{"id":5677,"date":"2025-05-07T13:21:02","date_gmt":"2025-05-07T13:21:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/5-big-law-firms-defend-their-deals-with-trump-explain-independence-on-client-matters\/"},"modified":"2025-05-07T13:21:02","modified_gmt":"2025-05-07T13:21:02","slug":"5-big-law-firms-defend-their-deals-with-trump-explain-independence-on-client-matters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/5-big-law-firms-defend-their-deals-with-trump-explain-independence-on-client-matters\/","title":{"rendered":"5 Big Law Firms Defend Their Deals With Trump, Explain \u2018Independence\u2019 on Client Matters"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n

Five law firms that struck pro bono deals with President Donald Trump defended their moves to Democratic lawmakers, noting they still have “complete independence” in what clients and matters they take on, according to copies of their letter responses. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft; A&O Shearman; Latham & Watkins; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; and Kirkland & Ellis said their agreements with the president do not restrict the types of clients they represent pro bono, or otherwise, or change their operations. The letters were submitted in response to two Democratic lawmakers’ request for details on the terms of their pro bono deals reached with the president.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

For its part, A&O Shearman said the firm “fully intends to continue its longstanding and extensive practice of zealously representing clients who find themselves adverse to the federal government, in both paying and pro bono matters.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The firm said it performs “tens of thousands of pro bono hours every year to persons and organizations in need of a lawyer\u2014whether they be an immigrant seeking asylum, an indigent person in need of criminal defense, a veteran, a charitable organization, an individual or group facing hatred or victimization because of their religion or background, or a person expressing an unpopular viewpoint.” All such work is in service of the rule of law and is in no way constrained by the agreement with Trump, said William White, co-U.S. general counsel, and William Roll, co-U.S. general counsel, at A&O Shearman, in their letter response dated April 28.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

A&O added that the complete terms of its deal with Trump were contained in Trump’s April 11 social media post, adding that the firm has \u201cno other agreements or understandings\u201d with the president.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe Agreement does not call for, or permit, the administration or any other person or entity to determine what clients and matters the Firm takes on, whether they be pro bono or otherwise,” they added. “Our Firm alone chooses its clients and matters, and no lawyer is required or expected to work on a pro bono matter they do not believe in.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Latham & Watkins chair and managing partner Richard Trobman said in a separate letter response that the firm maintains \u201ccomplete independence as to the clients and matters the firm takes on, whether in our pro bono or commercial engagements.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Meanwhile, Cadwalader managing partner Patrick Quinn said the firm will continue to \u201cexercise its own authority as to what matters it handles.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The firms were responding to April 18 letters from Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Some firms’ responses were more detailed than others. Paul Gluckow, general counsel at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, referred lawmakers to an internal memo <\/a>as \u201cbackground\u201d for why they entered into an agreement with the president.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Simpson Thacher, Kirkland & Ellis, A&O Shearman and Latham & Watkins noted that their agreements with the president resolved <\/u><\/a>an inquiry that they had received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, hinting at their motivations for the agreements.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThis agreement also resulted in the resolution of the EEOC investigation of the firm, which included a broad request for information about our people and our clients, which we strongly opposed delivering,\u201d Neil Eggleston, a litigation partner at Kirkland, wrote in a letter on behalf of the firm.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Richard Trobman, chair and managing partner of Latham & Watkins, wrote that the firm had received an \u201cextensive and detailed information and document request\u201d from the EEOC.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The firms\u2019 responses are not the first Raskin and Blumenthal have received. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Milbank; Sullivan & Cromwell; Kirkland & Ellis responded <\/u><\/a>to letters sent out by the lawmakers on April 6.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Information requests from lawmakers seeking information about law firms deals with the president are starting to pile up.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Massachusetts, ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. David Min, D-California, sent letters to Kirkland & Ellis, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher, Latham & Watkins, Paul Weiss and Skadden on April 28. The letters request a response by May 12.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Meanwhile, Min and Rep. April Delaney, D-Maryland, along with 14 of their Democratic colleagues, sent out letters <\/u><\/a>on April 24 to the nine law firms that reached deals with the president, requesting a response by May 8.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Five law firms that struck pro bono deals with President Donald Trump defended their moves to Democratic lawmakers, noting they still have “complete independence” in what clients and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5678,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[434,336,1262,1404,5833,191,5834,153,4070,409],"class_list":["post-5677","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-big","tag-client","tag-deals","tag-defend","tag-explain","tag-firms","tag-independence","tag-law","tag-matters","tag-trump"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5677","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5677"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5677\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5678"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5677"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5677"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5677"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}