Law.com

Some of the biggest of Big Law firms made deals with the Trump administration Friday. 🟦 Kirkland & Ellis 🟦 Latham & Watkins 🟦 A&O Shearman 🟦 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 🟦 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft ⬛️ These five law firms are to provide a total of $600 million in all in legal services. 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲: https://lnkd.in/g_PkUTzz

‘White Students Not Eligible to Apply': ABA Facing Lawsuit Over Race-Based Law School Scholarship

ICYMI. A group of at least 10 lawyers who are well-known for their expertise in complex real estate finance and securitization are leaving Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft to join Sidley Austin. The move is "a big deal," one source said. https://lnkd.in/e9a4s9Sx

ICYMI. Skadden Makes A Strategic Play for Middle East M&A https://lnkd.in/geMQ_dVk

Federal Judge Sides with Boston College, Blocking University's Attempt to Sell Church

ICYMI. Reddit users slammed U.S. News for its latest law school rankings. One user called it a "joke" that Harvard Law School placed sixth. https://lnkd.in/gy4bGKc9

How I Made Partner: 'Focus on Building Relationships With Both Clients and Colleagues,' Says Liz Banks of Hogan Lovells

Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins and A&O Shearman have signed deals with Trump. Does this mean they can never turn down a Trump-approved mandate? It’s difficult to reconcile what the firms told employees (post-deal) with Trump’s 3rd edict (below). The firms have variously asserted that they will “maintain our independence in deciding which matters to take on”, that “as a firm we will select our clients”, that “the firm will determine which matters we take on”. Are they simply placating staff? Because, as well as securing $125 million of services from each firm, Trump has dictated, and the law firms have agreed, that they “will not deny representation to clients…because of the personal political views of individual lawyers”. One can assume that Trump will give this clause a (very) wide interpretation… …and that he might attribute any potential law firm resistance to “personal political views”… …which could see him refer ANY individual or body of his choosing (political ally, lobbyist, donor, advisor, ‘disenfranchised’ figure etc) to any one of these firms, with little fuss. Are the firms confident that they will always be able to staff Trump-approved pro bono matters (Big Law firms are, after all, large and, dare I say, diverse organisations)? Or do they have an as-yet-unseen limit to how much they’re willing to cede to Trump, and they will, at some point, say no? Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP were also among the deal signers. See Law.com’s latest, by Abigail Adcox: https://lnkd.in/dqkW6rPS Firm statements in the comments. #lawfirms #BigLaw #Trump #lawyers

Am Law 100: 2025 Trends, Insights & Strategies to Win Join ALM's upcoming webcast and be among the first to take a deep dive into the exclusive insights and trends revealed in our Am Law 100 data. How did the year ultimately shake out, and what does it all mean for 2025? Hear from the editorial and intelligence teams behind the report on the day it's released. You don't want to miss this opportunity, so sign up today! https://lnkd.in/g2Tiv3rQ

President Trump and the federal government were hit with a lawsuit filed by the American Foreign Service Association on April 7 in District of Columbia District Court challenging a recent executive order terminating collective bargaining rights for Foreign Service members and other federal employees. The suit, also filed by attorney Richard J. Hirn and O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue, alleges that the order exceeds statutory authority and constitutes illegal retaliation for issuing statements challenging the destruction of sensitive documents by the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the removal of DEI considerations as factors for performance evaluation and promotion in the Foreign Service. #LawdotcomRadar https://lnkd.in/g7dbZS9p