A legal expert predicts the elite law firms that cut deals with President Donald Trump are heading toward a humiliating public reckoning.
Writing in a piece for her Substack newsletter on Saturday, lawyer and journalist Katie Phang said leaders of the nine Big Law firms that caved to Trump would "face plant on national television" if Democrats retake the House in November and haul them before cameras under oath.
In spring 2025, Trump signed a series of executive orders targeting major law firms over their clients and attorneys. Four firms, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey, challenged the orders in court and won. Nine others, starting with Paul Weiss, instead struck agreements promising about $940 million in pro bono work for causes the Trump administration favors.
Phang, a former trial lawyer, pointed to an October 16 letter from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) to Kirkland & Ellis. According to the lawmakers, the firm has refused to turn over any documents or meet with congressional staff, instead invoking what they called a "laundry list of legally specious claims of privilege."
"'Privilege.' Ha," Phang wrote. "That's rich coming from a firm that goes out of its way to advertise its greatness."
She also took aim at Skadden Arps, which agreed to $100 million in free legal work. After a third round of congressional questions in August, the firm replied through outside attorney Richard Sauber with a brief note insisting its client decisions meet the bar's highest ethical standards. Lawmakers also flagged that Skadden represented Intel in the deal that handed the federal government a 10 percent stake in the company, raising questions about whose interests the firm puts first.
"Kirkland hides behind privilege, while Skadden hides behind a form letter," Phang wrote. "Different tactics, same bulls— message."
Lawmakers are also pressing for details on what role Trump's personal attorney Boris Epshteyn played in brokering the agreements. Phang said she welcomed the letters but argued they carry little weight on their own.
“A letter is a request,” she wrote. “And Kirkland has shown us exactly what it thinks of requests.”