1. Home
2. Daily News
3. After 4 BigLaw firms reach deals with Trump,…

Law Firms

After 4 BigLaw firms reach deals with Trump, their future may include coal industry pro bono, DEI caution

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 9, 2025, 10:41 am CDT

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he has some work for BigLaw firms that made pro bono pledges to avoid punitive executive orders.

Trump told coal miners at a White House event that he will direct the law firms to help the coal industry with leasing and also said he would use the firms to negotiate tariffs, report Bloomberg Law, Law.com and Law360.

Four firms have reached deals with Trump. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono services to mutually supported pro bono projects. Three others each pledged $100 million in pro bono work. Those firms are Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

The deals called for pro bono work in areas that include assisting veterans and public servants, ensuring fairness in the justice system and fighting antisemitism. Milbank’s deal also mentions its work with an exoneration and resentencing project.

Another pledge made by firms was to commit to merit-based employments practices and to refrain from illegal discrimination and preferences related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Following its deal, Skadden removed future events for its employee affinity groups from its calendar, Bloomberg Law reports in a story based on emails and unnamed sources.

During the event Tuesday, Trump signed four executive orders to help the coal industry, the Washington Post reports. One order directs the Department of the Interior to prioritize coal leasing on public lands.

Others tell the attorney general to block enforcement of state laws that impede coal production, tell the Environmental Protection Agency to delay a federal pollution rule that burdens coal-fired power plants, and direct the Department of Energy to prevent the closing of coal and other power plants in regions with an insufficient supply of electricity.

Law360 recounted Trump’s comments.

“Have you noticed a lot of law firms have been signing up with Trump? A hundred million dollars, another $100 million, for damages that they’ve done,” Trump said.

“But they give you $100 million, and then they announce that, ‘But we have done nothing wrong,’” he said. “And I agree, they’ve done nothing wrong, but what the hell, they give me a lot of money considering they’ve done nothing wrong.”

“We’ll use some of those people. We’re going to use some of those firms to work with you on your leasing and your other things,” Trump said. “I think they’re going to do a fantastic job.”

Coal miners and executives were among those attending the event.

Trump began issuing executive orders penalizing disfavored firms in February, beginning with a Feb. 25 order targeting Covington & Burling. Three other firms sued in response to the orders. They are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie.

The executive orders typically called for suspension of lawyers’ security clearances, restricted employee access to government buildings, blocked government hiring of firm employees, and required agencies to take steps to terminate contracts with the firms and their clients—if the firm provided services in connection with the client contract.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Diversity references scrubbed from BigLaw…

Diversity

Diversity references scrubbed from BigLaw websites amid DEI probes; informal guidance issued

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 20, 2025, 11:57 am CDT

BigLaw firms are scrubbing diversity mentions from their websites and reexamining policies amid the Trump administration’s attack on diversity, equity and inclusion programs that it considers to be illegal.

Many law firms began changing their websites even before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asked 20 firms to supply information on their DEI practices. Publications covering the changes include Law.com, Above the Law and Bloomberg Law.

The EEOC has published informal guidance on DEI measures that can constitute illegal discrimination in a document and a website Q&A, Bloomberg Law reports.

The document, issued jointly with the U.S. Department of Justice, said DEI programs may be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if they involve an employment action “motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s race, sex or another protected characteristic.”

Prohibited conduct may include exclusion from fellowships, training, mentoring and employee affinity groups, the document said.

According to media reports, these firms are reacting:

  • DLA Piper has disbanded minority organizations and affinity groups. It also removed preferred pronouns from signature blocks on employee emails. (Bloomberg Law, Above the Law)

  • Kirkland & Ellis took references to a diversity and inclusion fellowship offline and has a new webpage touting a “Welcoming Environment.” (Law.com)

  • K&L Gates removed references to “diversity” from its website, changed the name of its Diversity and Inclusion Committee to the Opportunity and Inclusion Committee and has an “Opportunity and Inclusion” webpage. (Above the Law, ABAJournal.com, Law.com)

  • A Proskauer Rose webpage describing affinity groups is now titled “Inclusion.” Articles referring to diversity efforts now have URLs that go to the “Inclusion” page. (Above the Law)

  • Hogan Lovells has renamed “diversity, equity and inclusion” to “HL inclusion.” A DEI video has also been removed. (Law.com)

  • Latham & Watkins has redirected a DEI webpage to a page entitled, “At Latham & Watkins, you belong as you are.” The firm also removed a paragraph referring to “institutional racism.” And the firm apparently changed the name of its “diversity scholars program” to “pathways scholars program.” (Law.com)

  • Squire Patton Boggs highlights “inclusion” on the firm landing page and apparently renamed its “Global Office of DEI.” It has been replaced with a reference to “Global Workplace Culture and Development Leadership.” (Law.com)

  • Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Sidley Austin have apparently updated their landing page to reference “inclusion.” (Law.com)

See also:

EEOC chair requested ‘extensive’ info from law firms on DEI practices and hiring; did it cross a line?

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the Oval Office at the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo/Alex Brandon).

A federal judge in Virginia has given the Trump administration and CIA the green light to pluck intelligence workers from offices focused on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — falling in line with the president’s axing of DEI policies — after originally agreeing to block their terminations last week with a temporary restraining order.

“Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, and for the reasons stated from the bench, it is hereby ordered that the administrative stay, entered on February 18, 2025, is vacated, with Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the deferred resignation program (“DRP”) and other employment options, made available to them under the CIA Director’s February 18, 2025 Memorandum, extended to at least to 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday, March 3, 2025,” the Thursday order from U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga said. “Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, and for the reasons stated from the bench, it is hereby ordered that the administrative stay, entered on February 18, 2025, is vacated.”

Trenga ruled from the bench, saying he was siding with Trump and CIA Director John Ratcliffe to vacate the TRO based on current laws and regulations in place that give them the authority to fire intelligence employees at will, according to The New York Times.

The judge reportedly said that he would have agreed to keep the TRO in place for the 11 plaintiffs — all intelligence workers who were fired — if the argument would have been centered around basic fairness. The federal employees at risk of being fired work in offices and have roles tasked with overseeing diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs across all intelligence agencies.

More from Law&Crime: ‘Profoundly erroneous’: Trump admin says Biden-appointed judge’s order requiring ‘immediate outlay’ of nearly $2 billion is ‘without legal basis’

Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee who presides over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, extended the deadline to Monday, March 3, for workers to resign under a deferred resignation program (“DRP”) and other employment options made available to them that allows them to be paid through Sept. 30. Employees are unable to challenge the firings or transfer to other agencies, per Trenga.

When the judge stayed the firings last week, he said that he was looking for “clarification” as to what agency regulations are involved in the case and the potential harm caused to the plaintiffs if they were to be terminated.

“Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, the Court concludes that it would benefit from Defendants’ response to the Motion, including clarification as to what Agency regulations are implicated in this case and the potential irreparable harm to Plaintiff John Does 1-6 and Jane Does 1-5,” Trenga’s Feb. 18 order said. “As the Court awaits full briefing and argument on the Motion, it exercises its powers under the All Writs Act and its inherent powers to manage its docket, to issue an administrative stay.”

After Thursday’s ruling came down, several intelligence workers — including those who filed the suit — gave Assistant U.S. Attorney Dennis Barghaan, who argued Trump’s case, a tongue lashing outside of court.

“You should be ashamed. You should really be ashamed of yourself,” one of the plaintiffs said, according to Politico. “That was really disgusting.”

When Trump issued his Jan. 20 orders ending DEI programs shortly after taking office, he condemned the initiatives and policies as being a corruption of “our institutions” and an attempt to replace “hard work, merit, and equality with a divisive and dangerous preferential hierarchy,” according to one order. Three different directives were handed out targeting diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility roles.

“The previous administration has embedded deeply unpopular, inflationary, illegal, and radical practices within every agency and office of the Federal Government,” Trump said.

The DEI crusade has sparked multiple lawsuits and at least one other TRO in Maryland, where a federal judge blocked Trump from targeting federal agencies and contractors.

It’s unclear how many intelligence officers will be dismissed by the CIA, with as many as 51 being listed by lawyers for the employees. The plaintiffs suing the Trump administration include six men and five women who worked for the CIA and Director of National Intelligence. They claim in their complaint that they were unlawfully targeted and terminated due to “their assumed beliefs” about DEI policies without cause and notice.

“While intelligence officers lack recourse to the Merit System Protection Board, their own agencies classified internal regulations provide procedures for terminating officers,” the complaint says. “Officers’ basic rights include notice, the development of a record, to consult with counsel, and the opportunities to be heard and to appeal. Plaintiffs have received none of these rights.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Bar associations could be targeted, Trump…

Bar Associations

Bar associations could be targeted, Trump DEI order says, spurring response from 2 of them

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 23, 2025, 10:55 am CST

Bar associations could be targeted for investigation under President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end “illegal preferences and discrimination” in government and the private sector.

The order issued Tuesday called for federal agencies to identify up to nine entities for possible civil compliance investigations, including large nonprofits and state and local bar associations.

The order declared that “influential institutions of American society” are using “dangerous, demeaning and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility’ (DEIA) that can violate the civil rights laws of this nation.”

Reuters has the story on the response from two state bar associations.

The State Bar of California said its programs won’t be affected because “none of our work in this space involves illegal discrimination or preferences.”

Victoria Santoro, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, also said the state bar is not breaking the law.

“I think there are better ways our federal government could use its time than looking at bar associations,” Santoro added.

The American Bar Association is not commenting at this time, a spokesperson told the ABA Journal.

The ABA’s Goal III calls for eliminating bias and enhancing diversity by promoting full and equal participation in the association, the legal profession and the justice system. Over the last few years, these ABA diversity programs and policies have come under scrutiny:

  • The ABA section that is recognized as the accrediting group for JD programs has been wrangling with changes to its diversity standard for law schools. As currently written, Standard 206 says law schools “shall demonstrate by concrete action” a commitment to having a student body, faculty and staff who are “diverse with respect to gender, race and ethnicity.” The section decided to revise the standard following a June 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down race-conscious admissions programs at universities.

The latest proposed revision under consideration by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar requires a commitment to diversity for all people, including listed members of historically disadvantaged groups.

The wording change didn’t satisfy 21 attorneys general in Republican-controlled states, who warned that it “appears to perpetuate unlawful racial discrimination.”

  • At least nine ABA diversity programs were targeted by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty in a civil rights complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice in May 2024. The ABA’s general counsel, Annaliese Fleming, said at the time the ABA programs are lawful. and the allegations are “factually and legally incorrect.”

In October 2024, the ABA updated its description of one targeted program—its judicial clerkship program—because some language “did not accurately reflect the operation of the program,” Fleming said in a statement explaining the change. The program introduces law students from diverse backgrounds to judges and law clerks.

  • The ABA changed its diversity policy for continuing legal education programs that it sponsors after the Florida Supreme Court banned course credit in the state for programs with panel “quotas.” The old ABA policy had numerical requirements for diverse panelists; the new policy says CLE organizers “will invite and include” moderators and faculty members to create panels to meet Goal III objectives.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The legal professional lacks diversity. In other news, the sun is hot, law school is expensive and junk food is bad for you.

Not to be facetious, but the lack of diversity when it comes to race, gender, sexuality, disability and social class within the legal profession is nothing new. However, the last decade has marked a gradual increase in diversity across all fields.

For instance, according to the most recent ABA Profile of the Legal Profession report, women only make up 39% of the lawyers in this country, despite women being over 50% of the population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Nevertheless, that 39% is actually an increase, compared to where it was 10 or even 20 years ago.

Meanwhile, racial minorities only make up 21% of the lawyers in this country—an improvement over 10 years ago, when it was only 11%, according to the report. There are similar trends when it comes to sexual orientation and disability.

However, diversity, equity and inclusion programs, or DEI for short, have come under attack lately. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action programs in college admissions, and several groups have started challenging the legality of DEI programs at law firms and companies.

Are we looking at an undoing of all the progress that’s been made over the last few decades to make the legal profession more diverse?

In this episode of the Legal Rebels Podcast, Lisa Kirby and Kavita Ramakrishnan of Diversity Lab, a think tank that uses metrics, behavioral science and design thinking to produce initiatives that cultivate diversity and inclusion in legal organizations, talk to the ABA Journal’s Victor Li. They discuss diversity in the legal profession and where DEI efforts might be heading.

Want to listen on the go? Legal Rebels is available on several podcast listening services. Subscribe and never miss an episode.
Apple | Spotify | Google Play

In This Podcast:

Lisa Kirby

Lisa Kirby is the president of inclusive talent systems at Diversity Lab. She has worked as a practicing attorney, a talent management professional and a law firm consultant. After beginning her career as a litigator at two large law firms, Kirby then spent several years in professional development at Goodwin Procter, where her contributions included helping launch and lead the firm’s Women’s Initiative.

Kavita Ramakrishnan

Kavita Ramakrishnan is the Mansfield Rule and knowledge-sharing senior director at Diversity Lab. Ramakrishnan spent nearly 10 years practicing as an attorney at the New York offices of Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello, where she defended companies in complex civil litigation and represented individuals and entities under investigation by various federal and state authorities. She also represented indigent defendants under the Criminal Justice Act and worked closely with nonprofit organizations as co-counsel on pro bono matters.