In addition to reports of firms reevaluating their pro bono priorities, some have erased references on their websites to past pro bono work related to issues such as voting rights and transgender rights.
"The threats and the executive orders have 100% had a chilling effect on law firms' comfort with being out front on issues that are politically charged," said Vanessa Batters-Thompson, executive director of the D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, whose pro bono allies include major law firms.
At the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, president and executive director Damon T. Hewitt said his organization has typically seen law firms champing at the bit to serve as co-counsel in its litigation.
But now, "for the kind of cases that would involve executive overreach, we do not," he said.
The LGBTQ immigrant rights organization Immigration Equality has also seen a change in some firms' willingness to work with the group.
"We've definitely had a couple of firms that we've worked with in the past, who declined to work with us to even investigate a matter, out of fear," said Bridget Crawford, director of law and policy at Immigration Equality, which handles litigation and provides direct legal assistance to LGBTQ and HIV-positive asylum seekers.
Some of Trump's executive orders and other directives over the past six weeks aimed at firms cite their pro bono work as a reason for the action, claiming it amounts to "harmful activity." He accused Jenner & Block LLP of supporting "attacks against women and children based on a refusal to accept the biological reality of sex," and WilmerHale of "supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote."
In a separate presidential memo issued in March, Trump took aim specifically at "the immigration bar, and powerful Big Law pro bono practices," accusing them of coaching asylum seekers to lie. The memo directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek sanctions against attorneys and firms who lodge "frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious" lawsuits against the federal government.
A lawyer who oversees pro bono work at a major law firm that has not been the subject of an executive order told Law360 Pulse that Trump's actions have caused "a chilling effect on pro bono programs and how decisions are being made" about which cases they will take on.
BigLaw attorneys have long played an integral role in complex pro bono litigation against the government, said Ray Brescia, a professor at Albany Law School and the author of "Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present and Future of the American Legal Profession."
"They bring incredible talent, significant resources, and are able to go toe-to-toe with the lawyers on the other side," he said. In addition to handling high-profile litigation, BigLaw pro bono practices often provide nonprofits with extensive guidance on day-to-day issues such as lease negotiations and employment policies.
If firms back away from politically sensitive pro bono work, "there is a significant chance that some of the worst abuses of executive power will go unchecked," Brescia said.
At D.C. Appleseed, Batters-Thompson said law firms' unease over what could be seen as controversial work began shortly after the election thanks to Trump's talk on the campaign trail about retribution. Now, she said, there is "widespread concern in the law firm community" about being targeted for pro bono services.
D.C. Appleseed is a small organization that is part of a network of public interest law centers across the U.S. and Mexico. The center focuses on democratic participation, economic mobility and racial equity. Its projects include supporting the movement for D.C. statehood, advocating for low-paid home health care workers and working to increase early childhood education funding for kids in the district.
The organization is still receiving pro bono support, but Batters-Thompson said that "particularly on issues related to D.C. democracy, we are finding that many more lawyers want to work as a silent partner versus a public-facing partner."
She said that while she can still find attorneys to do behind-the-scenes research and analysis, lawyers have become hesitant to put their names on legal filings and public reports that run counter to the Trump administration's views.
Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block have gone to court to fight the president's orders against them. In an amicus brief filed in the Perkins Coie case, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law recently said that the executive orders "represent an existential threat to the critical tradition of American law firms providing pro bono representation to protect civil rights."
"Without the ability of lawyers to take on clients or causes unpopular with the administration, our form of government and its guarantees suffer greatly," the group said. "In no area of our justice system will this chilling effect have a greater adverse impact than pro bono advocacy."
Communities of color and vulnerable populations will be among those disproportionately harmed if the executive order is upheld, the committee argued.
"From our origins, the Lawyers' Committee has done its work by marshaling the resources of the private bar, which are formidable," said Hewitt, whose organization formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy. "We create what I like to call a peaceful army of private attorneys general to vindicate civil rights of communities whose rights are being violated."
On Thursday, more than 20 nongovernmental organizations filed a separate amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie. They include Immigration Equality, the Sierra Club, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Transgender Law Center.
"[Organizations] that might otherwise challenge the legality of certain government action will be silenced — whether by fear of retribution from the president directly or because they cannot access skilled legal representation from law firms that, too, have been silenced by fear," the groups said.
As the lawsuits play out, four other firms have made deals announced by Trump to avert repercussions, agreeing to provide a total of at least $340 million in pro bono causes that the firms and the administration both support, including assisting veterans and fighting antisemitism. Those firms are Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and Milbank LLP.
At an event Tuesday where he discussed executive orders aimed at boosting domestic coal production and use, Trump said he wants to help coal companies with their leasing matters by hiring law firms that sign agreements with him.
"Big Law continues to bend the knee to President Trump because they know they were wrong, and he looks forward to putting their pro bono legal concessions toward implementing his America First agenda," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.
Meanwhile, some firms' websites no longer contain references to specific pro bono representations.
Willkie's website used to cite its representation of Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea "Shaye" Moss, who won a $148 million defamation award against Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani after he falsely accused them of ballot fraud in the 2020 election. It also had information about its work on litigation against Arizona over gender-affirming health care.
Posts about those cases now link to error pages.
Skadden has removed past annual pro bono reports that detailed its work, according to a review conducted by Law360 Pulse using the Wayback Machine.
Paul Weiss' website also no longer mentions a range of pro bono work that it once included.
Gone from its pro bono page is information about matters including efforts with the ACLU on behalf of families separated at the border and litigation alongside the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund and the New York Civil Liberties Foundation to represent a Black transgender woman who sued a county in New York over her treatment at the county jail.
Spokespersons for the firms did not respond to requests for comment about the deletions on their website, or to questions on whether their pro bono priorities or policies have changed due to their agreements with Trump.
Batters-Thompson said she understands the business considerations law firms face as they weigh how to respond to Trump's actions against the legal profession. However, she said she is deeply concerned about the undercutting of "the traditions of the legal system," adding that it affects people of all political views.
"Checks and balances are not political," she said. "They are foundational to the functioning of our government."
Pro bono, said Hewitt of the Lawyers' Committee, "is not just a nice idea."
Instead, he said, it's "a deep and important part of the bar, and what it means to be a lawyer."
--Editing by Brian Baresch and Adam LoBelia.
Clarification: This article has been updated to clarify changes made to Paul Weiss' website.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
