In yet another head-shaking moment in the early days of Trump’s second term in office, the New York Times is reporting that those law firms that agreed to provide free legal services for the administration on what they believed to be “uncontroversial causes” may actually be called on by the president to support his agenda in any way he deems useful.
To back up a bit, you will recall that Trump has extracted nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services from some of the country’s top law firms by threatening to restrict their lawyers from accessing government buildings and officials and also threatening their clients’ access to federal contracts. All of this is because of what Trump has called “the damage they have done.”
The transgressions these law firms are supposedly guilty of are in the nature of having represented Trump’s political enemies or having employed people who have gone after Trump directly. Certainly there has been-push back from many in the legal community calling this unconstitutional and undemocratic. So far four firms have challenged these tactics in court and have at least received temporary reprieve. For those who have gone along with Trump’s scheme, despite acknowledging no guilt of any kind, there is a sense that the pro bono work they may do for Trump is consistent with uncontroversial and non-partisan pro bono work they are accustomed to providing.
Recently Trump has suggested however that these law firms could use these pro bono hours to work on trade deals or even reviving the coal industry. Most concerning is a suggestion in the Times story that “White House officials believe that some of the pro bono legal work could even be used towards representing Mr. Trump or his allies if they become ensnared in investigations.”
The kicker on the matter is surely in a statement made by Yale law professor Harold Hongju who wrote a paper addressing the issue. He said of the complying law firms that “They thought they made ‘one-shot deals which they would fulfill.” The implication is of course that that would be the end of it.
It is somewhat mystifying to me that some of the best legal minds in the country would believe signalling your willingness to be bullied by Donald J. Trump would be the end of anything rather than the beginning of a long and painful shakedown.
Retired political staffer/civil servant. Dual U.S./Canadian citizen writing about politics and the arts on both sides of the border.