Blumenthal, Raskin & Schiff Demand Answers from Capitulating Big Law Firms Doing Trump's Bidding

[WASHINGTON, DC] – U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ranking Member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today pressed top law firms for information regarding pro bono legal services they are providing to President Trump’s pet causes after the firms submitted to the Trump Administration’s threats of unlawful and unconstitutional Executive Orders and sham investigations.

Blumenthal, Raskin, and Schiff wrote to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss); Kirland & Ellis, LLP (Kirkland); and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Skadden Arps) following reports that the firms are providing legal services on “a range of matters” for the U.S. Department of Commerce. Blumenthal and Raskin had previously written to each of the firms seeking details about the deals struck with President Trump, including information about all requests for pro bono services the firms received from the White House.

“Your previous response of April 14, 2025, failed to provide any of the requested records or information vital to our Committees’ understanding of why your law firm promised $40 million in pro bono legal services to causes hand-picked by President Trump, clarifying only that you had agreed to dedicate ‘$40 million in pro bono services over the next four years to assist our nation’s veterans, combat anti-Semitism, and promote the fairness of the justice system,’” the Members wrote in a letter to Paul Weiss Chairman Brad S. Karp.

The Members raised concerns that Paul Weiss’s work for the Commerce Department suggests that the Trump Administration is continuing to coerce firms into providing legal services outside the terms of the agreements the firms had previously described, “Now, just months after striking a deal with the Administration, Paul Weiss is reportedly providing free legal services on ‘a range of matters’ to the U.S. Department of Commerce…Paul Weiss’s work for the Commerce Department clearly falls outside of the scope of the deal you previously described—aiding veterans, combatting anti-Semitism, and promoting fairness in the justice system—suggesting that the Administration’s coercion of your law firm may be ongoing and escalating.”

“Absent coercion from the Administration it is difficult to understand how Paul Weiss identified the Commerce Department—a government agency with 13 bureaus, a proposed $8.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2026 discretionary funding—as eligible for pro bono services. Your own website describes Paul Weiss’s pro bono practice as providing ‘legal assistance to the most vulnerable members of our society,’ which is impossible to square with your work on behalf of the Commerce Department,” the Members continued.

The Members pointed out that the firm’s work with the Commerce Department may be in violation of federal law, “Further, as you are certainly aware, providing legal services to the Commerce Department without compensation may violate the law. The Antideficiency Act, and in particular 31 USC §1342, prohibits the Government from accepting voluntary services and has limited exceptions in order to ensure the Government is not on the hook for financial obligations Congress has not explicitly appropriated.”

In a follow-up to their previous requests, Blumenthal, Raskin, and Schiff are seeking additional information to better understand the contours of the work Paul Weiss, Kirkland, and Skadden Arps are performing for—and at the request of—the U.S. Government. The full text of Blumenthal, Raskin, and Schiff’s letter to Paul Weiss is available here and below. Similar letters were sent to Kirkland and Skadden Arps.

Dear Mr. Karp:

We write to you for the second time regarding Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP’s (“Paul Weiss”) decision to submit to the Trump Administration’s efforts to use an unlawful and unconstitutional Executive Order and threats of sham investigations to coerce your law firm into spending $40 million in law firm resources to support President Trump’s pet issues, making statements that support his agenda, and reversing firm policies with which he disagrees.^[1] Your previous response of April 14, 2025, failed to provide any of the requested records or information vital to our Committees’ understanding of why your law firm promised $40 million in pro bono legal services to causes hand-picked by President Trump, clarifying only that you had agreed to dedicate “$40 million in pro bono services over the next four years to assist our nation’s veterans, combat anti-Semitism, and promote the fairness of the justice system.”^[2]

Now, just months after striking a deal with the Administration, Paul Weiss is reportedly providing free legal services on “a range of matters” to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce Department”).^[3] These reports come as other law firms that have also capitulated to the Administration’s unlawful and unconstitutional coercion are also reportedly doing pro bono work for the Commerce Department. Paul Weiss’s work for the Commerce Department clearly falls outside of the scope of the deal you previously described—aiding veterans, combatting anti-Semitism, and promoting fairness in the justice system—suggesting that the Administration’s coercion of your law firm may be ongoing and escalating.^[4]

Absent coercion from the Administration it is difficult to understand how Paul Weiss identified the Commerce Department—a government agency with 13 bureaus^[5], a proposed $8.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2026 discretionary funding—as eligible for pro bono services. Your own website describes Paul Weiss’s pro bono practice as providing “legal assistance to the most vulnerable members of our society,”^[6] which is impossible to square with your work on behalf of the Commerce Department.

Further, as you are certainly aware, providing legal services to the Commerce Department without compensation may violate the law. The Antideficiency Act, and in particular 31 USC § 1342, prohibits the Government from accepting voluntary services and has limited exceptions in order to ensure the Government is not on the hook for financial obligations Congress has not explicitly appropriated. While it certainly would not be surprising for the Trump Administration to disregard the law regarding congressional appropriations, it would be quite troubling if Paul Weiss were a willing accomplice in such an endeavor.

Equally troubling, these bargains with President Trump have created what appear to be glaring conflicts of interest. Under the ABA Rules of Professional Conduct, if Paul Weiss is required to provide President Trump with free legal services, it may prove difficult for your firm to also zealously represent a client, pro bono or otherwise, adverse to the Administration.^[7] These conflicts are particularly troubling if you failed to give existing clients with matters adverse to the Administration proper notice of the existence—and growing extent—of this unusual arrangement and whether they were given an opportunity to properly assess whether a conflict existed.

To better understand the contours of the work Paul Weiss is currently carrying out for—and at the request of—the U.S. Government please provide the following information to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House Judiciary Committee by October 6, 2025:

1. Provide a detailed description of the scope and duration of Paul Weiss’s work for the Commerce Department. As part of this description, please explain how Paul Weiss was retained to perform work for the Commerce Department or U.S. Government, and the matters that Paul Weiss is currently engaged with the Commerce Department or U.S. Government to perform.
2. Provide a detailed description about how Paul Weiss is being compensated for legal services provided to the Commerce Department, including whether Paul Weiss agreed to perform the services at a reduced rate. If Paul Weiss is not being compensated for the legal services being provided to the Commerce Department or U.S. Government, and the work is considered “pro bono,” please indicate what statutory authority is being invoked allowing the Commerce Department or U.S. Government to accept voluntary services.
3. List the number of hours that Paul Weiss has contributed to the Commerce Department or the U.S. Government to date.
4. Explain whether Paul Weiss entered a retainer agreement with the Commerce Department or U.S. Government for its legal services. When providing a detailed explanation of any agreement(s), please indicate whether there is a duration provision governing when Paul Weiss’s work for the Commerce Department or U.S. Government will cease. If no retainer agreement exists, please explain how Paul Weiss formalized the terms and conditions of its work with the Commerce Department or U.S. Government.
5. Explain whether Paul Weiss notified clients adverse to the Administration of Paul Weiss’s work for the U.S. Government.
6. List all of Paul Weiss’s pro bono matters with the U.S. Government which have been entered into pursuant to the agreement with the Trump Administration. Furthermore, list all non-U.S. governmental clients which have been offered pro bono legal services pursuant to the agreement with the Trump Administration. Provide an updated dollar value of pro bono services rendered to the Trump Administration in accordance with the March 2025 agreement.

In addition, please provide the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation and House Judiciary Committee with the following records by October 6, 2025 and any subsequently produced records^[8] responsive to these requests on a bi-weekly basis thereafter:

1. All retainers governing the legal services rendered to the Commerce Department or U.S. Government by Paul Weiss from March 19, 2025, onward. If no retainer has been executed, please furnish any other records governing the terms and conditions of work by Paul Weiss for the Commerce Department or U.S. Government.

Please contact the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House Judiciary Committee should you have any questions about responding to these requests. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

-30-