In the current climate for lawyers, the era of Trump II has brought about a significant crisis that threatens the core values of the legal profession. Donald Trump has aggressively challenged the rule of law along with major law firms, deploying a series of unconstitutional Executive Orders and employing intimidation tactics aimed at compelling these firms to either conform to his demands or face severe financial repercussions. In response to this looming financial threat, a notable number of nine major law firms opted to seek Trump’s approval, providing what can be termed as pro bono payola, which refers to offering free legal services for conservative causes or clients to evade potential retribution from Trump.
The alarming trend of Biglaw firms paying homage to Trump raises serious concerns and casts a long shadow on the integrity of the legal profession. Despite the widespread criticism, full-throated defenses of these deals have been scarce until now, highlighting a significant issue within the profession.
Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm with strong connections to the MAGA movement, has witnessed a surge in business as clients seek to navigate the shifting political landscape driven by the White House. Interestingly, two major Biglaw firms, which have previously entered into agreements with Trump, have also sought assistance from Ballard. In a recent conversation with Bloomberg Law, Brian Ballard defended these controversial deals.
“If you are in the business in Washington, DC, of working for clients that have issues before the government, it’s better to be someone who can work with the government than someone who just says screw you,” Ballard stated. “I think it’s pretty smart for those guys to have done what they’ve done—the guys we represented and others.”
The term pro bono payola aptly captures the essence of these arrangements, where law firms essentially pay to play by providing free services. While this strategy may benefit a select group of corporate clients and highlight disparities between corporate clients and litigation clients, numerous other clients view this as a significant issue. If a law firm is unable or unwilling to stand up against an administration that resorts to unconstitutional executive orders to extract free legal services, how can it genuinely represent a company that finds itself in the crosshairs of a capricious president? This practice also tarnishes the reputation of the firms involved, leading clients to redirect their business away from those that have capitulated to Trump’s demands.
Moreover, these capitulating firms face additional challenges, including ongoing congressional investigations and a troubling recruitment landscape, as attorneys are increasingly leaving firms that have compromised their integrity, eager to cleanse their resumes of any association with capitulation.
Perhaps most critically, there is the overarching issue of failing to serve the American populace and undermining the rule of law. It is essential to note that the executive orders wielded by Trump have repeatedly been deemed unconstitutional by multiple courts. Trump’s attempts to penalize law firms for representing clients he disapproves of have been met with rebukes from four different district court judges spanning the political spectrum, all of whom have ruled the orders unconstitutional on various grounds. Such blatant disregard for the foundational principles of our legal system erodes the very rights that these firms are obligated to protect.
Thus, it is difficult to take seriously the assertions of an individual who has personally benefitted from these controversial deals while downplaying their detrimental impact on the rule of law.
“It always makes sense to try to resolve things,” Ballard asserted. “This administration wants to resolve things. They’re looking to address the issues that they’ve raised, but they’re not looking for battles. They’re looking for more friends than enemies.”
Sure, Jan.
What’s even more troubling is how Ballard disparages the law firms that have chosen to stand firm against the executive orders targeting them:
“Some of these law firms like the idea of having an enemy,” Ballard commented, referring to those that opted to confront Trump. “Either for business reasons or political reasons, that’s why they do it.”
In taking a stand against Trump’s actions, firms such as Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey are representing the broader interests of the legal profession. A significant majority of lawyers share this sentiment, as demonstrated by a recent survey indicating that 90% of respondents believe other firms should emulate the approach taken by these firms. Perkins, Jenner, Wilmer, and Susman are opposing Trump not for selfish reasons, but in a courageous defense of the Constitution.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.
To stay updated on the latest trends in litigation, regulation, deals, and financial services, sign up for Finance Docket, a collaboration between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
