A political firestorm is ripping through some of America’s most elite law firms, not from the courtroom, but from within their own ranks. At the center of it all? A staggering $940 million in pro bono promises and a string of controversial deals with President Donald Trump — a man who’s now using legal contracts like a scalpel against dissenting voices in the profession.
In the latest rupture, associates at powerhouse firms like Simpson Thacher, Kirkland & Ellis, and Latham & Watkins are packing up their desks — not because they lost cases, but because their firms, they say, lost their spines.
Take Siunik Moradian. On Friday, he walked away from his post at Simpson Thacher, citing the firm’s capitulation as a betrayal of principle. His fiery resignation letter called out a pattern: venerable firms trading integrity for political survival. “Bending the knee,” he wrote, “kissing the ring of authoritarianism.”
Others quickly followed. Sam Wong, once at Latham & Watkins, and Jacqui Pittman, who resigned from Kirkland, both said they couldn’t, in good conscience, remain. Similar resignations echoed from Skadden and Willkie Farr.
What pushed these firms to the edge? Pressure, power, and the president.
On Friday, five firms cut sweeping deals with the administration. Each agreed to pour up to $125 million into pro bono work, align on certain administration-supported causes, and — most controversially — steer clear of what Trump has dubbed “illegal DEI discrimination.” Simultaneously, four settled with the EEOC, ending federal investigations into their diversity programs.
In exchange, the administration agreed to back off — for now.
The White House cheered the agreements as a step toward “ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession.” But critics, including hundreds of lawyers within the firms, say the price was too high. An internal letter from staff at A&O Shearman warned that such deals “contribute to the degradation of the rule of law in the United States.” That same firm still signed anyway.
Behind the legal language and polished press statements lies a raw power struggle. Trump, who has issued punitive executive orders against firms tied to previous litigation or political stances he opposes, is reshaping the legal battlefield. One order revoked federal contracts from clients of dissenting firms; another barred their lawyers from federal buildings.
A reckoning followed.
More than 800 firms filed briefs blasting the orders. Four — WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey — are suing. Judges have already blocked parts of the orders in some of those cases.
Even so, nine firms have now struck deals with the Trump administration. Most are attempting to spin it as pragmatic: a way to protect their work and people while staying out of political crosshairs. Simpson Thacher’s chairman acknowledged internal unrest in a memo, noting the decision “may weigh heavily.”
That’s an understatement.
In boardrooms and breakrooms, the legal world is grappling with a chilling new reality: adapt or be punished. The battle lines aren’t just red and blue — they’re between tradition and expediency, between risk and resistance.
And in the middle of it all, lawyers are being forced to answer a deeply uncomfortable question: what’s the cost of staying silent?
