Big Law's Capitulation to Trump And What It Means For Nonprofit Law
Have the foxes always been guarding the henhouses?
In recent weeks, we've witnessed a concerning transformation in America's elite legal institutions. The most notable example came when Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison—one of the nation's most prestigious law firms—made headlines with its apparent capitulation to pressure from Trump. This shift represents more than just one firm's business decision; it reflects a broader erosion of principled independence within Big Law that threatens to reshape the civic landscape in ways few are discussing. Unfortunately, BigLaw partners often drive the boards of our biggest nonprofits. If the leaders of nonprofit law boards are the same corporate leaders who break when pushed by authoritarianism, nonprofit law itself is at risk of losing its way.
The Paul Weiss Inflection Point
Paul Weiss has long maintained a reputation as a firm committed to both corporate representation and progressive values—a delicate balance that seemed sustainable until recently. The firm's decision to back away from certain politically sensitive cases following pressure signals a troubling new reality: even America's most powerful law firms are increasingly vulnerable to political influence when their bottom line is threatened.
This isn't merely about one firm's internal policies. It represents a fundamental shift in how legal power operates in America—a shift that has profound implications for nonprofit organizations that have traditionally relied on Big Law for governance, pro bono representation, and civic leadership.
The Hidden Power Structure: Law Firms and Nonprofit Boards
What many outside the nonprofit sector don't realize is the extent to which major law firms have quietly shaped America's civil society through board leadership. Consider these realities:
Partners from AmLaw 100 firms occupy roughly 30% of board seats at major national nonprofit organizations
These board members often serve as finance committee chairs, governance leads, and sometimes board chairs
Their firms typically provide substantial pro bono legal services to these organizations
Their connections facilitate major donor relationships and corporate partnerships
This symbiotic relationship has traditionally benefited both sides: nonprofits gain sophisticated governance and free legal counsel, while law firms enhance their reputations and provide meaningful work for their attorneys beyond billable hours.
The Coming Moral Crisis in Nonprofit Law
As Big Law firms become increasingly responsive to pressure on politically sensitive issues, nonprofit organizations face a governance crisis with several dimensions. Historically progressive nonprofits may be lead astray by board members who become more risk-averse about civic engagement. These board members, who are often law firm partners, may increasingly recuse themselves from board discussions involving advocacy that could upset major clients, leaving nonprofits without critical governance expertise precisely when they need it most. Also, the retreat from politically sensitive pro bono work will leave many nonprofits without legal resources for their most important cases. Finally, nonprofit boards influenced by increasingly cautious legal advisors may pull back from bold advocacy positions, fundamentally altering their effectiveness and missions.
Organizations on the frontlines of today's most contentious issues—voting rights, environmental justice, immigration, reproductive health—will feel these shifts most acutely. Many of these organizations have historically relied on a governance model that assumes access to sophisticated legal minds who can navigate complex regulatory environments while supporting bold advocacy.
Recalibrating the Nonprofit Governance Model
Perhaps the moral reckoning that would come because corporate lawyers control nonprofits was long overdue. Maybe the nonprofit community was willfully ignorant of the fact that its most trusted leaders and advisors in corporate law were and have always been driven by the bottom line. What should be done about this?
Diversifying Board Composition
Organizations are recruiting legal expertise from mid-sized firms, government, and academia to reduce dependence on Big Law partners.
Building Independent Legal Capacity
Build stronger in-house legal teams rather than over-relying on pro bono support.
Strengthening Governance Policies
Create clear conflict-of-interest policies and board member independence statements.
Creating New Funding Models for Legal Work
Foundations should establish dedicated funds for legal support that nonprofits can access independent of Big Law's pro bono priorities.
The Long View
The relationship between America's legal institutions and its civic sector has always evolved in response to broader political and economic forces. The current moment represents a particularly challenging inflection point, but it also creates opportunities for more resilient, independent nonprofit governance.
What's clear is that the traditional assumption that Big Law will reliably stand behind civic organizations regardless of political pressure no longer holds. We're entering an era where nonprofits need to be much more intentional about where their governance capacity comes from and much less dependent on institutions that may have conflicting priorities.
For nonprofits at the forefront of today's most contentious issues, this means fundamentally rethinking board composition, legal strategies, and institutional relationships. Those that adapt most effectively will be positioned not just to survive but to lead in an increasingly complex civic landscape.
The erosion of Big Law independence isn't just a legal industry story—it's a profound shift in how power operates in American society, with implications that will reverberate throughout civil society for years to come.