President Donald Trump’s executive order about “private-sector pro bono assistance” for law enforcement officers accused of wrongdoing has added further uncertainty for the Big Law firms that have struck deals with Trump to provide free legal services.

The executive order — issued late Monday in a series of executive actions — has already led some commentators to further chide the nine Big Law firms that struck deals with Trump. Meanwhile, some legal ethics experts point to the vague terms of the executive order and likely “resistance” of lawyers who don’t see eye-to-eye with Trump on pro bono.

Trump’s executive order on Monday directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to create a program to provide legal resources and “indemnification” to law enforcement officers who “unjustly incur expenses and liabilities for actions taken during the performance of their official duties to enforce the law.” It’s a part of an executive order designed to provide additional support to state and local law enforcement.

“The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action to create a mechanism to provide legal resources and indemnification to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities for actions taken during the performance of their official duties to enforce the law,” this executive order states. “This mechanism shall include the use of private-sector pro bono assistance for such law enforcement officers.”

In total, Trump has announced deals with nine law firms: Kirkland & Ellis; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Latham & Watkins; A&O Shearman; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft; and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.
Of those nine firms, which have pledged at least $940 million in pro bono services, all but one of the deals include language in the publicly available deal terms mentioning “law enforcement” in relation to the types of pro bono legal services the firms agree to provide.

For instance, Trump’s Truth Social announcement about the Kirkland, Latham & Watkins, A&O Shearman and Simpson Thacher deals states the firms have agreed to work on matters that both Trump and the firms agree on in several areas listed.

Those areas include “Assisting Veterans and other Public Servants, including, among others, members of the Military, Gold Star families, Law Enforcement, and First Responders; ensuring fairness in our Justice System; and combatting Antisemitism,” the post states.

Paul Weiss’ deal with the president is the only one that does not explicitly mention “law enforcement,” however it’s unclear if it will fall within the parameters of the “mutually agreed projects.”

“Paul, Weiss will dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services over the course of President Trump’s term to support the Administration’s initiatives, including: assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the Justice System, the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects,” Trump’s Truth Social post announcing the deal states.

The latest executive order led to a flurry of criticism for the firms reaching deals with Trump.
“Bet the Skadden associates are jazzed to learn they will be representing the DEFENSE side of Sec. 1983 cases pro bono,” said one Big Law partner on Bluesky, along with a screenshot of Trump’s executive action.

Prominent Democratic lawyer Marc Elias also posted a screenshot of Trump’s action, writing: “Hey Paul Weiss associates — meet your new pro bono clients. It’s ok, the Skadden associates are getting the coal companies.”

Trump has previously said he wants deal firms to work on trade negotiations and coal leasing.

Trump said earlier this month that he’ll try to “use these very prestigious law firms to help out with trade.” He also mentioned deal firms could help work on coal leasing during an event with coal miners.

Representatives for all nine law firms that have made pro bono deals with Trump did not return messages seeking comment.

Leslie Levin, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, indicated that the use of “law enforcement” in firms’ deal language could mean a variety of things, from pro bono work for law enforcement officers who need wills or are seeking divorces to defending law enforcement in cases where they are alleged to have violated someone’s civil rights or are criminally charged.

“Since Trump claims that his agreement with the law firms includes work for ‘law enforcement,’ the firms’ agreements could arguably extend to defending law enforcement personnel who are sued for violating an individual’s civil rights,” Levin said. “Yet an enforceable agreement requires a meeting of the minds. I suspect this type of work was never raised and that there was no discussion of the firms doing this sort of work. “

Some types of pro bono work for law enforcement could meet resistance at firms, she noted.

“If Trump is expecting the law firms to defend police in civil rights cases where, for example, a police officer killed an unarmed victim, this is more likely to meet resistance from some law firm lawyers than trade negotiation work,” said Levin. “Of course everyone is entitled to a lawyer. But many lawyers in private practice would not be comfortable representing a police officer in that situation. Some lawyers would say that they could not do it.”

Recent comments from the president have escalated questions surrounding what pro bono work law firms will ultimately do as part of their agreements and what communication, if any, has occurred between these firms and the White House since their deals were formalized.

One person at a firm who has struck a deal said in mid-April they had not heard from the White House since the deal signing, as Law.com previously reported. With Trump incorporating “private-sector” pro bono into other executive actions now, it’s not clear whether that will change soon

“From some of Trump’s statements, it seems pretty clear that he thinks the nearly $1,000,000,000 in legal services are his to spend for whatever and whomever he wishes,” noted New York University legal ethics professor Stephen Gillers in an email.

“No one is going to court to enforce this. No judge will order a firm to accept a particular client,” he added. “If Trump concludes he is being stiffed, he will reinstate the order or issue a new one. He does not need the courts. Probably, courts are the last place he wants to be.”