In a climate of increasing tension between Big Law and the latest U.S. administration, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom has found itself at the focal point of controversy. The firm’s recent agreement to undertake $100 million worth of pro bono work tied to White House initiatives has sparked criticism from some quarters, including one of its own associates, Rachel Cohen. Cohen, a finance lawyer based in Chicago, has been vocal in her disapproval of Skadden’s agreement with President Donald Trump. She chastised the firm for what she considers a concessionary posture in an era where, she believes, the legal industry ought to adopt a more adversarial stance against the government’s executive orders.
The deal in question involves Skadden evading a potentially punitive executive order, a type of legislative action that the current administration has increasingly wielded against larger law firms. Interestingly, this arrangement commits Skadden to $60 million more in pro bono work than a similar agreement made by Paul Weiss weeks earlier. Cohen argues that “the industry is not uniting” against such pressures, singling out the associates as the lone group showing a proactive approach amid ongoing challenges posed by governmental directives.
The dissatisfaction is not confined to private grumblings. On the contrary, more than 1,500 Big Law associates voiced their concerns anonymously through an open letter. Cohen, however, chose not to hide behind anonymity, further intensifying the spotlight on her advocacy efforts aimed at compelling partners to adopt a firmer line against the government’s moves.
Cohen’s outspoken critique of Skadden’s decision—branded by her as a “craven path”—has culminated in her resigning from the firm. However, her departure was not solely driven by the recent developments. Her resignation was tendered before the firm’s deal with the government hit the headlines. As her exit from Skadden approaches, she continues to urge fellow associates to leverage their distinct position of power within law firms by engaging in what she terms a “recruitment strike” until more robust countermeasures against Trump’s executive orders are seen.
The notion that Big Law associates hold latent power that could be wielded against corporate inertia is a sentiment Cohen elaborated on during a conversation for Bloomberg Law’s podcast, On The Merits. Her call to action underscores the importance of associates, described as the “workhorses” of firms. She argues that partners are highly unlikely to take on the formidable workload typically delegated to junior attorneys, thereby highlighting a critical leverage point for associates in their advocacy for industry change.
If you wish to dive deeper into Cohen’s insights and her discussion with Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kokrda Kamens, consider listening to the full episode of On The Merits.