Were Biglaw’s Pro Bono Payola Deals With Trump Vague On Purpose?
What's the worst that could happen, aside from more PR blows? The post Were Biglaw’s Pro Bono Payola Deals With Trump Vague On Purpose? appeared first on Above the Law.
Ed. note: Welcome to our daily feature, Quote of the Day.
It’s wise to be as vague as possible, which explains the firms’ lack of any effort to reduce whatever the arrangement is to writing. If you start negotiating with Trump, then you wind up identifying what he may conclude are gaps in what you’ve got, and then he demands more.
— Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School, in comments given to Bloomberg Law, on the perhaps intentionally vague pro bono payola deals that nine Biglaw firms signed with the Trump administration, pledging $940 million in free legal services. Trump has yet to attempt to enforce those deals, and the Biglaw firms in question aren’t pushing the issue, either. Gillers points out that the agreements’ vagueness may come back to bite the law firms, noting, “Trump realized in the midst of these negotiations that he might want to use the work of these law firms after he’s no longer president in situations that could not even remotely be called pro bono.”
Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Bluesky, X/Twitter, and Threads, or connect with her on LinkedIn.
The post Were Biglaw’s Pro Bono Payola Deals With Trump Vague On Purpose? appeared first on Above the Law.
