Law Firms’ Trump Deals Escape NY Lawyer Ethics Investigation

A disciplinary body for New York lawyers is putting off an ethics probe into major law firms’ deals with President Donald Trump.

A New York Supreme Court committee last month declined to take up a complaint against nine firms that pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services to White House in exchange for the removal of administrative probes and punishments, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg Law. The complaint, filed by a group of law professors, accused the firms of violating ethics rules by “capitulating” to Trump’s “bullying.”

“The business decisions of law firms, such as the selection of clients or the allocation of pro bono resources, generally fall outside the purview of this Committee,” Jorge Dopico, chief attorney for the committee, said in a Sept. 2 letter.

Those deals became a flashpoint of criticism for some of the country’s largest and most powerful law firms. Paul Weiss was the first to reach an agreement after it was the subject of an executive order. The other firms made deals to avoid that fate and to resolve investigations into their diversity programs.

Eight other firms law firms are named in the complaint: A&O Shearman, Cadwalader, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Milbank, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Skadden and Willkie Farr & Gallagher. Representatives for the firms did not respond to requests for comment.

The court’s attorney grievance committee plans to “defer further investigation,” Dopico said in the letter. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The complaint was filed in June. The committee’s response has not previously been reported. Attorney ethics complaints and investigations typically are not made public.

Dopico noted that lawsuits over Trump’s executive orders targeting other firms are still ongoing.

Four law firms hit by executive orders over their ties to certain attorneys and cases sued the Trump administration, winning injunctions. The orders—against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman & Godfrey, and WilmerHale—blocked lawyers’ access to government buildings, revoked security clearances, and threatened their clients’ government contracts.

The professors’ complaint alleges the firms that made deals with Trump violated their duty to maintain the independence of the legal profession. They also engaged in bribery and extortion by giving the president “a ‘war chest’ worth nearly a billion dollars to spend as he pleases on his favorite political causes,” according to the professors.

Although the firms “are the victims of the illegality, they nevertheless had a choice to either litigate, as other firms did, or pay the bribes,” the professors said in the complaint. “They chose to be extorted and pay the bribes.”

Firms have been hesitant to elaborate on what free legal work they will provide to the White House. Some have snagged work for the government on trade agreements since striking deals with Trump.

Dopico said he would notify the professors if an investigation was “reactivated.”

The professors have asked the grievance committee to reconsider its decision, arguing that it can ask the firms to produce documents and testify under oath regarding the deals.

“The very existence of an investigation will inform the Respondents, the President, other firms that might find themselves in his crosshairs, and ultimately the public at large, that New York’s Attorney Grievance Committee is serious about protecting the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of the rule of law,” the law professors wrote.

The complaint did not seek discipline for any individual lawyer at the firms. Instead, it sought a public censure or an order requiring the firms to “cease and desist from further compliance with the commitments they made.”

“Our proposed remedy will provide the Respondents with the means to extricate themselves from the untenable situation in which they now find themselves,” the complaint said.

The deals have also drawn scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers in Congress, who’ve requested information about the firms’ deals and their reported work for government agencies. Those requests come without subpoena power.

The ethics complaint against the firms was filed in New York in part because that’s where the majority of the firms are based, but also because it’s a rare state ethics body that allows entire law firms to be the subject of an ethics complaint, rather than only individual lawyers.