In recent months, former President Donald Trump has floated several ideas about how elite law firms might uphold their pledges to offer free legal services — pro bono work — to support causes aligned with his administration’s priorities. These causes range from combating antisemitism and supporting police officers accused of misconduct, to advising on coal leases and international trade deals.

Trump Allies Look to Benefit From Pro Bono Promises by Elite Law Firms

Among the many individuals seeking to hold these powerful firms to their promises is Greta Van Susteren, a conservative commentator and licensed attorney. Van Susteren approached Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — one of the world’s largest and most prestigious law firms — with a specific request: to represent a 47-year-old military veteran who she believed had been wronged in a family court proceeding in Michigan.

According to Van Susteren, the veteran had been unfairly subjected to a protective order during a divorce case. She argued that this legal decision infringed upon his civil rights, citing the personal connection between the presiding judge and the veteran’s ex-wife, who was reportedly a friend and colleague of the judge. The order prohibited the veteran from seeing his children without supervision and barred him from owning a firearm. He had already spent over $200,000 in legal fees and related costs.

Van Susteren contacted Skadden’s head of pro bono services, hoping the firm would take the case. Initially, she said, the firm declined to provide representation. Later, Skadden followed up with an email offering only limited assistance in a “support role,” contingent on the veteran first retaining local legal counsel. Disappointed by the response, Van Susteren took to social media platform X (formerly Twitter), where she criticized the firm’s reluctance to act, labeling Skadden’s decision as “disgraceful” and tagging former President Trump in her post. “I was frustrated,” she later explained in an interview. “I genuinely wanted them to step up and help this veteran.”

Earlier this year, in an unprecedented move, the Trump administration negotiated agreements with Skadden and eight other prominent law firms, sparing them from executive orders that might have otherwise negatively impacted their business operations. In return, the firms pledged to collectively contribute nearly $1 billion worth of pro bono legal services and to represent clients regardless of political affiliation.

Since these agreements were made public, conservative groups and individuals closely aligned with Trump have begun reaching out to these law firms, seeking to benefit from the newly pledged resources. According to more than a dozen individuals familiar with the situation — some of whom spoke on condition of anonymity — a significant number of these outreach efforts have come from veterans, who see themselves as natural beneficiaries of the initiative.

In an email to Van Susteren, reviewed by The New York Times, Skadden noted that her request was among many the firm had received following the public announcement of their deal with the White House. Other firms involved in similar arrangements, such as Kirkland & Ellis and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, have also seen an uptick in requests, particularly from veterans who learned about the deals through media coverage or Trump’s posts on Truth Social.

Anticipating this surge in public inquiries, Kirkland & Ellis established a dedicated email address for individuals seeking legal aid. Two sources familiar with the firm’s internal planning noted that Kirkland also prepared for the possibility that staff handling pro bono cases could face harassment or even threats from the public, given the politically charged nature of the situation.

Paul Weiss, one of the first firms to finalize an agreement with the Trump administration, has also reported receiving multiple inquiries from veterans. These requests span a wide range of legal issues, from housing disputes to medical benefit claims. While sympathetic to these concerns, many of the firms are facing a dilemma: how to meet their pro bono commitments without compromising the established protocols that guide their selection of cases.

Traditionally, large firms like Paul Weiss rely on public interest organizations to pre-screen potential pro bono clients. This vetting process ensures that the firm’s resources are directed toward cases with broader social impact, such as defending civil liberties or aiding low-income individuals in life-altering legal battles.

But now, just a few months after entering into agreements with the Trump administration, these firms find themselves in unfamiliar territory. They must honor their new commitments while preserving their independence and managing internal tensions, as not all staff are on board with the idea of fulfilling politically motivated pro bono requests.

According to three individuals briefed on internal discussions, some firms are still unclear about how to define and document work that qualifies under their new commitments. Although the Trump administration suggested specific types of clients and issues the firms could focus on, a White House official confirmed that the government has made no formal demands for services on behalf of any specific individuals or groups. The official also stated he was unaware of Van Susteren’s request and declined to comment further.

Nevertheless, conservative organizations have begun mobilizing to take advantage of what they view as a unique opportunity. The Oversight Project, a group connected to the Heritage Foundation, has contacted numerous large firms, including those that settled with the White House, requesting up to $10 million in legal assistance to support conservative legal initiatives. While some firms declined these requests outright, others have continued discussions, according to Oversight Project president Mike Howell. His organization focuses on uncovering what it describes as the politicization of government institutions through legal mechanisms.

Some critics, however, argue that Trump and his allies are broadening the definition of pro bono work to suit their own ends. Steven Banks, who formerly oversaw pro bono operations at Paul Weiss and previously led the Legal Aid Society in New York, voiced concern over this shift. Banks emphasized that pro bono work has traditionally meant helping the disadvantaged push back against institutional power — not serving the interests of those seeking to challenge judges or support government policies. “Pro bono is about representing the less powerful against the more powerful,” Banks said.

Indeed, most elite firms already have a track record of supporting veterans’ causes, such as assisting Gold Star families — survivors of service members who died in the line of duty. But, as Banks noted, simply being a veteran is not always enough to qualify for free legal aid. Typically, recipients must demonstrate financial hardship or face government action that threatens their rights.

At some firms, internal divisions are beginning to emerge. At Kirkland, a group of junior attorneys has reportedly refused to participate in any cases related to the firm’s pro bono deal with the Trump administration. These lawyers made it known internally that they would not work on matters aimed at fulfilling that agreement, according to three people familiar with the situation.

In the case of Skadden, their pro bono deal — worth $100 million — drew the attention of Chuck Lang, a childhood acquaintance of Van Susteren. Lang believed that her White House connections (her husband holds a position in the administration) could help secure support for his veteran friend in Michigan. Lang argued that the veteran’s case fit squarely within the intended scope of the pro bono agreements, given the civil liberties concerns involved.

Despite Skadden’s refusal to directly represent the veteran, the firm suggested he first find a local attorney. In a message to Van Susteren, the firm explained that in some cases, legal matters are best handled by lawyers with local expertise. Skadden also indicated it would be open to collaborating with that attorney in a supporting capacity. “We believe the client would be best served with local counsel and our firm playing some sort of support role,” the email stated. In a separate message to the veteran himself, Skadden reiterated that once he had retained local counsel, that attorney should contact Skadden to explore possible assistance.

Van Susteren remained critical of the firm’s approach. “Most people don’t know how to navigate the legal system or find qualified attorneys,” she said. “That’s something they could have helped him with.”

As elite firms continue to walk a tightrope between public expectations, political pressures, and professional ethics, the full implications of their deals with the Trump administration are only beginning to unfold. The challenge now is not just in fulfilling their commitments — but in determining what those commitments truly mean.