August 21, 2025 – As the controversy surrounding law firms that struck deals with the Trump administration begins to fade, corporate clients are increasingly prioritizing “institutional stability” when selecting legal representation. The fallout from these deals, which involved significant concessions like pro bono commitments and policy changes, has reshaped how general counsel (GCs) evaluate law firms, with a focus on long-term reliability, independence, and reputational integrity. This shift reflects broader concerns about the legal industry’s vulnerability to political pressures and the lasting impact on firm-client relationships.
The Trump Deals: A Recap
In early 2025, the Trump administration targeted several major law firms with executive orders and memoranda, citing their past representation of clients opposing Trump’s interests or their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. Firms like Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; and A&O Shearman faced punitive measures, including restrictions on federal contracts and employee security clearances. To avoid further retaliation, nine firms agreed to provide approximately $940 million in pro bono services and other concessions, such as altering hiring practices or engaging outside counsel for oversight.
These deals sparked significant backlash. Some associates resigned in protest, with notable exits at Latham & Watkins and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, while others criticized the agreements as undermining the rule of law. Clients, particularly major corporations, expressed concerns about the “reputational risks” and “institutional stability” of firms that acquiesced to what some called “extra-legal extortionist tactics.”
Institutional Stability as a Key Criterion
With the Trump administration reportedly winding down its campaign against law firms, corporate legal departments are reassessing their relationships with affected firms. General counsel interviewed by Law.com emphasized that institutional stability—defined as a firm’s ability to maintain independence, resist external pressures, and ensure continuity of service—is now a critical factor in their decision-making. “There’s a real concern about institutional stability. If a firm you’ve invested in suddenly can’t represent you because of outside pressure, that’s a major problem for companies,” one GC noted.
This focus stems from several issues:
- Reputational Risks: Firms that made deals with Trump faced client defections, with some companies redirecting work to firms like Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, which successfully challenged the executive orders in court. A Reuters report noted a group of seven partners leaving Willkie Farr & Gallagher for Cooley, citing dissatisfaction with their firm’s Trump deal.
- Loss of Talent: The deals led to resignations and difficulty attracting new talent. For instance, Latham & Watkins associate Sam Wong resigned publicly, and Willkie Farr saw up to 15 associates consider leaving. This turnover raises concerns about firms’ ability to retain top talent, a key indicator of stability.
- Ethical and Legal Concerns: Democratic lawmakers and legal scholars warned that the deals could violate federal bribery laws or professional ethics rules, creating risks for clients. A Lawfare analysis suggested that providing pro bono work to avoid punitive orders could constitute a quid pro quo, potentially exposing firms to civil RICO claims or bar disciplinary actions.
Client Strategies in Response
While some GCs have not pulled existing work from firms that made deals, many are redirecting new matters to those that resisted Trump’s pressures. Eric Whitaker of GCs United highlighted that in-house counsel are prioritizing firms that demonstrate “independence and resilience” to protect their companies’ interests. This has led to:
- Increased Internal Handling: Some chief legal officers (CLOs) are opting to handle more work in-house to avoid reliance on firms with uncertain stability. One CLO stated, “This means we handle more work internally and, in some cases, forgo work we would have hired firms for in the past.”
- Preference for Litigation-Tested Firms: Firms like Susman Godfrey, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale, which sued the administration and secured court victories, are gaining favor. For example, Judge Bates struck down Trump’s order against Jenner & Block as unconstitutional, bolstering its reputation for standing firm.
- Data and Privacy Scrutiny: Clients are also asking firms about data handling and processing, particularly in light of potential conflicts arising from government-sanctioned pro bono work.
Industry-Wide Implications
The Trump deals have deepened rifts within Big Law, with firms that fought back gaining a competitive edge. Posts on X reflect ongoing industry tension, with one user describing the process as a “shitshow” and another highlighting the American Bar Association’s concerns about firms scaling back pro bono work due to administration pressure. These deals have also reduced firms’ capacity for traditional pro bono causes, such as immigration and LGBTQ+ rights, potentially creating conflicts of interest with government-aligned work.
Law firms are responding by enhancing client communications. Many have launched task forces, webinars, and websites to track Trump’s executive actions, aiming to rebuild trust. For instance, Akin Gump’s webpage tracking White House orders received 185,000 views, signaling firms’ efforts to demonstrate expertise and stability.
Looking Ahead
As the legal industry moves forward, the Trump deals serve as a cautionary tale about the risks of political capitulation. Clients are likely to continue prioritizing firms with proven resilience, as evidenced by the success of those challenging the administration in court. Kristin Stark of Fairfax Associates noted that firms facing client collection lags may grow anxious, potentially prompting further strategic shifts. For now, institutional stability remains a cornerstone of client decision-making, reshaping the competitive landscape of Big Law.
Sources: Law.com, Reuters, The New York Times, POLITICO, X posts