Democratic lawmakers are demanding answers from six powerhouse U.S. law firms over behind-the-scenes agreements they allegedly struck with former President Donald Trump—deals that, according to critics, may have been less about legal discretion and more about political submission.
At the heart of the firestorm: four firms—Milbank, Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher—that reportedly made quiet concessions to Trump’s administration to dodge punishing executive orders. In a set of sharp letters sent over the weekend, Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representative Jamie Raskin called the arrangements “deeply troubling,” suggesting they might signal unlawful pressure to align with Trump’s pet projects, echo his agenda, and roll back internal firm policies he disfavored.
But the scrutiny doesn’t stop there. Letters were also sent to the leadership of Kirkland & Ellis and Sullivan & Cromwell, accused of playing roles in this web of influence—even attempting to poach partners from Paul Weiss after it was targeted by one of Trump’s now-rescinded orders.
Both firms fired back. A spokesperson for Sullivan & Cromwell flatly denied the claims, calling the allegations “false” and emphasizing that leadership chose not to pursue Paul Weiss attorneys. Kirkland followed suit, branding the accusations “categorically false.”
The other four firms named in the letters have yet to comment publicly or indicate whether they’ll comply with the April 14 deadline to respond.
While Republicans hold the reins in Congress, Democrats staged an unofficial hearing in Washington on Monday, focused squarely on what they described as Trump’s brazen attacks on the rule of law—and the legal industry’s role in enabling them.
Testimony included former DOJ pardon official Liz Oyer, who said she was abruptly fired in March after refusing to restore actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights—a controversial move reportedly pushed by Trump, who appointed Gibson as one of his “Hollywood ambassadors.”
Also speaking was Rachel Cohen, a former Skadden banking associate who resigned shortly before her firm finalized its deal with the Trump administration. She said she feared the agreement would limit her ability to take on pro bono immigration work, an area close to her heart.
Paul Weiss, meanwhile, appears to have escaped its executive order only after agreeing to pony up $40 million in legal services for mutually approved administration initiatives and steering clear of diversity practices deemed objectionable by Trump’s team. Milbank, Skadden, and Willkie eventually followed suit—making similar deals even in the absence of formal threats.
As for Kirkland, the nation’s biggest firm by revenue? Reports suggest it’s still at the negotiating table, seeking to sidestep a potential order.
Meanwhile, several other major firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—have taken the fight to court, challenging the legality of the executive orders aimed at severing their government ties and locking them out of federal buildings. Judges have blocked parts of those orders, but the broader battle over the legal industry’s autonomy—and its proximity to presidential power—rages on.
