White-shoe law firms that made deals with President Trump are doubling down on their commitments, insisting in letters to Congress that the agreements were legal and ethical.
The letters were sent on May 8 in response to public scrutiny from Democrats about whether the deals amounted to illegal bribes. They were signed by representatives from the nine firms that agreed to provide pro-bono work for the president’s preferred causes, including de-emphasizing DEI.
“Your suggestion that the Firm may have violated federal law, state law, and rules of professional conduct in entering into the agreements is wholly without merit,” the law firm Simpson Thacher said in one letter.
“The Firm rejects your suggestion that Skadden’s compliance with the Agreement reached with the Administration might constitute either legal or ethical violations,” an attorney for Skadden wrote.
The only firm that didn’t explicitly defend the legality of its deal was Latham & Watkins. Chair Richard Trobman said the firm takes its ethical obligations “seriously.”
Beginning in late March, the nine firms committed $940 million in free legal work to support some of Trump’s priorities amid punitive executive orders. The deals led several lawyers at the firms to publicly announce their resignations. Four other firms targeted with orders that threatened their client relationships have since won legal victories.
Last month, members of Congress led by Rep. David Min and Rep. April McClain Delaney asked the firms that cut deals to repudiate them, calling them unethical and illegal. Critics of the deals say the vague commitments don’t square with the firms’ obligations to exercise independent professional judgment and provide legal help for the needy rather than the politically connected.
Min told Business Insider he disagreed with the law firms’ responses and said he and other Congressional Democrats were considering their next steps. He said the law firms might have violated state laws as well as federal laws, and said investigations and enforcement activities could take place in other jurisdictions — or once Democrats take power.
“It’s probably incumbent on state and local and federal, should that time arise, authorities to investigate these settlements,” Min said.
The law firms “can disavow the agreements,” he added. “If they don’t do that and continue to perform — for example, if they decide to represent January 6 protesters… then I think you have very clearly a circumstance where they violated a number of laws.”
In a statement, Rep. McClain Delaney called the deals a “real threat to the rule of law and integrity of the judiciary” and questioned how firms that cut deals with the White House could represent clients that “might be seen as antagonistic.”
Several of the firms also sent letters to Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Jamie Raskin defending the deals, Reuters previously reported.
The nine law firms didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Read the full letters below.
Read the full article here
