President Trump’s war with Big Law shows firms that depend on rainmaker partners for lucrative corporate deals face greater pressure to settle than those that focus on litigation.
Paul Weiss, Skadden, Willkie, and Milbank built their premiere transactional practices by hiring star lawyers that rivals would likely to poach if the firms entered a protracted battle with the president, said John Morley, a Yale Law School professor. The four firms reached deals with Trump rather than fight him in court over executive orders that threaten client relationships.
“Firms that do a lot of transactional work are most heavily exposed to Trump’s orders because their lawyers leave more easily,” Morley said. “If the people whose practices are affected depart, other people might suffer because of an overall decline in profits.”
The three firms that sued Trump—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—are best known for litigation practices that aren’t as exposed to poaching, he said. “There’s a team-based apparatus involved in litigating a case that makes it harder to move firms,” Morley said.
The poaching threat is one of several factors that helps explain why firms with greater deal revenue are the most eager to avoid a legal battle with the president. All law firms face an existential threat if major clients’ federal contracts are targeted, but those that do transactional work have added incentive to maintain smooth relationships with regulatory agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and the DOJ’s antitrust division.
Clients that do deals don’t want a law firm that has fallen out of favor with the administration. “Law firms—for all their seeming solidity—are very fragile economically,” said law firm strategist Bruce MacEwen, a former in-house lawyer at Morgan Stanley. “It’s because there are no non-competes in the legal field and clients can follow the lawyer of their choice out of their firm at the drop of a hat.”
Profit Centers
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Milbank agreed last month or in early April to collectively provide $340 million in pro bono work to causes supported by Trump. Profits and revenue at these firms are on average twice the levels of the more litigation-heavy firms that have taken the Trump administration to court.
Milbank’s executive committee told colleagues in an April 2 email that as a billion-dollar law firm that “does a majority of its work on transactional matters, we are dependent on our ability to navigate client issues in all parts of the executive branch.” It was in the firm’s and clients’ best interests “to resolve the Trump administration’s concerns in a way that would foster our working relationship and avoid what could have been unnecessary confrontation,” the committee said.
Paul Weiss and Skadden, both with more than $5 million in average equity partner profits, were among the top 20 mergers and acquisition legal advisers ranked by deal value in the first quarter of 2024, Bloomberg Law reported last week.
Paul Weiss, Skadden, Willkie, and Milbank didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Revenue from Perkins Coie’s top 15 clients is almost twice as high in the commercial litigation practices, $145 million, than in the business practices, $56.2 million, according to the firm’s disclosure last week in court. Likewise, the “bulk” of Jenner & Block’s revenue comes from litigation, white collar investigations and regulatory practices, firm chair Thomas Perrelli said in a March 28 court filing.
“Jenner was and still is a litigation powerhouse,” said David Neff, a former Perkins Coie partner who also worked at Jenner & Block for 15 years. “Like many firms, they grew their corporate practice. That’s the side of the practice that is loath to fight.”
Right of Counsel
Rachel Nonaka, a partner at recruiting firm Macrae and former SEC litigator, said litigation firms are motivated to show clients they can effectively use the power of the courts to vindicate a certain cause—in this case, the right for clients to choose their own counsel without fear of retribution.
“There’s a general belief among litigators that both sides should be adequately represented, and all clients deserve the right of counsel,” Nonaka said. “These executive orders go against that general principle.”
The same pattern applies to firms that are publicly speaking out against the Trump administration.
Munger Tolles & Olson organized an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie and is primarily a litigation shop. Trump’s executive orders against law firms “raise important issues for our courts to decide,” Munger Tolles said in a statement April 4.
Litigation-only firm Williams & Connolly was a natural to represent Perkins Coie in the lawsuit against Trump, Morley said. The firm, known for fighting aggressively in court, “already set themselves up for an adversarial relationship with the government,” he said.
Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Munger Tolles and Williams & Connolly did not respond to requests for comment.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story: