Pro Bono Publico Versus Pro Bono Presidential

In March and April 2025, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders directed at various law firms that had represented clients or undertaken actions with which the president disagreed. Those executive orders imposed various sanctions capable of destroying the firms financially. The administration also threatened a number of other law firms with similar types of executive orders.<br><br>While a few law firms chose to challenge the executive orders in court, the majority of firms targeted by the president entered into informal settlement agreements whereby the firms promised to provide between $40 million and $125 million worth of free “pro bono legal services” to causes supported by the president. In return, the president either revoked any sanction-containing executive orders or withheld from issuing such orders.<br><br>This Essay considers the propriety of these pro bono agreements from several perspectives. First, this Essay considers the voluntary nature of pro bono and examines the propriety of the executive branch coercing private lawyers to accede to particular pro bono obligations. Second, this Essay discusses the nature of pro bono activities as a means of assisting indigent individuals and considers whether presidential efforts to direct how private law firms fulfill their pro bono obligations constitute an improper privatization of the executive branch’s policy goals, particularly given presidential cuts to and curtailment of conventional public means of fulfilling those policy goals. Third, this Essay considers whether and to what extent the executive orders and settlement agreements discussed herein violate hard or soft principles of international law. The Essay concludes with brief suggestions about how to proceed going forward.