Law Firms’ Quid Pro Quo Pro Bono Work on Tariffs Is Unethical

Big Law firms helping the Trump administration negotiate tariff terms pro bono would be antithetical to the purpose of pro bono practice.

President Donald Trump has targeted major law firms who represented his adversaries, challenged actions he favors, investigated his first administration, or employ lawyers who have been critical of him. Some of these executive orders take sweeping actions, such as threatening their government contracts, stripping lawyers of security clearances, and banning them from federal government buildings.

Firms that have fought back have won early victories, securing temporary restraining orders on the sanctions stopping themselves and other firms from continuing their work.

Those firms that haven’t pushed back, opting instead to cut a deal with the White House to relieve the pressure, are on the hook to provide pro bono legal services in a historic quid pro quo.

So far, firms have committed at least $940 million in deals with the White House, and that figure could continue to rise. The law firms making these deals said they would be advocating for causes such as “combating antisemitism,” supporting veterans, and “ensuring fairness” in the justice system.

However, associates at some of these firms saw the writing on the wall hidden under these seemingly innocuous terms. At least three of them have resigned, with many others expressing strong disapproval of their law firms’ choices not to fight back.

Beyond the large dollar amounts, what is even more concerning is that the parameters of the deals were never clear, probably by design. This lack of clarity allows the Trump administration to pivot to whatever causes it deems relevant at any given point. This makes sense for an administration that has moved from issue to issue with stunning speed, sometimes daily. With open-ended pro bono commitments, the Trump administration can keep its pro bono focus with law firms’ fluid as well.

As an example of this ability to pivot, Trump has floated the idea of enlisting law firms to use some of those millions of pro bono dollars for tariff negotiations with the many countries with tariffs of 10% or higher.

This is simply unacceptable. The American Bar Association establishes lawyers’ professional responsibility to provide pro bono legal services. Often, and as the ABA rules make clear, lawyers should provide pro bono legal services to those who otherwise can’t afford to pay for legal services. If lawyers provide pro bono legal services to government entities in furtherance of their organizational purposes, it should be under circumstances in which legal fees are “otherwise inappropriate.”

Charging the Trump administration legal fees for negotiating tariff deals would be appropriate, making the use of pro bono legal services for tariff negotiations in furtherance of Trump’s agenda is counter to what pro bono is about.

At its core, pro bono is about helping people who are unable to pay, furthering causes that would benefit individuals and groups who are marginalized, or furthering community, civic, and other charitable endeavors. As a former lawyer and legal scholar who has conducted social science research on pro bono legal services, I know that law firms tout their pro bono legal services as opportunities to do good in the world in some capacity. These law firm quid pro quo deals turn those values upside down.

Trump’s tariff policy is set to hit low-income households the hardest as they spend a higher proportion of their income on goods. It would be antithetical to the core of lawyers’ professional responsibility for law firms to use their dollars to further causes that would make life more difficult for low-income people and further entrench income inequality.

Some of these law firms will claim that they can choose whom they decide to represent and perhaps decide not to work on tariff negotiations. But these firms already showed they are unwilling to push back against the executive orders that put them in this situation. It doesn’t seem plausible they will refuse to help Trump negotiate tariff deals, or other plans on his agenda that could push the country into a recession or harm low-income individuals.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Atinuke Adediran is an associate professor of law at Fordham University. She writes about business, law, and society.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines