When the Texas Civil Rights Project needed lawyers to help dozens of people arrested during U.S. President Donald Trump‘s immigration crackdown, legal director Dustin Rynders turned to a familiar strategy. He contacted major law firms that for decades had provided free legal services to nonprofits like his.
On that April day in Houston, he called his usual contacts, many at firms that had previously handled challenges to Trump’s immigration policies. Before Trump’s return to the White House, they typically offered swift “pro bono,” or free, legal help – a standard public service provided by elite U.S. firms.
This time, they all declined. “We are just handling the cases ourselves at this point,” Rynders said.
In March and April, Trump issued a series of executive orders targeting law firms he considers adversaries, the first such attacks by a U.S. president against the legal profession. Some of the orders lashed out at firms for donating their time to cases involving immigration, transgender rights and the January 6 attack by Trump supporters on the U.S. Capitol, claiming this legal work undermined U.S. interests.
Months later, the aftershocks threaten lasting damage to America’s tradition of mobilizing free lawyers to challenge government actions on behalf of the vulnerable.
Dozens of major law firms, wary of political retaliation, have scaled back pro bono work, diversity initiatives and litigation that could place them in conflict with the Trump administration, a Reuters investigation found. Many firms are making a strategic calculation: withdraw from pro bono work frowned on by Trump, or risk becoming the next target.
Reuters interviewed more than 60 lawyers, reviewed 50 law firm websites, contacted more than 70 nonprofits and analyzed millions of court records to compile an authoritative account of the fallout from Trump’s intimidation of Big Law.
Fourteen civil rights groups said the law firms they count on to pursue legal challenges are hesitating to engage with them, keeping their representation secret or turning them down altogether in the wake of Trump’s pressure, according to interviews with the nonprofits and a review of filings they have made in court.
In an analysis of court dockets, Reuters also found that Big Law firms have pulled back sharply from litigation against the federal government. That’s a departure from Trump’s first term, when the nation’s largest firms were often involved in challenges to his directives. Now, they’re mostly on the sidelines amid an avalanche of lawsuits contesting administration policies spanning immigration, funding cuts to nongovernmental organizations and attempts to fire tens of thousands of federal workers.
The retreat has been painful for the nonprofit advocacy groups challenging Trump’s sweeping assertions of executive authority, limiting their resources for researching legal arguments, preparing briefs and pursuing litigation. Such groups offer legal aid to low-income communities and have long relied on pro bono support.
The term pro bono, derived from the Latin
, or “for the public good,” dates back to ancient Rome. While practiced globally, it has become deeply rooted in the U.S. legal system, with the American Bar Association urging lawyers to provide free services to those unable to afford representation.
Pro bono work is now being reshaped into a tool of political coercion under Trump, said Steven Banks, the former head of pro bono at Paul Weiss. Banks resigned after his firm was punished in a Trump executive order and reached a settlement in March that included a deal to provide pro bono services on issues aligned with Trump’s agenda. Other firms followed with similar arrangements.
The result, he warned, is a chilling effect that is discouraging elite law firms from confronting the administration. “Win or lose in court, the actions of the president are accomplishing their goal,” he said.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
The administration has defended its executive orders against Big Law as efforts to curb what it calls a “weaponized” legal system.
Conservative activists and Trump allies have long asserted that major law firms lean too far left and use public interest law to advance liberal causes. Big Law’s diversity policies, for instance, are a form of racial discrimination, they contend.
A
study
by Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller found that top firms overwhelmingly backed liberal positions in Supreme Court amicus briefs from 2018 to 2021, particularly on divisive issues such as abortion and gun rights. “A lot of conservatives have felt pushed out of Big Law,” Muller said. He said, though, that he believes Trump’s executive orders against the firms are of “questionable” legality because they appear to be based on retribution.
Four big firms, to be sure, took the Trump administration to court and won rather than settling. Many advocacy groups have secured top-tier legal representation. At least two firms that previously settled with Trump – Milbank and Skadden Arps – have since joined efforts to challenge the administration. Some advocacy organizations are also expanding their legal teams to pursue challenges independently.
Still, the crackdown is threatening a bedrock principle of the U.S. legal profession, said Scott Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA School of Law: that lawyers have a professional duty to help those who cannot pay.
Law firms see pro bono work as strategically important, helping them recruit elite graduates, resonating with clients that value public service and boosting their standing in the influential rankings of The American Lawyer magazine, a barometer of prestige in the industry. America’s leading law firms logged about 5 million hours of pro bono work last year – equivalent to billions of dollars based on hourly rates that can approach or exceed $1,000, said Cummings.
Trump has exposed a weakness in the pro bono model by wielding executive power to retaliate against elite law firms for representing politically sensitive clients. His orders barred some attorneys from federal buildings, limited their access to officials and warned that their clients’ government contracts could be at risk. The moves delivered a clear warning:
P
ro bono work could jeopardize the corporate clients that sustain big law firms.
The measures singled out law firms whose attorneys had investigated the president, represented his political adversaries or taken on causes such as immigration and voting rights that clashed with his agenda. One Trump order, for instance, cited a firm’s previous representation of Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 election rival.
Nine firms have capitulated to Trump, pledging nearly $1 billion in free work to administration-backed causes. The deals include pro bono work ensuring “fairness” in the justice system and combating antisemitism, issues the administration has cast as conservative, though the specific cases the White House is expecting firms to pursue remain unclear. The firms said their settlements protect employees and clients without compromising core principles or their pro bono commitments.
Four firms – Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey – successfully challenged Trump administration orders targeting them, winning permanent injunctions from judges who found the actions unconstitutional. All but Susman Godfrey’s case have been appealed.
Beyond those rulings, Trump’s directives are reshaping the profession in subtle but significant ways.
A Reuters review found that 46 of the 50 top-grossing U.S. firms have removed or altered website references to diversity, equity and inclusion. Seventeen revised pro bono descriptions to omit contentious areas like immigration and racial justice. At least three added language highlighting work aligned with Trump’s agenda, such as supporting veterans and fighting antisemitism.
Court records show a sharp decline in major firms challenging government policies, according to a Reuters analysis of dockets in the legal database Westlaw, a unit of Thomson Reuters.
Rynders of the Texas Civil Rights Project declined to name the firms that have retreated from assisting him. But he said some of his organization’s biggest cases before Trump’s second term “were with firms who reached agreements with the administration.” The absence of elite firms, he said, has reduced the number of people his group can now help.
“A FUNDAMENTAL REORDERING”
Paul Weiss was the first firm to settle after a Trump executive order on March 14. Soon after, Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp met with Trump in the Oval Office and struck a deal. Resisting the administration risked a client exodus that could have destroyed the firm, Karp said in a March 23 email to colleagues.
Eight other firms followed, including Skadden, Milbank, Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins. The firms had no comment for this story.
The effects have rippled far beyond the firms themselves. Reuters contacted more than 70 civic groups that frequently sue the government on behalf of liberal causes, including immigrant aid, transgender rights, gun control and abortion access.
Of the 33 groups that responded, all but six said they feared Trump’s pressure on law firms could jeopardize future access to legal help. At least a dozen groups reported that law firms had already backed away from providing legal help, though they all declined to name names, fearing they might alienate lawyers they could need in the future.
Bridget Crawford, director of law and policy at Immigration Equality, a nonprofit that advocates for LGBTQ immigrants, said her team often relies on major firms to vet legal arguments, but several recently declined to help with cases challenging Trump. That means it’s growing hard to pursue cases focused on systemic injustices, she said. “We take on strong cases and generally win in the courts, so struggling to bring a suit is a loss for everyone.”
Another group, the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, provides detained immigrants with legal and social services. Amica has struggled to enlist firms to draft legal briefs in support of advocacy cases, said Executive Director Michael Lukens. As a result, he said, Amica is spending more time preparing briefs on its own, reducing its capacity to take on additional cases.
A pro bono director at one leading law firm said the firm is declining to put its name on court filings challenging the Trump administration, preferring to provide confidential pro bono assistance with legal briefs and research. Before the crackdown, the firm publicly partnered with advocacy groups, appearing in court and giving junior associates opportunities to argue high-profile cases, the lawyer said.
“It’s a fundamental reordering of how it usually works,” the lawyer said.
In March, Vanessa Batters-Thompson, executive director of DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, an advocacy group, enlisted several law firms to research how Trump and his congressional allies might try to undermine the local governing authority of Washington, D.C.
At least three firms agreed to help on one condition: anonymity. Their agreements barred Batters-Thompson’s team from disclosing the pro bono work without written consent, she said.
“I’ve never seen that provision before,” said Batters-Thompson, who has reviewed at least 1,000 pro bono agreements over 15 years.
Reuters measured the retreat of the largest, most prestigious law firms, collectively known as Big Law, by analyzing federal court dockets that list lawsuits against the U.S. government, identifying the law firms involved through attorneys’ email addresses.
The top 50 U.S. law firms by revenue have represented plaintiffs in only about 3% of the 865 lawsuits filed since the start of Trump’s second term under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that allows courts to overturn executive actions deemed illegal or procedurally improper. During Trump’s first term, those same firms were involved in almost 9% of 3,400 such cases.
Now absent are firms that challenged Trump in his first term, including Paul Weiss and Simpson Thacher, both of which struck deals with the administration this year.
Simpson Thacher didn’t respond to a request for comment. Paul Weiss had no comment on Reuters’ analysis. It said in a statement its pro bono hours were “materially higher” in the second quarter compared with the same period last year, calling its commitment “as strong as ever.” The firm declined to comment on whether that work included cases against the administration since Trump’s executive order.
Twenty of the nation’s 100 highest-grossing law firms sued the Trump administration during his first term, often over politically sensitive issues such as immigration and regulation, but have not filed similar cases so far in his second term, a Reuters review of federal district court dockets found.
Goodwin Procter, for example, participated in 15 such lawsuits during Trump’s first presidency, including five in its opening months, but has yet to file a single case this year. The firm declined to comment.
The shift is especially stark on immigration, a focus of the new administration, where Trump has asserted broad authority to roll back legal protections.
Trump’s first term triggered a wave of immigration lawsuits, many filed by individuals seeking to remain in the country or be released from detention. At the time, the top 100 firms handled about 2.5% of those cases. This year, amid a similar surge in litigation, their share has dropped to just 0.6%.
REDEFINING PRO BONO
The retreat from courtroom challenges comes as many of the same firms face a new pressure: to actively support the administration’s legal agenda. Conservative groups are increasingly pushing top firms to advance right-leaning causes, shifting focus from who opposes the administration to who will serve it.
The Oversight Project, an initiative spun off as a separate group this year by conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, may publicly name firms that declined or hesitated to provide $10 million in pro bono work aligned with the Trump administration, its president, Mike Howell, told Reuters.
In late March, Howell sent letters to about 100 firms seeking help with initiatives such as challenging corporate diversity policies and advancing “election integrity,” according to a letter reviewed by Reuters. Election integrity is a term conservatives often use to justify stricter voting laws or investigations into alleged voter fraud.
“I don’t think the president is going to be happy when he hears law firms aren’t abiding by the terms of these deals,” Howell said in an interview.
Reuters was unable to identify specific administration requests for pro bono work. But Trump has publicly floated using law firms to negotiate trade deals and told his attorney general to involve them in defending police officers accused of misconduct.
Skadden, known for its prestigious fellowship in public interest law, moved to align its pro bono work with Trump administration priorities after striking a deal in March to avert an executive order. Skadden agreed to fund at least five fellowships focused on veterans’ services, justice system reform and combating antisemitism, Trump posted on social media.
Despite striking agreements with Trump to avoid punitive executive action, two major firms – Milbank and Skadden – are separately challenging the administration in court, underscoring tension between compliance and resistance in the legal community.
In June, Milbank joined a high-profile lawsuit challenging Trump’s new tariffs. In May, Skadden sued the Trump administration on behalf of a Mexican woman denied a visa designed for crime victims, partnering with the National Immigrant Justice Center, a nonprofit that aids low-income immigrants and advocates for their rights. The firms had no comment.
Before Skadden stepped in, the center had struggled to recruit pro bono lawyers from major firms, according to an April court filing. Several usual partners had paused new cases due to “messaging from the White House about pro bono involvement in immigration matters,” Lisa Koop, the group’s national director of legal services, said in the filing. The center and Koop declined to comment.
THE COALITION OF THE WILLING
As Trump began targeting major law firms, his government also launched investigations into their diversity practices that culminated with several top firms agreeing to provide pro bono legal work for the administration.
In March, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
demanded detailed hiring data
from 20 major firms, including applicant names and whether race or gender influenced decisions.
The EEOC, created in the 1960s, has traditionally focused on protecting workers from discrimination. Under Trump, it’s shifted to dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, now a flashpoint in the nation’s culture wars.
Supporters of DEI say such policies combat systemic inequities and unconscious bias in hiring. Critics say the initiatives prioritize identity over merit and may disadvantage white candidates.
The policies have become common in U.S. businesses, including the legal field, which has long faced criticism for its lack of diversity. The movement accelerated after the 2020 police killings of George Floyd, a Black man, and Breonna Taylor, a Black woman.
The EEOC’s demand for hiring data set off intense behind-the-scenes negotiations among big law firms, as they collectively grappled with how to respond. Kirkland & Ellis, the nation’s largest law firm, played a central role in coordinating a response to the Trump administration, according to two people familiar with the matter.
In April, Chairman Jon Ballis met with partners on Kirkland’s executive committee to discuss the firm’s strategy, the two people said. Among them was Mark Filip, a former federal judge. Kirkland then approached other firms facing similar scrutiny, proposing a coalition to strengthen their negotiating position, the people said. Three firms joined. Several others declined.
Kirkland, Ballis and Filip didn’t respond to requests for comment.
On April 11, Trump announced that four firms – Kirkland, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher and A&O Shearman – had each pledged $125 million in pro bono work for administration-aligned causes through the end of his term “and beyond,” without elaborating.
The firms affirmed their commitment to hiring on merit and agreed to abandon DEI labeling, the EEOC said in unveiling the settlements the same day. “We are hopeful these firms will be leaders in their industry by eliminating potentially unlawful DEI-based employment practices and returning to merit-based equal employment opportunity for all,” Andrea Lucas, the agency’s acting chair, said in a statement at the time.
In return, the
EEOC dropped its investigations
into what it had described as potentially illegal diversity practices. A spokesman for the EEOC said the agency remains committed to combating discrimination and “protecting the civil rights of all Americans.” The four firms had no comment.
Trump said another firm – Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft – had reached a separate agreement with his administration, pledging $100 million in pro bono work.
Cadwalader didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Cadwalader
“made the agonizing decision to enter into an agreement” after learning Trump might direct an executive order against the firm that could harm clients, Managing Partner Patrick Quinn said in an April 11 firmwide email that Reuters reviewed. “Without our clients, there is no Firm,” he said.
Nearly all of the nation’s 50 top-grossing law firms have removed or revised online references to diversity, equity and inclusion, according to a Reuters review of archived websites. Between February and early March, 35 of the 50 highest-earning firms highlighted DEI efforts. By late June, only two had not altered that language. Thirteen other firms made similar changes since late 2024, though limited archival data makes the timing less certain.
In yielding to Trump, some major law firms have, at times, hurt morale and retention. Dozens of attorneys have left firms that settled with the administration, some joining rivals that held their ground.
Seven partners left Willkie Farr & Gallagher in June to join Cooley, which represented a firm that challenged a Trump executive order. Cadwalader also saw departures, including the former chair of its pro bono committee.
Willkie, Cooley and Cadwalader didn’t respond to requests for comment.
At Paul Weiss, nearly a dozen partners have left in recent weeks to join a newly formed firm, Dunn Isaacson Rhee. Separately, Damian Williams, former Manhattan U.S. attorney during the Biden administration, left Paul Weiss in June, just six months after joining, to move to Jenner & Block, which successfully challenged a Trump executive order in court.
In a statement from Jenner when he moved to the firm, Williams said he was excited to join a team “that doesn’t shy away from hard fights.”
J.B. Howard, a former Maryland deputy attorney general, resigned from Cadwalader in April after it entered into an agreement with the Trump administration. In an email to the firm’s managing partner, Howard warned that “the legal profession, the courts and the rule of law are now under direct attack.”
He told Reuters his decision was “visceral,” rooted in the oath he took to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. “What is more useless than lawyers if there is no functioning legal system?” Howard said. “As lawyers, we have a unique obligation to fight this.” (Additional reporting by Sara Merken, Mike Scarcella and Chris Prentice. Editing by Jason Szep)
