Skadden Said Its Trump Deal Raised No Ethical Issues. Intelâs Shareholders Disagree.
There is a version of the Biglaw capitulation story where the nine firms that bent a knee to Donald Trump did some pro bono work on behalf of veterans, ate a news cycle, and moved on. That is the version the firms have been selling since jump, but the reality is quite a bit different.
Today, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Rep. Jamie Raskin, and Sen. Adam Schiff sent a letter to Skadden executive partner Jeremy London, the third such letter, for those keeping score, asking the firm to explain how it advised Intel on handing the Commerce Department a 10 percent equity stake in the company while simultaneously doing free legal work for that same Commerce Department. The lawmakers would like an answer by August 4, but, based on Skaddenâs track record⌠they should not hold their breath.
A refresher on how we got here, because the ledger is worth restating in full. When Trump started issuing unconstitutional executive orders designed to bring the legal profession to heel, a handful of firms â Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey â sued and are winning, repeatedly. More than twice as many bent a knee instead. Paul Weiss went first, settling six days after Trumpâs executive order for $40 million in pro bono services and the elimination of its DEI programs. Skadden followed with $100 million â preemptively, before any order existed â plus a pledge to fund at least five Skadden Fellows a year, which promptly cost the Skadden Foundation its executive director. Willkie Farr and Milbank each matched Skaddenâs $100 million, also preemptively. Then Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, and A&O Shearman came in at $125 million apiece â $500 million total, with their EEOC DEI investigations conveniently evaporating in the process â and Cadwalader rounded out the group at $100 million. Kirkland, it later emerged, tried to recruit the rest of Biglaw into the deal, and it and Simpson hired a top Trump fundraiserâs lobbying shop on the way in. Grand total: $940 million in pro bono payola for whichever causes strike the presidentâs fancy.
AI Is Reshaping Legal PracticeâBut Tools Arenât The Real Differentiator.
Explore the mindset, cultural shifts, and training strategies that define the AIâsavvy lawyer, revealing why human judgment, standardized competence, and integrated learningânot technology aloneâwill shape the future of the profession.
What work can and will count towards the firmsâ pro bono obligations under the deals is a bit of an unknown. Paul Weiss and Kirkland turned up doing free legal work for the Commerce Department on Trumpâs trade agenda, the very tariff work A&O Shearman had drawn a line at, which raised the awkward question of whether volunteering services to a federal agency violates the Antideficiency Act. The new letter revives that theory and adds a fresh wrinkle.
See, in March, an Intel shareholder sued in Delaware Chancery over the companyâs agreement to hand Commerce an $11 billion stake worth 9.9 percent of its equity. The complaint was recently unsealed in full, and it is not kind to Intelâs outside counsel. Shareholders allege the board handed over the equity âfor no meaningful consideration in response to extortionary threats by the government,â while âadvised by legal counsel [Skadden] that itself was conflicted due to its pro bono promises to the President.â The complaint further alleges that âSkadden apparently never opined as to whether the Stock Agreement was lawful,â and that no evidence shows the board was ever told about Skaddenâs conflicts at all.
Of course, this conflict was pretty obvious when the representation surfaced last August; indeed, it seemed a fact pattern too on-the-nose for a professional responsibility exam. The lawmakers say it is âhard to understandâ how this doesnât put Skadden crosswise with the Model Rules and its fiduciary duty to Intel.
The letter also notes that Skaddenâs outside counsel, in responding to the last round, declined to deny that the firm has done free work for a federal agency. It simply asserted that the firm does not agree such work would violate its Trump agreement or âany statutes, regulations, or ethical standards.â Which, tbh, is the legal equivalent of a shrug.
Filevineâs New Legal AI Platform LOIS Turns AI Into A True Legal Coworker
Legal work isnât slowing down, and the firms that win wonât be the ones working harder â theyâll be the ones working smarter.
And this is now a well-worn groove. Blumenthal and Raskin made the opening volley in April 2025. Reps. Dave Min and April Delaney urged the firms to disavow the deals outright. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse warned the nine theyâd be dragooned into fossil fuelâs service. The firmsâ collective response to all of it amounted to âwhat deals?â Kirkland got its fourth letter in March. American Oversight sued for the records after FOIA requests got it nothing. And the administration that supposedly bought these firmsâ peace has since subpoenaed all nine and noticed depositions of the partners who signed, including London himself.
Skadden has now stonewalled Congress on the theory that this all blows over eventually. Unfortunately for them, the problem now has a case number.
Earlier: Skadden Makes $100 Million âSettlementâ With Trump In Pro Bono Payola
Skadden Advises Intel On Trump Deal, Because What Are A Few Obvious Conflicts Among Friends?
Paul Weiss & Kirkland Doing Free Trump Commerce Department Work As Part Of âPlease Donât Hurt Us, Daddyâ Deals
Lawmakers Ask Paul Weiss And Kirkland To Explain Why Trump Work Isnât Totally Illegal
Democrats To Kirkland & Ellis: For The Fourth Time, What Exactly Did You Promise Trump?
Trump Turns On Capitulating Biglaw Firms HAHAHAHAHA
The DOJâs Biglaw Subpoena Explanation Raises More Questions Than It Answers
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1
How it works
Once you click Generate, Ollama reads this article and crafts 5 comprehension questions. Your answers are graded against the article content â general knowledge won't be enough. Score 70+ to count toward your certificate.
Questions are cached â you'll always get the same 5 for this article.