"Law Firms Share Strategy." (Illustration by Joe Dworetzky/Bay City News)
WE HAVE RECENTLY reported about the Trump administration’s use of executive orders to target law firms who have represented clients adverse to the president or his priorities. Within the legal profession there has been a split between the firms who have settled with the government and others who fought back against the administration by filing or supporting lawsuits. The sorting of elite law firms into these camps was galvanized by the filing of a “friend of the court” brief in support of Perkins Coie, one of the firms that was targeted and sued the administration claiming the executive orders were unconstitutional. In a show of solidarity, more than 500 firms around the country joined the court filing.
Observers focused on the fact that while many firms signed the amicus brief, most of the largest firms in the country did not. Law firm leaders have had to make difficult decisions between the business interests of the law firm and the traditional independence of the bar and its history of standing up for clients who are unpopular with government.
Thus far the Trump administration has announced settlements with nine large firms including top Wall Street firms Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Millbank LLP; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. The settlements have several provisions, but a key one has been the promise to provide “pro bono” services to causes supported by the president. Pro bono, a Latin phrase short for “pro bono publico,” means “for the public good.” And is traditionally used to describe work that lawyers and law firms do for free to support civic and charitable causes.
For many young lawyers joining big law firms, the opportunity to provide pro bono work on causes they care about has often been an inducement in law firm recruiting. The law firms that have settled have pledged almost a billion dollars of pro bono work on Trump initiatives and priorities, raising for some the question of whether the work can properly be considered pro bono when it must be devoted to the administration’s priorities.
Joe Dworetzky is a second career journalist. He practiced law in Philadelphia for more than 35 years, representing private and governmental clients in commercial litigation and insolvency proceedings. Joe served as City Solicitor for the City of Philadelphia under Mayor Ed Rendell and from 2009 to 2013 was one of five members of the Philadelphia School Reform Commission with responsibility for managing the city’s 250 public schools. He moved to San Francisco in 2011 and began writing fiction and pursuing a lifelong interest in editorial cartooning. Joe earned a Master’s in Journalism from Stanford University in 2020. He covers Legal Affairs and writes long form Investigative stories. His occasional cartooning can be seen in Bay Area Sketchbook. Joe encourages readers to email him story ideas and leads at joe.dworetzky@baycitynews.com.
Bay City Sketchbook: Lawyers and Lawyering
Share this:
WE HAVE RECENTLY reported about the Trump administration’s use of executive orders to target law firms who have represented clients adverse to the president or his priorities. Within the legal profession there has been a split between the firms who have settled with the government and others who fought back against the administration by filing or supporting lawsuits. The sorting of elite law firms into these camps was galvanized by the filing of a “friend of the court” brief in support of Perkins Coie, one of the firms that was targeted and sued the administration claiming the executive orders were unconstitutional. In a show of solidarity, more than 500 firms around the country joined the court filing.
Observers focused on the fact that while many firms signed the amicus brief, most of the largest firms in the country did not. Law firm leaders have had to make difficult decisions between the business interests of the law firm and the traditional independence of the bar and its history of standing up for clients who are unpopular with government.
Thus far the Trump administration has announced settlements with nine large firms including top Wall Street firms Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Millbank LLP; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. The settlements have several provisions, but a key one has been the promise to provide “pro bono” services to causes supported by the president. Pro bono, a Latin phrase short for “pro bono publico,” means “for the public good.” And is traditionally used to describe work that lawyers and law firms do for free to support civic and charitable causes.
For many young lawyers joining big law firms, the opportunity to provide pro bono work on causes they care about has often been an inducement in law firm recruiting. The law firms that have settled have pledged almost a billion dollars of pro bono work on Trump initiatives and priorities, raising for some the question of whether the work can properly be considered pro bono when it must be devoted to the administration’s priorities.
Joe Dworetzky, Bay City News
Joe Dworetzky is a second career journalist. He practiced law in Philadelphia for more than 35 years, representing private and governmental clients in commercial litigation and insolvency proceedings. Joe served as City Solicitor for the City of Philadelphia under Mayor Ed Rendell and from 2009 to 2013 was one of five members of the Philadelphia School Reform Commission with responsibility for managing the city’s 250 public schools. He moved to San Francisco in 2011 and began writing fiction and pursuing a lifelong interest in editorial cartooning. Joe earned a Master’s in Journalism from Stanford University in 2020. He covers Legal Affairs and writes long form Investigative stories. His occasional cartooning can be seen in Bay Area Sketchbook. Joe encourages readers to email him story ideas and leads at joe.dworetzky@baycitynews.com.
More by Joe Dworetzky, Bay City News