Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Vivia
Chen
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
“The
Ex-Careerist,” here.
STOP,
JUST
STOP,
calling
what
Donald
Trump
has
extracted
from
Biglaw
“pro
bono.”
It
is
such
an
obvious
sham.
Yet
the
media
use
that
term
liberally
—
without
quote
marks,
mind
you
—
as
if
it
were
true.
To
put
it
bluntly,
nine
of
the
nation’s
most
profitable
law
firms
cut
deals
with
the
administration
in
order
to
get
off
the
president’s
personal
shit
list.
They’ve
pledged
a
staggering
$940
million
in
free
legal
services
for
Trump-approved
projects.
These
firms
are:
Paul
Weiss,
Skadden
Arps,
Willkie
Farr,
Milbank
Tweed,
Kirkland
&
Ellis,
Latham
&
Watkins,
Simpson
Thacher,
A&O
Shearman,
and
Cadwalader,
Wickersham
&
Taft.
No
doubt,
more
firms
will
join
this
ignominious
list
and
break
the
$1
billion
ceiling
in
no
time.
To
call
this
arrangement
“pro
bono,”
in
either
spirit
or
practice,
is
outrageous.
You
don’t
have
to
be
a
legal
scholar
to
know
what
pro
bono
means:
it’s
providing
free
legal
representation
to
those
in
need
—
the
indigent,
the
disenfranchised,
and
the
powerless.
It
does
not
mean
serving
the
will
of
the
most
powerful
ruler
in
the
world
who
also
happens
to
be
hostile
to
those
constituents.
While
some
of
Trump-approved
“pro
bono”
seems
palatable
enough
—
e.g.,
representing
veterans,
members
of
law
enforcement,
and
the
military
and
fighting
antisemitism
(though
why
not
racism?),
he’s
clearly
not
stopping
there.
At
a
recent
executive
order
signing
ceremony
(does
he
ever
sign
anything
without
pageantry?),
Trump
announced
to
the
dozens
of
coal
miners
in
attendance:
“We’re
going
to
use
some
of
those
firms
to
work
with
you
on
your
leasing
and
other
things.”
Then,
at
a
cabinet
meeting,
Trump
said
he
would
“try
to
use
these
very prestigious
firms
to
help
us
out
with
the
trade.”
He
made
a
similar
point
the
day
before:
“I
think
part
of
the
way
I’ll
spend
some
of
the
money
that
we’re
getting
from
the
law
firms
in
terms
of
their
legal
time
will
be
—
if
we
can
do
it,
I
think
we
can
do
it
—
using
these
great
law
firms
to
represent
us
with
regard
to
the
many,
many
countries
that
we’ll
be
dealing
with.”
Serving
the
coal
industry
and
helping
to
clean
up
the
mess
of
Trump’s
tariffs
now
fall
within
the
purview
of
pro
bono?
That’s
certainly
a
long
ways
from
helping
the
poor.
“The
work
that
law
firms
would
provide
to
ramp
up
coal
production
may
be
financially
uncompensated
but
it
is
not
‘pro
bono’
as
that
term
is
understood,”
says
a
legal
ethics
expert
dryly.
As
for
pro
bono
tariff
work,
“the
government
has
plenty
of
lawyers
of
its
own
and
could
well
afford
outside
counsel.”
This
isn’t
about
pro
bono
but
protection
money.
And
if
you
have
any
doubts,
consider
this:
right
after
Kirkland
&
Ellis,
A&O
Shearman,
Simpson
Thacher,
and
Latham
&
Watkins
each
coughed
up
$125
million
for
Trump’s
“pro
bono”
projects,
the
EEOC
letters
directed
at
those
firms
for
possible
DEI
violations
were
withdrawn,
with
the
announcement
that
the
EEOC
“will
not
pursue
any
claims
related
to
those
issues.”
(The
EEOC
also
withdrew
its
letters
targeting
Skadden
and
Milbank
after
they
signed
agreements
with
the
administration.
Cadwalader
and
Paul
Weiss
were
not
on EEOC’s
original
list
of
20
firms.)
Trump
could
care
less
about
the
individuals
and
organizations
that
are
the
supposed
beneficiaries
of
the
pro
bono
he
extracted
from
Biglaw.
But
he
is
absolutely
bedazzled
by
the
nearly
$1
billion
in
legal
freebies
from
America’s
top
firms.
“We
have
a
lot
of
law
firms
that
have paid
me a
lot
of
money,”
Trump
bragged
at
the
Cabinet
meeting.
“Hopefully
I
won’t
need
that
many
legal
fees.
I
may.
Who
knows?
After
it
ends.
After
I
leave
maybe
I’ll
need
it,
but
if
I
do
it
won’t
be
very
pleasant.”
It’s
not
clear
what
exactly
Trump
is
talking
about
but
it
sure
sounds
like
he’s
not
precluding
dipping
into
that
stash
for
himself
in
the
future.
And
what
else
might
qualify
as
“pro
bono”
in
his
expansive
version
of
the
term?
Free
legal
advice
to
the
family
on
its crypto
ventures, Melania
on
her
line
of
fashion
merchandise,
or
the
Trump
Organization
on
developing
the Gaza
Riviera?
Use
your
imagination.
The
possibilities
are
endless.
Look,
law
firms
are
free
to
do
whatever
they
want.
If
they
want
to
go
along
with
Trump’s
flexible
interpretation
of
pro
bono
and
throw
him
some
very
expensive
legal
services
for
free
or
at
heavily
discounted
rates,
that’s
their
business.
(Though
wouldn’t
both
the
firms
and
Trump
have
to
disclose
the
largesse?)
In
the
meantime,
though,
can
we
stop
this
“pro
bono”
nonsense?
When
powerful
law
firms
give
away
their
services
to
despots,
that’s
called
a
tribute.
A
cynical
quid
pro
quo.
Ransom
money.
Maybe
bribery.
But
it
certainly
isn’t
about
serving
justice
or
the
public
good.
And
the
rest
of
us
shouldn’t
be
giving
it
cover
by
going
along
with
the
pretense.
Subscribe
to
read
more
at
The
Ex-Careerist….
Vivia
Chen writes “The
Ex-Careerist” column
on
Substack
where
she
unleashes
her
unvarnished
views
about
the
intersection
of
work,
life,
and
politics.
A
former
lawyer,
she
was
an
opinion
columnist
at
Bloomberg
Law
and
The
American
Lawyer.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack
by
clicking
here:
