There is a version of the Biglaw capitulation story where the nine firms that bent a knee to Donald Trump did some pro bono work on behalf of veterans, ate a news cycle, and moved on. That is the version the firms have been selling since jump, but the reality is quite a bit different.
Today, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Rep. Jamie Raskin, and Sen. Adam Schiff sent a letter to Skadden executive partner Jeremy London, the third such letter, for those keeping score, asking the firm to explain how it advised Intel on handing the Commerce Department a 10 percent equity stake in the company while simultaneously doing free legal work for that same Commerce Department. The lawmakers would like an answer by August 4, but, based on Skadden’s track record… they should not hold their breath.
A refresher on how we got here, because the ledger is worth restating in full. When Trump started issuing unconstitutional executive orders designed to bring the legal profession to heel, a handful of firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — sued and are winning, repeatedly. More than twice as many bent a knee instead. Paul Weiss went first, settling six days after Trump’s executive order for $40 million in pro bono services and the elimination of its DEI programs. Skadden followed with $100 million — preemptively, before any order existed — plus a pledge to fund at least five Skadden Fellows a year, which promptly cost the Skadden Foundation its executive director. Willkie Farr and Milbank each matched Skadden’s $100 million, also preemptively. Then Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, and A&O Shearman came in at $125 million apiece — $500 million total, with their EEOC DEI investigations conveniently evaporating in the process — and Cadwalader rounded out the group at $100 million. Kirkland, it later emerged, tried to recruit the rest of Biglaw into the deal, and it and Simpson hired a top Trump fundraiser’s lobbying shop on the way in. Grand total: $940 million in pro bono payola for whichever causes strike the president’s fancy.
AI Is Reshaping Legal Practice—But Tools Aren’t The Real Differentiator.
Explore the mindset, cultural shifts, and training strategies that define the AI‑savvy lawyer, revealing why human judgment, standardized competence, and integrated learning—not technology alone—will shape the future of the profession.
What work can and will count towards the firms’ pro bono obligations under the deals is a bit of an unknown. Paul Weiss and Kirkland turned up doing free legal work for the Commerce Department on Trump’s trade agenda, the very tariff work A&O Shearman had drawn a line at, which raised the awkward question of whether volunteering services to a federal agency violates the Antideficiency Act. The new letter revives that theory and adds a fresh wrinkle.
See, in March, an Intel shareholder sued in Delaware Chancery over the company’s agreement to hand Commerce an $11 billion stake worth 9.9 percent of its equity. The complaint was recently unsealed in full, and it is not kind to Intel’s outside counsel. Shareholders allege the board handed over the equity “for no meaningful consideration in response to extortionary threats by the government,” while “advised by legal counsel [Skadden] that itself was conflicted due to its pro bono promises to the President.” The complaint further alleges that “Skadden apparently never opined as to whether the Stock Agreement was lawful,” and that no evidence shows the board was ever told about Skadden’s conflicts at all.
Of course, this conflict was pretty obvious when the representation surfaced last August; indeed, it seemed a fact pattern too on-the-nose for a professional responsibility exam. The lawmakers say it is “hard to understand” how this doesn’t put Skadden crosswise with the Model Rules and its fiduciary duty to Intel.
The letter also notes that Skadden’s outside counsel, in responding to the last round, declined to deny that the firm has done free work for a federal agency. It simply asserted that the firm does not agree such work would violate its Trump agreement or “any statutes, regulations, or ethical standards.” Which, tbh, is the legal equivalent of a shrug.
Filevine’s New Legal AI Platform LOIS Turns AI Into A True Legal Coworker
Legal work isn’t slowing down, and the firms that win won’t be the ones working harder — they’ll be the ones working smarter.
And this is now a well-worn groove. Blumenthal and Raskin made the opening volley in April 2025. Reps. Dave Min and April Delaney urged the firms to disavow the deals outright. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse warned the nine they’d be dragooned into fossil fuel’s service. The firms’ collective response to all of it amounted to “what deals?” Kirkland got its fourth letter in March. American Oversight sued for the records after FOIA requests got it nothing. And the administration that supposedly bought these firms’ peace has since subpoenaed all nine and noticed depositions of the partners who signed, including London himself.
Skadden has now stonewalled Congress on the theory that this all blows over eventually. Unfortunately for them, the problem now has a case number.
Earlier: Skadden Makes $100 Million ‘Settlement’ With Trump In Pro Bono Payola
Skadden Advises Intel On Trump Deal, Because What Are A Few Obvious Conflicts Among Friends?
Paul Weiss & Kirkland Doing Free Trump Commerce Department Work As Part Of ‘Please Don’t Hurt Us, Daddy’ Deals
Lawmakers Ask Paul Weiss And Kirkland To Explain Why Trump Work Isn’t Totally Illegal
Democrats To Kirkland & Ellis: For The Fourth Time, What Exactly Did You Promise Trump?
Trump Turns On Capitulating Biglaw Firms HAHAHAHAHA
The DOJ’s Biglaw Subpoena Explanation Raises More Questions Than It Answers
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 Bluesky @Kathryn1
Facts Only
* Nine law firms entered agreements to provide pro bono services to the U.S. government.
* Paul Weiss agreed to $40 million in pro bono services and the removal of DEI programs.
* Skadden, Willkie Farr, and Milbank each pledged $100 million in pro bono services.
* Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, and A&O Shearman each pledged $125 million.
* Cadwalader pledged $100 million.
* Total pro bono commitments across these firms equal $940 million.
* Senators Richard Blumenthal, Adam Schiff, and Representative Jamie Raskin sent a letter to Skadden executive partner Jeremy London.
* The letter requests an explanation by August 4 regarding Skadden's representation of Intel and its pro bono work for the Commerce Department.
* Intel entered an agreement to give the Commerce Department a 9.9 percent equity stake worth $11 billion.
* An Intel shareholder filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery alleging Skadden was conflicted.
* The Department of Justice has subpoenaed all nine firms and noticed depositions of signing partners.
Executive Summary
A group of nine major law firms entered into substantial pro bono agreements with the Trump administration, totaling $940 million in services. While the firms have characterized these as standard pro bono contributions, lawmakers and critics suggest the deals were effectively settlements to avoid executive orders or investigations into Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs.
The situation has evolved into a legal and ethical conflict, specifically concerning Skadden's role in advising Intel on a deal that gave the Commerce Department a nearly 10 percent equity stake. Congressional investigators and Intel shareholders allege a conflict of interest, as Skadden was simultaneously providing free legal services to the same government department. While Skadden has avoided denying the nature of the work, it maintains that no ethical or statutory violations occurred. The matter has moved beyond legislative inquiry into judicial territory via a shareholder lawsuit and federal subpoenas from the DOJ.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that "Biglaw" firms attempted to buy political protection through "pro bono payola," creating a systemic conflict of interest where private fiduciary duties to clients were compromised by secret obligations to the state. This represents a breakdown of the "Chinese Wall" in legal ethics, where the firm's survival instinct superseded its professional responsibility to the client.
The narrative employs high-intensity framing, utilizing a "capture" motif to suggest a coordinated capitulation. By juxtaposing the massive dollar amounts ($940M) against the "evaporating" DEI investigations, the text creates a strong causal link between the payments and the cessation of government scrutiny.
Patterns detected: ARC-0021 Emotional Exploitation (use of "payola," "bent a knee," and "Please Don't Hurt Us, Daddy" to trigger moral indignation).
Root Cause: This echoes the historical pattern of corporate "regulatory capture" in reverse—where the regulator doesn't just capture the agency, but effectively taxes the private sector to fund its own agenda. The unstated assumption is that pro bono work, by definition, must be altruistic; when it becomes a condition of settlement, it transforms into a political subsidy.
Implications: If law firms are coerced into providing "free" services to a specific political administration, the independence of the legal profession is eroded. The second-order consequence is a "conflict-of-interest tax" borne by corporate clients, who may unknowingly be represented by counsel beholden to the government.
Bridge Questions:
1. If these agreements were formalized as settlements, how would the ethical obligations differ from voluntary pro bono work?
2. What evidence would be required to prove that the Intel equity transfer was a direct result of Skadden's conflict rather than a strategic business decision by Intel?
Counterstrike Scan: A coordinated influence campaign would use this to paint the entire legal elite as corrupt and complicit. This content matches that structural pattern by aggregating multiple firms into a single "capitulation" story to maximize the perception of systemic failure.
Sentinel — Human
The text functions as an argumentative synthesis of specific legal and financial events to build a broader critique regarding large law firm behavior and the impact of AI on legal practice.