returned to private practice or retired—but their former employers are now being punished for those associations, critics argue.
Legal and Political Fallout
The use of executive orders to penalize law firms based on past affiliations has sparked alarm among constitutional scholars, who say such actions threaten core First Amendment protections and the independence of the legal profession.
Even firms that have chosen to settle or comply, like Skadden and Paul Weiss, are now being watched closely by legal ethics watchdogs and civil liberties groups, concerned about future government interference in legal representation.
The federal lawsuits filed Friday are expected to be the first in a wave of challenges, and courts may ultimately be asked to decide whether Trump’s orders constitute a violation of due process, equal protection, and free speech.
With legal, ethical, and financial implications at stake, this confrontation between law firms and the White House could reshape how lawyers approach public service, pro bono work, and advocacy in a deeply politicized era.
Trump Strikes Deal Trump Strikes Deal
You must Register or Login to post a comment.