New York, NY — As the dust settles on a series of controversial deals between major U.S. law firms and the Trump administration, corporate clients are increasingly prioritizing “institutional stability” when selecting legal counsel, according to a Law.com report published on August 19, 2025. These deals, which saw nine prominent firms commit nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to avoid punitive executive orders, have left lingering concerns about the reliability and independence of firms that capitulated to political pressure. While the Trump administration appears to have paused its campaign against Big Law, general counsel (GCs) are reassessing their relationships with these firms, weighing reputational risks and the potential for future external pressures to disrupt legal representation.
Background on the Trump Deals
Starting in February 2025, President Donald Trump issued executive orders targeting law firms perceived as adversaries, particularly those with ties to his political opponents or investigations against him. These orders threatened to strip firms of security clearances, bar access to federal buildings, and terminate government contracts, severely limiting their ability to operate. To avoid these sanctions, nine firms—including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Kirkland & Ellis; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Latham & Watkins; and others—struck deals with the administration, pledging a combined $940 million in pro bono work for causes like veterans’ affairs and combating antisemitism. Some firms, like Kirkland & Ellis and Paul Weiss, have since worked on trade deals for the Commerce Department, though it’s unclear if this was pro bono or paid work.
In contrast, four firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—challenged the orders in court and secured injunctions, with federal judges ruling the directives unconstitutional for violating free speech and due process. The legal victories, coupled with resignations from lawyers at settling firms (e.g., Siunik Moradian from Simpson Thacher and Jacqui Pittman from Kirkland), highlighted a divide in the legal community: some firms stood firm, while others were seen as capitulating.
Client Concerns and Institutional Stability
The Law.com report, authored by Abigail Adcox, Amanda O’Brien, and Christine Simmons, cites general counsel like Eric Whitaker, co-founder of GCs United, who emphasized that “institutional stability” is now a critical factor in choosing law firms. “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,” Whitaker said. Clients fear that firms that agreed to Trump’s demands may be vulnerable to future political or external pressures, compromising their ability to provide consistent, independent representation.
While many GCs have not yet pulled existing work from settling firms, they are redirecting new matters to those that resisted, such as WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, which have gained corporate clients for their defiance. A June 2025 Newsweek report noted that firms challenging the administration in court attracted new business, with Brooke Cucinella of Citadel praising lawyers who “don’t run from a fight.” This trend suggests that corporate clients value firms perceived as resilient against political coercion, as they offer greater assurance of uninterrupted service.
Reputational Risks and Strategic Shifts
The deals have also raised reputational concerns. Firms like Paul Weiss, the first to settle for $40 million in pro bono work, faced criticism for “caving,” with legal commentator Mike Masnick calling their actions a sign they “won’t fight for themselves or their clients.” This perception has led some in-house counsel to diversify their legal rosters, reducing reliance on any single firm to mitigate risks of instability. One chief legal officer told Law.com, “This means we handle more work internally and, in some cases, forgo work we would have hired firms for in the past,” reflecting a cautious approach to external counsel.
The fallout extends beyond client relationships. The Reuters investigation from July 31, 2025, found that some firms, even those not targeted, have scaled back pro bono work on controversial issues like immigration or LGBTQ+ rights to avoid attracting Trump’s attention. This chilling effect has made it harder for civic groups to secure legal representation, as noted by ProPublica on August 6, 2025, further complicating access to justice for vulnerable populations.
Will the Trend Persist?
The shift toward prioritizing institutional stability may continue, but its longevity depends on several factors:
- Political Climate: If the Trump administration refrains from further targeting law firms, as suggested by a CNN report cited in Politico on April 1, 2025, the pressure on settling firms may ease, potentially stabilizing client relationships. However, any renewed executive actions could amplify client hesitancy.
- Judicial Outcomes: The ongoing appeals of injunctions won by Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block could clarify the legality of Trump’s orders. A favorable ruling for the firms could bolster confidence in those that resisted, while a reversal might embolden further political pressure on Big Law.
- Client Priorities: GCs’ focus on reputational risks and stability, as Whitaker noted, suggests a long-term reevaluation of law firm partnerships. Firms with a track record of independence, like those that fought in court, may gain a competitive edge.
Local Context
In Kansas City, Kansas, where the tragic death of Police Officer Hunter Simoncic on August 26, 2025, has dominated local news, the law firm controversy has not been a major focus. However, the national implications resonate with corporate clients in the region, particularly those in industries like finance and healthcare that rely on stable legal representation. Posts on X reflect ongoing debate, with some users praising firms that resisted—“WilmerHale and Jenner showing spine, that’s who I’d hire”—while others see the deals as pragmatic, noting, “Firms had to protect their business, can’t blame them.”
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s deals with law firms have reshaped how corporate clients evaluate legal counsel, with “institutional stability” emerging as a key criterion. While settling firms like Paul Weiss and Kirkland & Ellis face scrutiny and client shifts, those that challenged the administration are gaining favor for their resilience. The trend may persist if political pressures remain subdued, but uncertainties around ongoing litigation and the broader regulatory environment keep the legal industry on edge. For now, GCs are diversifying their options and prioritizing firms that can withstand external pressures, ensuring reliable representation in an unpredictable climate.
This article has been reviewed for grammar and clarity to ensure accuracy and readability for a U.S. audience.