Milbank has become the latest Big Law firm to strike a deal with President Donald Trump to avoid a harmful executive order.

As part of the deal Milbank has agreed to provide at least $100m in pro bono legal services to causes supported by both the firm and the president, according to Trump’s Wednesday (2 April) statement on Truth Social. The firm also agreed to “not engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences” or “deny representation to any clients on the basis of... political affiliation”. 

The move follows Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps and Willkie Farr & Gallagher cutting similar deals as Trump has targeted law firms he maintains have supported efforts to unfairly prosecute him or help his opponents, alongside a broader effort by his administration to challenge DEI policies.

So far five major law firms including Paul Weiss have been hit with executive orders, which among other measures threatened the firms and their clients with the loss of their government contracts and suspended their lawyers’ security clearances.

Milbank, which like Skadden and Willkie Farr made a deal before becoming the subject of an order, recently hired Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general and Supreme Court litigator who wrote a book making the case for impeaching Trump.

Trump’s statement also said Milbank would “continue to give fair and equal consideration to job candidates who have served in both Republican and Democrat administrations” and would continue to work with outside counsel to ensure its employment practices were fully compliant with the law. 

It added that Milbank had “approached” Trump and his administration, “stating their resolve to help end the weaponisation of the justice system and the legal profession”.

However, in a letter to Milbank employees published by Above the Law, firm chair Scott Edelman, wrote Milbank had been contacted by the Trump administration with “questions and concerns” about its approach to pro bono and diversity initiatives. 

Edelman wrote the administration “suggested to us that we enter into an agreement” similar to the one made by Skadden. 

“Having reviewed the Skadden agreement, we concluded that it was in the firm’s best interest to agree with the administration’s suggestion and enter into our own Skadden-type agreement,” Edelman told staff. 

He added that the deal would not lead to “any significant changes” to the firm’s current practices and its commitments were things the firm was “happy to do anyway”.

“Our agreement is consistent with Milbank’s core values,” Edelman wrote. “We are pleased to affirm a commitment to continue to engage in significant pro bono services in areas that are mutually supported by Milbank and the president.”

Paul Weiss chairman, Brad Karp, similarly defended his firm’s deal in a firmwide email, saying the executive order targeting it “could have easily destroyed our firm”.

However, law firms’ decisions not to push back against the orders has come in for fierce criticism from some in the legal profession, including junior lawyers at Skadden who have resigned in protest.

Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale have also been targeted with executive orders, but opted to fight back in court and have each been granted temporary restraining orders blocking critical elements of the orders.