Big Companies Are Running From Law Firms That Caved to Trump

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Daily Beast

Updated Jun. 2 2025 4:18AM EDT
Published Jun. 2 2025 2:09AM EDT


Some of the nation’s top law firms that folded to Donald Trump’s pressure campaign are now facing the fallout. At least 11 major companies are shifting legal work away from firms that struck deals with the Trump administration, instead turning toward those that stood their ground, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.

General counsels at various companies told the newspaper they doubted whether firms that surrendered to Trump could still be relied upon to represent them—in court or at the negotiating table—if they couldn’t stand up for themselves. Oracle, Morgan Stanley, Microsoft and McDonald’s are reportedly among the big name businesses to distance themselves from those legal firms, either by scaling back work, voicing concerns, or parting ways.

In one case, the Journal reported, a firm that cut a deal with the Trump administration reportedly stopped representing McDonald’s in a high-profile lawsuit months before trial. In another, Microsoft put concerns in writing to one of its go-to firms.

A top executive at one company told the Journal her employer plans to transition work away from the law firm Paul, Weiss, which lost four of its partners after entering into a deal with the White House. A general counsel at a separate company told the newspaper she felt “physically ill” when Paul, Weiss struck the agreement.

Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/big-companies-are-running-from-law-firms-that-caved-to-donald-trump/

[Paladin]

1. GOOD!

Way past time for there to be some hard consequences for trump-pimping. Hope the college administrators are paying attention, in the face of trump's threats.

[AZJonnie]

2. ETTD

And I do mean 'everything'.

[SpankMe]

3. I'm glad there's still some courage out there. n/t

[mcar]

4. FAFO law firms

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. My oldest child sent me the WSJ article on this

My oldest, a partner at one of the big law firms who have not capitulated to trump, sent me this article. I am doing a deal with Latham right now and was amused to see that they were being boycotted for a while by Microsoft but are now back on the list of approved firms. One of Paul Weiss' major clients is Appollo which is now run by some trump supporters Paul Weiss has an entire section of the firm that does Appollo work. The four partners who left Paul Weiss were all litigators and not corporate types.

Link to tweet

[Quanto Magnus]

6. Good

now they can do all that pro bono work and not be able to recoup the costs through other clients....

The lead partners can pay for Trump out of pocket.

[dchill]

7. Still can't figure it out. What were they thinking?

[Bluetus]

8. They were thinking Trump and fascism are unstoppable

and that they had better get positioned for a place at the Nazi table.

Time will tell if they are right. In the short term, they were facing threats to cut off their security clearances, which would effectively be a death sentence for a firm that handles much Federal business.

The irony is that such actions by Trump are blatantly illegal. And being a direct assault on the practice of law, there was a good chance the SCOTUS would side with the law firms. But by their actions, they said they didn't believe in our legal system any more, yet they still expect clients to pay $1000/hr for them to do lawyer things.

Let's all hope every one of the capitulators ends up just like Arthur Andersen after helping Enron run their graft.

[dchill]

10. Yes, "such actions by Trump are blatantly illegal..."

...and as a huge law firm, they didn't see what they could do about it? I woulda thunk...

[Bluetus]

13. They should have hired themselves some good lawyers and fought it.

Evidently they didn't have any partners within the company capable of that.

[dchill]

16. It's a thought! 🤔

[yardwork]

22. This is the best summation of this I've read.

Thanks for posting this explanation. Makes a lot of sense.

[cstanleytech]

9. Those firms deserve to go under.

[Martin68]

11. How could you trust a law firm that caved in to Trump's blackmail and extortion?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. WSJ-The Law Firms That Appeased Trump--and Angered Their Clients

My oldest child sent me this article last night. My oldest is a partner at one of the largest firms and competes against the firms named in this article. I found a gift link so that everyone can read this article.

Amazing stuff in this article.

The Law Firms That Appeased Trump—and Angered Their Clients

www.wsj.com/us-news/law/...

— George Conway 👊🇺🇸🔥 (@gtconway.bsky.social) 2025-06-02T03:47:07.835Z

Here’s a gift link www.wsj.com/us-news/law/...

— 𝕊𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕒𝕖 𝔾𝕦𝕣𝕝 (@sundaedivine.bsky.social) 2025-06-02T11:17:40.097Z

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/law-firms-trump-deals-clients-71b3616d?st=VgdnnB&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Support for the law firms that didn’t make deals has been growing inside the offices of corporate executives. At least 11 big companies are moving work away from law firms that settled with the administration or are giving—or intend to give—more business to firms that have been targeted but refused to strike deals, according to general counsels at those companies and other people familiar with those decisions.

Among them are technology giant Oracle, investment bank Morgan Stanley, an airline and a pharmaceutical company. Microsoft expressed reservations about working with a firm that struck a deal, and another such firm stopped representing McDonald’s in a case a few months before a scheduled trial.

In interviews, general counsels expressed concern about whether they could trust law firms that struck deals to fight for them in court and in negotiating big deals if they weren’t willing to stand up for themselves against Trump. The general counsel of a manufacturer of medical supplies said that if firms facing White House pressure “don’t have a hard line,” they don’t have any line at all......

Not long after Latham struck a deal in April, the firm’s chair, Richard Trobman, met with Morgan Stanley’s chief legal officer, Eric Grossman, people familiar with the meeting said. Grossman heard him out about the firm’s reasoning for striking a deal and acknowledged that companies have to do what is best for themselves.

Soon after that meeting, Grossman and other Morgan Stanley lawyers communicated to law firms targeted by the White House that hadn’t signed deals that they were looking to give them new business, the people familiar with the meeting said.....

The law firms named in this article declined to publicly discuss client matters. Leaders of firms that struck deals said their business have continued to thrive and that they have received calls from clients supportive of the deals. They have said the agreements won’t force them to take on pro bono work that would create conflicts with existing clients.

The firms that chose to sue over executive orders said in court filings that they had fielded calls from anxious clients and lost business because of the orders. Judges have struck down the orders against WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie, and the order against Susman Godfrey has been temporarily blocked. Judges have said the executive orders amounted to unconstitutional retaliation against the firms.

On a website touting the firm’s lawsuit, Jenner & Block said relenting to the White House would mean “compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA.”

I suspect that more firms will refuse to cut a deal with trump and other firms may abandoned their "deals" with trump because such deals are not enforceable.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. "other firms may abandoned their 'deals'"

I remember seeing this article last month (by the time I spotted it, it was a couple days outside of LBN's 12-hour criteria) -

Big Law firm says its Trump deal is nothing more than a 364-word Truth Social post


By Jacob Shamsian and Jack Newsham

May 22, 2025, 12:23 PM ET


For one of the Big Law firms that made a deal with President Donald Trump, it's the Truth Social, the whole Truth Social, and nothing but the Truth Social.

In a letter to Congress, A&O Shearman said Trump's 364-word Truth Social post constituted "the complete terms" of the deal. A&O Shearman and three other firms pledged $125 million each in free legal work toward Trump's political priorities, according to the post.

"The complete terms of the Agreement are as set forth in the four numbered paragraphs of the President's April 11, 2025 social media post," William E. White and William J.F. Roll III, the firm's co-general counsels, wrote in the May 8 letter.

Prior to A&O Shearman's letter to Congress, it was unclear whether any law firm had a written agreement spelling out the terms of the deals. A Justice Department lawyer, in litigation related to Trump's executive orders targeting law firms that didn't strike deals with Trump, has said in court that he didn't know whether any such agreements existed.

(snip)

Thanks for the article link!!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. What prominent law firms and Lando Calrissian have in common

Here is another post predicting that law firms will jettison their deals with trump

Lando Calrissian famously complained, “This deal keeps getting worse all the time.” How many law firms are saying the same thing about their Trump deals?

Remember when Lando Calrissian complained, in reference to his agreement with Darth Vader, “This deal keeps getting worse all the time”?

I wonder how many law firms are now saying the same thing about their deals with Trump. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-04-17T15:57:45.276Z

Remember when Lando Calrissian complained, in reference to his agreement with Darth Vader, “This deal keeps getting worse all the time”?

I wonder how many law firms are now saying the same thing about their deals with Trump

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/prominent-law-firms-lando-calrissian-common-rcna201726

In “The Empire Strikes Back,” Lando Calrissian struck an agreement with Darth Vader, which probably made sense to him at the time. In fact, Calrissian told Han Solo in the 1980 “Star Wars” movie that he had made a deal that would keep the Empire out of Cloud City “forever.”

As the Cloud City administrator soon learned, however, the Empire did not fully intend to follow through on its commitments, even if Calrissian held up his end of the bargain. As the film’s dramatic third act, Vader told his ostensible partner: “I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”

As he realized that he had reached an agreement with someone he shouldn’t have trusted, Calrissian complained, “This deal keeps getting worse all the time.”.....

But as The New York Times reported, some of these same firms are finding, as Calrissian put it, that their deals keep getting worse all the time.

When some of the nation’s biggest law firms agreed to deals with President Trump, the terms appeared straightforward: In return for escaping the full force of his retribution campaign, the firms would do some free legal work on behalf of largely uncontroversial causes like helping veterans. Mr. Trump, it turns out, has a far more expansive view of what those firms can be called on to do.

Instead of working on anodyne causes, the firms are discovering that the president effectively believes that he sees their attorneys as his own. The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, added that Trump has suggested in recent days that he wants the firms to help him negotiate trade deals and possibly help revive the coal industry, too......

Harold Hongju Koh, a professor of international law at Yale Law School, told the Times, in reference to the firms, “They thought they made one-shot deals which they would fulfill. But the administration seems to think that they have subjected these firms to indentured servitude.”

Putting aside the question of whether the firms, like Calrissian, should’ve seen this coming, the broader question is whether the firms will do what Calrissian ultimately did and reverse course.

Indeed, it’s not my place to give the firms’ partners advice, but it is worth noting that if they didn’t enter into a legally binding contract with Trump, and they’re no longer pleased with the president’s demands and expectations, there’s nothing stopping them from joining the firms that have already decided to fight back.

If the pressure builds, these law firms will start ignoring their deals with trump

[BumRushDaShow]

17. Yup.

As a Star Wars fan!

(and we had to wait 3 years to find out what happened and then when we found out, a certain character, who only appears in maybe 5 minutes total of the last 2 of that first 3-film trilogy, managed to eventually generate an ENTIRELY separate storyline and films - Bobba Fett )

[Evolve Dammit]

18. smart

[LetMyPeopleVote]

19. Maddow Blog-Law firms that appeased Trump confront the consequences of their misjudgment

Law firms that gave into the White House’s demands thought they were making a wise business decision. They’re now learning otherwise.

Law firms that appeased Trump confront the consequences of their misjudgment - MSNBC

apple.news/AixE-JA2oSee...

— (@oc88.bsky.social) 2025-06-02T20:19:48.422Z

To date, four firms — Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey and WilmerHale — chose the latter course, and at least so far, they’re undefeated in court. As The New York Times noted after WilmerHale’s latest victory, “The ruling seemed to validate the strategy, embraced by a minority of firms, of fighting the administration instead of caving to a pressure campaign and making deals with Mr. Trump to avoid persecution.”

Those in the appeasement camp have had far less to celebrate. The Wall Street Journal reported:

Support for the law firms that didn’t make deals has been growing inside the offices of corporate executives. At least 11 big companies are moving work away from law firms that settled with the administration or are giving — or intend to give — more business to firms that have been targeted but refused to strike deals, according to general counsels at those companies and other people familiar with those decisions. ... In interviews, general counsels expressed concern about whether they could trust law firms that struck deals to fight for them in court and in negotiating big deals if they weren’t willing to stand up for themselves against Trump.

The Journal’s report, which has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, added that the firms that cooperated with the White House’s offensive are confronting the awkward realization that their strategy backfired: “The agreements were supposed to buy peace and allow the firms to move on, but in the weeks since they have caused rifts between partners, alienated some younger associates and created problems with some longtime clients.”.....

With this in mind, NBC News reported about a month ago that a progressive group has launched a media campaign targeting the same firms that reached deals with the president.

‘Big law, stop bending the knee,’ reads a poster from the ‘Big Law Cowards’ campaign by the liberal nonprofit group Demand Justice. The group says the ads will be wheatpasted strategically around Washington on Thursday near the locations of the firms that have reached deals with the administration. The group will also have a mobile billboard circulating with ads criticizing the firms, along with a broader digital campaign.

In case this isn’t obvious, the underlying point of these efforts isn’t to chastise the firms for making the wrong decision; it’s to remind those firms that it’s not too late to reverse course and join the ranks of the firms resisting Trump’s gambit.

Will any of the firms abandon their existing deals? If one firm does it, will others follow? Watch this space.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

20. This made me smile

[LetMyPeopleVote]

21. Glenn Kirschner-Companies are moving their business away from law firms that caved/capitulated to Trump,

Several companies are moving their business away from the law firms that caved & capitulated to Donald Trump, saying if those law firms can't fight for themselves, how can they be expected to fight for their clients. One corporate executive said, "we like law firms that don't run from a fight."

— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner.bsky.social) 2025-06-04T12:46:15.057Z