Major law firm reaches deal with Trump to avoid White House order even as two other firms sue

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at an education event and executive order signing in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON — A prominent international law firm reached a deal with U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday to dedicate at least US$100 million in free legal services and to review its hiring practices, averting a punishing executive order like the ones directed at nearly a half-dozen other major legal institutions in recent weeks.

The deal with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom was announced just hours after two other law firms sued in federal court over executive orders that threatened the suspension of their attorneys’ security clearances and their access to federal buildings. A judge Friday evening temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing portions of the order against one of the firms, Jenner & Block.

The contrasting approaches reflect divisions within the legal community on whether to fight or negotiate as Trump seeks to extract major concessions from some of the world’s most significant law firms and in some cases punish them over their association with prosecutors who previously investigated him. Besides Skadden Arps, another firm, Paul Weiss, has reached an agreement with the White House, a deal that prompted major backlash last week from lawyers who thought the capitulation set a bad precedent.

In a message to his firm, Skadden Arps managing partner Jeremy London said the firm had learned in recent days that the Trump administration intended to issue an executive order targeting it over its pro bono legal work and its diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

“When faced with this information, we carefully considered what the right path would be for us, and the answer was not obvious. We were thoughtful and deliberate in determining the steps we might take, knowing that the decisions we were grappling with would have fundamental consequences for our firm,” London wrote in the message, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

He added that the firm opted to enter negotiations with the administration in hopes of warding off the issuance of an executive order.

“We entered into the agreement the President announced today because, when faced with the alternatives, it became clear that it was the best path to protect our clients, our people, and our Firm,” he wrote.

The two firms who sued on Friday, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, say in their complaints that the orders amount to an unprecedented assault on the legal system and represent an unconstitutional form of presidential retaliation. Court hearings were set for later Friday afternoon on the firms’ requests that judges block enforcement of the order.

“Our Constitution, top to bottom, forbids attempts by the government to punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate,” said the complaint from Jenner & Block, filed in federal court in Washington.

The firms say the executive orders, issued earlier in the week, have already affected their business, with Jenner & Block saying that one client has been notified by the Justice Department that the firm cannot attend a meeting at the building next week.

“That client therefore will either need to attend the meeting without outside counsel or would need to retain new outside counsel before April 3,” the lawsuit says.

The WilmerHale complaint raises similar concerns, calling it a flagrant violation of the firm’s rights.

“It imposes severe consequences without notice or any opportunity to be heard; it uses vague, expansive language that does not adequately inform WilmerHale (or its clients) of what conduct triggered these extraordinary sanctions; and it unfairly singles out WilmerHale based on its perceived connections to disfavored individuals and causes,” the lawsuit says.

Targeted law firms have taken different approaches to executive orders that threaten to upend their business model and chill their legal practice.

Earlier this month, the law firm of Perkins Coie also challenged the Trump order in court and succeeded in getting a judge to temporarily block enforcement. The Paul Weiss firm, by contrast, cut a deal with the White House days after being targeted, with its chairman saying that the order presented an “existential crisis” for the firm and that he wasn’t sure it could have survived a protracted fight with the Trump administration.

The executive order against & Block this week stemmed from the fact that the firm once employed Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer who served on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that investigated Trump during his first term in office over potential connections between his 2016 campaign and Russia. Weissmann, a frequent public target of Trump’s ire, left the firm four years ago.

Mueller has retired from WilmerHale, but the White House executive order from Thursday mentions him as well as another retired partner and a current partner who all served on Mueller’s team.

“While most litigation requires discovery to unearth retaliatory motive, the Order makes no secret of its intent to punish WilmerHale for its past and current representations of clients before the Nation’s courts and for its perceived connection to the views that Mr. Mueller expressed as Special Counsel,” the WilmerHale lawsuit says.

The first executive order targeted Covington & Burling, a firm that has provided legal representation to special counsel Jack Smith, who investigated Trump during the Biden administration and filed two separate criminal cases that were abandoned after Trump’s election win last November.

By Eric Tucker, The Associated Press