Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee are launching an investigation into the deals several law firms made with President Trump to avoid being targeted by executive orders.
The committee’s top Democrat on Monday requested documents and information from several law firms who cut deals with the president to provide millions of dollars in free legal work for causes aligned with the administration, after he singled out some firms with punitive executive orders for their ties to his political adversaries.
The firms Paul, Weiss and Skadden were sent individual letters with the requests, while the firms Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Latham & Watkins were sent a joint letter.
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who is now stepping back as ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Dave Min (D-Calif.) said the information sought would help inform their investigation into the Trump administration’s “practice of targeting” companies, groups and people based on Trump’s “personal or political grievance.”
“America’s promise of equal justice under law will perish if the legal profession allows itself to be coerced into denying representation to the people who need it most,” Connolly and Min wrote in the letters.
The committee Democrats said they want to know whether the agreements are lawful, if they run afoul of the ethical and legal obligations of federal officials and others who helped reach the deals and how the agreements could affect the global competitiveness of the nation’s top law firms.
“The facts we gather as our investigation progresses will, of course, inform our legislative focus,” they wrote.
The law firms and the White House did not immediately respond to The Hill’s requests for comment.
Trump has taken pointed aim at Big Law firms who have represented Democratic interests or are associated with attorneys he believes have worked against him.
Most of the firms sent letters by the committee were not targeted in executive orders claiming to be “addressing risks” posed by the firms but settled with the president nonetheless. The firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison — or Paul, Weiss for short — was targeted with an order but Trump rescinded it after a settlement was reached.
Altogether, the president has extracted nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services.
The orders impose similar penalties, including cutting off firm employees’ security clearances and access to federal government facilities. They also direct the government to review any contracts with the firms.
The executive order targeting Paul, Weiss specifically mentioned Mike Pomerantz, an attorney who worked for the firm before joining the Manhattan district attorney’s office on the hush money criminal case against Trump. The firm agreed to dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services to support administration initiatives; eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies; and not deny representation to clients based on their political views.
Connolly noted in the letter with Min to Paul, Weiss that the firm once celebrated its work to change American policy toward immigration during the Holocaust and “zealously defended” abortion rights for decades.
However, after reaching its agreement with Trump, the firm wiped from its website references to work on behalf of those fleeing persecution in other countries and reproductive choice, in addition to a statement denouncing antisemitism and other information.
Trump had not yet issued executive orders targeting the other firms but the threat of one brought them to the bargaining table. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — Skadden for short — seemed to be the first to “preemptively submit to the president” without an order, the Democrats wrote.
“Our investigation extends to those firms that followed your lead, as well as to the White House itself,” Connolly and Min wrote to Skadden.
The Oversight Committee Democrats are also seeking information regarding Trump personal lawyer Boris Epshteyn’s role in negotiating the law firm deals, following a report in the Wall Street Journal that suggested he was closely involved. Epshteyn, a close ally of Trump’s who helped coordinate the president’s legal defense in his criminal cases, faces criminal charges of his own in Arizona’s probe of efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results.
At least nine firms, targeted or not, have struck deals with the president to be spared an executive order or accepted the penalty without one.
Six other firms, including Paul, Weiss, were named in executive orders claiming to be “addressing risks” the firms pose, and four of those firms are challenging the orders in court.
Last week, the law firms Perkins Coie and WilmerHale argued to judges that the president’s executive orders directed at them are retribution for their work with his political adversaries.
Perkins Coie has long drawn the president’s ire for advising Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign and working with an opposition research firm tied to the discredited Steele dossier, while WilmerHale employed Robert Mueller before and after his stint investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election as a special counsel.
Judges overseeing both cases previously froze key provisions of the orders but are now weighing whether to rule entirely in the law firms’ favor or throw the cases out altogether.
The Justice Department has argued that it’s the president’s prerogative whom to trust with the nation’s secrets, and the executive orders were designed to alleviate his concerns about specific firms.
Jenner & Block, another firm targeted, argued in court Monday for summary judgment, as well.
