Democrats press law firms on deals with Trump
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) are pressing the White House and six top law firms about alleged deals struck with the Trump administration to avoid getting targeted by executive orders for hiring lawyers and representing clients that the president does not like.
In the letter to White House counsel David Warrington, Blumenthal and Raskin — the top Democrats on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House Judiciary Committee, respectively — noted that Trump has targeted five law firms in recent weeks in executive orders that explicitly detail “his personal grievances which led to its issuance.”
“The retaliatory nature of these executive orders has not been even tacitly disguised,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter, noting that the orders have targeted firms with connections to cases against Trump or lawyers connected to those cases.
“This unprecedented abuse of executive power to settle personal scores is part of a broader effort by President Trump to use the powers of the presidency to intimidate and silence his perceived enemies,” they added.
Blumenthal and Raskin wrote that the orders have tried to punish the firms by revoking attorneys’ security clearances, barring them from federal buildings, terminating any government contracts, and preventing them from seeking further government employment.
“Indeed, by seeking to intimidate attorneys and prevent them from advocating on behalf of clients and causes at odds with the President, the orders ‘cast a chilling harm of blizzard proportion across the entire legal profession,’” they added.
Blumenthal and Raskin are also asking six law firms about alleged deals they entered into with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted.
They specifically asked about conversations that took place immediately after Trump issued his executive order, called, “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss” — which took aim at the firm for representing clients who sued the first Trump administration and for employing a lawyer, Mark Pomerantz, who left the firm to work for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office on its case investigating Trump’s finances.
A week later, Trump reversed the order, announcing he had reached a deal with Paul, Weiss, wherein the firm “decided to submit to certain of the President’s demands,” the lawmakers said.
“Paul, Weiss’s agreement with President Trump raises the troubling prospect that the President has successfully and unlawfully coerced your law firm into spending $40 million in law firm resources to support his pet issues, making statements that support his agenda, and reversing firm policies he disagrees with,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Paul, Weiss.
Blumenthal and Raskin noted that, when announcing the deal, Trump said Paul, Weiss “acknowledged the wrongdoing of its former partner Mark Pomerantz” and agreed not to implement DEI policies.
The lawmakers added: “These are particularly objectionable terms of the agreement that infringe on your firm and your clients’ constitutional rights, and neither is included in the version of the deal you reportedly shared with your firm’s employees.”
The lawmakers asked other law firms about their role in the negotiations that led to Paul, Weiss’s decision to submit to some of the president’s demands. And they pointed to reporting indicating certain law firms tried to “lure away” the law firm’s lawyers to take advantage of Trump’s attacks on Paul, Weiss.
The lawmakers asked about law firms’ ongoing negotiations with Trump officials to avoid executive orders or about deals they already struck, wherein some law firms have agreed to provide up to $100 million in pro bono legal assistance to causes of the president’s choosing.
“The American people deserve transparency with respect to the President’s assault on constitutional rights and the rule of law, and this includes the considerations—such as efforts to recruit their attorneys or clients—that may compel firms to seek accommodations with the President,” they wrote.
The lawmakers asked for records and written responses by April 14 from the White House and from the six law firms: Paul, Weiss; Skadden Arps; Sullivan & Cromwell; Kirkland & Ellis; Millbank; and Willkie Farr & Gallagher.
The letters ask the law firms to describe the circumstances surrounding the agreements entered into with the president and any meetings they had to discuss the deal. They ask for the firms to provide “specific terms of the deal” each firm struck with the president. The lawmakers asked whether there’s been communication between law firms as they went through the process of coming to the deal with Trump and to provide any records related to the inquiry.