Skadden Stated Its Trump Deal Raised No Moral Points. Intel’s Shareholders Disagree.

There’s a model of the Biglaw capitulation story the place the 9 companies that bent a knee to Donald Trump did some professional bono work on behalf of veterans, ate a information cycle, and moved on. That’s the model the companies have been promoting since leap, however the actuality is sort of a bit totally different.

Right this moment, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Rep. Jamie Raskin, and Sen. Adam Schiff sent a letter to Skadden govt accomplice Jeremy London, the third such letter, for these maintaining rating, asking the agency to elucidate the way it suggested Intel on handing the Commerce Division a ten % fairness stake within the firm whereas concurrently doing free authorized work for that very same Commerce Division. The lawmakers would really like a solution by August 4, however, based mostly on Skadden’s observe report… they need to not maintain their breath.

A refresher on how we received right here, as a result of the ledger is price restating in full. When Trump began issuing unconstitutional govt orders designed to convey the authorized occupation to heel, a handful of companies — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — sued and are successful, repeatedly. Greater than twice as many bent a knee as a substitute. Paul Weiss went first, settling six days after Trump’s govt order for $40 million in professional bono providers and the elimination of its DEI applications. Skadden followed with $100 million — preemptively, earlier than any order existed — plus a pledge to fund not less than 5 Skadden Fellows a yr, which promptly cost the Skadden Foundation its executive director. Willkie Farr and Milbank every matched Skadden’s $100 million, additionally preemptively. Then Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, and A&O Shearman got here in at $125 million apiece — $500 million whole, with their EEOC DEI investigations conveniently evaporating within the course of — 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 fundraiser’s lobbying shop on the way in which in. Grand whole: $940 million in pro bono payola for whichever causes strike the president’s fancy.

What work can and can rely in the direction of the companies’ professional bono obligations below the offers is a little bit of an unknown. Paul Weiss and Kirkland turned up doing free legal work for the Commerce Department on Trump’s commerce agenda, the very tariff work A&O Shearman had drawn a line at, which raised the awkward query of whether or not volunteering providers to a federal company violates the Antideficiency Act. The brand new letter revives that principle and provides a recent wrinkle.

See, in March, an Intel shareholder sued in Delaware Chancery over the corporate’s settlement at hand Commerce an $11 billion stake price 9.9 % of its fairness. The grievance was not too long ago unsealed in full, and it’s not variety to Intel’s outdoors counsel. Shareholders allege the board handed over the fairness “for no significant consideration in response to extortionary threats by the federal government,” whereas “suggested by authorized counsel [Skadden] that itself was conflicted as a result of its professional bono guarantees to the President.” The grievance additional alleges that “Skadden apparently by no means opined as as to whether the Inventory Settlement was lawful,” and that no proof reveals the board was ever instructed about Skadden’s conflicts in any respect.

In fact, this battle was pretty obvious when the illustration surfaced final August; certainly, it appeared a truth sample too on-the-nose for knowledgeable duty examination. The lawmakers say it’s “laborious to grasp” how this doesn’t put Skadden crosswise with the Mannequin Guidelines and its fiduciary obligation to Intel.

The letter additionally notes that Skadden’s outdoors counsel, in responding to the final spherical, declined to disclaim that the agency has performed free work for a federal company. It merely asserted that the agency doesn’t agree such work would violate its Trump settlement or “any statutes, laws, or moral requirements.” Which, tbh, is the authorized equal of a shrug.

And that 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 they’d be dragooned into fossil gas’s service. The companies’ collective response to all of it amounted to “what deals?” Kirkland received its fourth letter in March. American Oversight sued for the records after FOIA requests received it nothing. And the administration that supposedly purchased these companies’ peace has since subpoenaed all nine and noticed depositions of the partners who signed, together with London himself.

Skadden has now stonewalled Congress on the speculation that this all blows over ultimately. Sadly for them, the issue now has a case quantity.

Earlier: Skadden Makes $100 Million ‘Settlement’ 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 ‘Please Don’t Hurt Us, Daddy’ Deals
Lawmakers Ask Paul Weiss And Kirkland To Explain Why Trump Work Isn’t Totally Illegal
Democrats To Kirkland & Ellis: For The Fourth Time, What Exactly Did You Promise Trump?
Trump Turns On Capitulating Biglaw Firms HAHAHAHAHA
The DOJ’s Biglaw Subpoena Explanation Raises More Questions Than It Answers