DOJ Lawyer Unaware of Formal Agreements Between Trump and Major Law Firms, Court Reveals

During a federal court hearing, DOJ attorney Richard Lawson admitted he was unaware of any written agreements between former President Trump and nine major law firms beyond Trump's Truth Social posts. The statement was made in a lawsuit by Susman Godfrey, challenging an executive order that targeted the firm. The case questions the legality and transparency of Trump's dealings with legal institutions. Despite reports of agreements with some firms, details remain unclear, raising concerns about the administration's use of executive power to influence legal compliance.

DOJ Lawyer: “I Know of No Other Documents”

During the hearing before U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, DOJ attorney Richard Lawson was asked whether any formal, written agreements existed between the Trump administration and the nine Big Law firms that had reportedly pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal work in exchange for avoiding punitive executive orders. Lawson responded, “I know of nothing beyond the generally publicly available information,” referring specifically to Trump’s Truth Social posts. He added, “That’s not saying there isn’t any, but I know of no other.”

The admission came as part of a broader legal challenge by Susman Godfrey, a Houston-based law firm that was the subject of an April executive order from Trump. The order sought to revoke the firm’s security clearances, bar its attorneys from federal buildings, and cut off access to government contracts. Judge AliKhan has already issued a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of Trump’s directive and is now considering whether to make that block permanent.

Vague Terms and Lack of Transparency

The nine law firms that reportedly reached deals with Trump—announced via brief Truth Social posts—include some of the most powerful names in the legal industry. These posts, typically around 400 words in length, lack specific details such as timeframes for the pro bono commitments or mechanisms for enforcement. They also omit any mention of reporting requirements related to the firms’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices, which have been a focal point of Trump’s criticism.

Despite the public nature of the announcements, neither the White House nor the law firms involved have provided further documentation or clarification. Requests for comment from the firms and the administration have gone unanswered. This opacity has fueled concerns about the legitimacy and enforceability of the arrangements.

Susman Godfrey’s Legal Challenge

Susman Godfrey’s lawsuit argues that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional and retaliatory, targeting the firm for its DEI policies and for representing clients whose causes the administration opposes. The firm is represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who told the court that the executive order was “designed to punish” the firm for its affiliations and advocacy.

Verrilli also referenced a similar case involving the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which had its attorneys’ security clearances suspended under a nearly identical executive order. In that case, a federal judge recently ruled in favor of the firm, granting summary judgment and reinforcing the argument that such executive actions may be unconstitutional.

Executive Orders and Alleged Retaliation

The Trump administration has issued multiple executive orders targeting law firms and individual attorneys, often citing national security concerns or alleged illegal DEI practices. In the case of Susman Godfrey, the administration claimed the firm’s diversity efforts were discriminatory and contrary to the interests of the federal government.

However, when pressed by Judge AliKhan to provide evidence of racial discrimination by the firm, Lawson was unable to do so. He pointed to the language in the executive order, which he described as “only commentary,” and not a directive for specific action. The judge noted that a significant portion of the administration’s legal brief focused on condemning the firm’s DEI initiatives.

Written Agreements: A Murky Picture

While Lawson claimed ignorance of any written agreements, Bloomberg Law has reported that four of the nine firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and A&O Shearman—have signed written agreements with the White House. However, these documents reportedly lack substantive details on how the firms would fulfill their commitments.

Additionally, these four firms have also entered into arrangements with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), agreeing to submit confidential certifications every four months regarding their compliance with DEI-related expectations. When asked for comment, an EEOC spokesperson told Business Insider, “We don’t have anything for you on this.”

Broader Legal and Ethical Implications

The case has drawn attention to the broader implications of the Trump administration’s approach to legal institutions. Critics argue that the administration is using executive power to coerce law firms into political compliance, effectively punishing those that do not align with its priorities. The nearly $1 billion in pledged pro bono work has been described by some legal commentators as a form of “pay-to-play” arrangement, raising ethical concerns about the independence of the legal profession.

Meanwhile, the firms that agreed to Trump’s terms have remained silent, neither confirming nor denying the existence of formal agreements. This silence has only deepened the mystery surrounding the deals and heightened scrutiny from the legal community and the public.

References

• DOJ lawyer has no idea if Trump has written agreements with Big Law firms beyond his Truth Social posts
• Susman Godfrey: President Trump Executive Order is ‘Unconstitutional — Full Stop’ - The Texas Lawbook
• DOJ lawyer has no idea if Trump has written agreements with Big Law firms beyond his Truth Social posts
• Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration - Wikipedia
• Cadwalader Feels The Fallout From Cowardly Trump Deal - Above the Law