President Trump’s announcement that, as part of what he calls “essentially a settlement,” the law firm of Skadden Arps will offer the federal government $100 million in pro bono legal services amounts to a stunning indicator of how Big Law has been upended. 

Not every firm, though, is settling. The suits against the Trump administration filed by the law firms of Jenner & Block and Wilmer bring into sharp focus a shift dividing Big Law’s response to Mr. Trump’s escalating confrontation with pillars of America’s legal establishment — and their stratospheric profits. 

Jenner & Block and Wilmer join a third firm, PerkinsCoie, in contesting executive orders that target their ability to operate in respect of the federal government. Even as these firms gear up to take on Attorney General Bondi’s Department of Justice in court, Skadden joins Paul Weiss in striking deals with the administration to avoid punitive orders.

Mr. Trump’s order against Jenner announces that he “is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called ‘Big Law’ firms, that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests.” The order reckons that Jenner “has abandoned the profession’s highest ideals, condoned partisan ‘lawfare,’ and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice.”

The president’s order especially laments Jenner’s decision to  “re-hire the unethical Andrew Weissmann after his time engaging in partisan prosecution as part of Robert Mueller’s entirely unjustified investigation.” Mr. Weissman was Mr. Mueller’s chief deputy during the investigation into Mr. Trump for alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Mr. Weissman could not be reached for comment.

Mr. Trump’s Sharpie also marked an executive order this week against Mr. Mueller’s longtime firm, WilmerHale. Although Mr. Mueller retired from WilmerHale in 2021, the order declares that “Mueller’s investigation epitomizes the weaponization of government.” Mr. Trump accuses the firm of “employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice.”  

When Mr. Mueller returned to private practice after serving as special counsel, the firm declared: “We couldn’t be happier to have Bob, our extraordinary friend and colleague, return to WilmerHale.” There is now no reference to Mr. Mueller on the firm’s website. Wilmer, in a statement, cites its “longstanding tradition of representing a wide range of clients.”       

Now Jenner and Wilmer are fighting back. Jenner’s suit contends that Mr. Trump’s order threatens not only the firm, “but also its clients and the legal system itself. Our Constitution, top to bottom, forbids attempts by the government to punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate.”

The firm also alleges: “Continued refusals by federal officials to meet with Jenner lawyers, or denying Jenner lawyers access to federal agencies and buildings, would be devastating to both Jenner’s legal practice and its clients’ interests.” Wilmer, in a separate suit, argues that the executive order “will severely hinder the Firm’s ability to effectively serve its clients—the lifeblood of any law firm. And, by design, it discourages clients from retaining or maintaining WilmerHale as their counsel.” 

Wilmer’s lawyer is a conservative legal luminary who once served as America’s solicitor general, Paul Clement. He was most recently retained by Judge Dale Ho to advise the jurist on whether to accede to the government’s request to dismiss criminal bribery charges against Mayor Adams. Mr. Clement counseled Judge Ho to dismiss those charges “with prejudice,” meaning permanently. Three weeks later, there has been no word from the judge.

If precedent is prelude, Wilmer and Jenner could succeed in persuading a federal judge to freeze the orders against them. That’s because earlier this month Perkins won an injunction from Judge Beryl Howell blocking the implementation of the executive order against the firm. The judge, in a stinging rebuke, ventured that the order “sends little chills down my spine.” She also accused Mr. Trump of resembling the Queen of Hearts from “Alice in Wonderland.”

Judge Howell on Thursday denied the DOJ’s request that she recuse herself. In a stinging decision she reckoned that not even “the power and prestige of the president of the United States or a federal agency” is sufficient to “demand adherence to their own version of the facts and preferred legal outcome.” Judge Howell reasoned that Mr. Trump’s strategy amounts to: “When you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger.”

No such litigation will be forthcoming from Paul Weiss, a firm that has long prided itself on its liberal bona fides — its leader, Brad Karp, hosted a “Lawyers for Biden” fundraiser in 2023. Mr. Karp, though, faced with an executive order similar to those handed down against four other firms, struck a deal with the White House whereby the firm pledged $40 million in pro bono work for causes favored by the administration.

Paul Weiss, which also agreed to cease all diversity, equity, and inclusion  initiatives, reports that it brought in more than $2.6 billion in revenue last year. Skadden’s revenue amounted to more than $3 billion. Skadden has agreed to represent “politically disenfranchised groups, who have not historically received legal representation from major national law firms.”