In a peculiar twist of legal and political narrative, the specter of forgotten promises hangs heavily over nine major law firms. Months ago, these firms capitulated to President Donald Trump's demands, assenting to nebulous pro bono obligations to sidestep potential retaliatory executive actions. The story has since taken on an air of suspenseful silence, with both the firms and the Trump administration playing a game of memory chess.

These law firms, which had initially pledged to preserve their independence, now find themselves in an anticipatory breach of their agreements, as reported by American Lawyer. The deals, informally sealed and broadcasted via social media, have left these legal giants in a precarious position. Their pro bono promises, vague as they are, have plunged these firms into a tactical quietude, hoping beyond hope that President Trump's attention has shifted elsewhere.

Three months post-agreement, silence reigns supreme. None of the involved firms have disclosed details on how they intend to meet their commitments, nor have they engaged in the controversial defense of police brutality cases, which Trump's administration has explicitly anticipated as part of the deal. This reticence has not come without cost. The firms have seen a steady trickle of high-profile departures, a testament to the internal and external dissent these agreements have stirred.

Ethics experts suggest that this silence is strategic. Both the firms and the Trump administration might be avoiding pushing the envelope, wary that pressing too hard could backfire. According to Rebecca Roiphe, a professor of law at New York Law School, Trump has already extracted a symbolic victory from these firms, and pushing further could turn this win into a significant loss, especially if legal battles ensue.

Indeed, the legal landscape here is fraught with abnormality. The firms, having already shown a willingness to yield, find themselves at a disadvantage. Trump, holding the cards, could revive his executive orders at minimal cost to himself, further cornering these legal entities. Some firms have indeed challenged these orders successfully in court, but Trump’s persistent appeals reveal a strategy less concerned with legal outcomes and more focused on causing inconvenience and rallying his political base.

Meanwhile, the broader impacts of these agreements have rippled across the legal industry. There's a noticeable chill in the pro bono work traditionally carried out by Biglaw, as firms navigate the treacherous waters of staying off Trump’s radar while still trying to engage in meaningful legal work.

Despite the overarching strategy of silence and hope, the shadow of these agreements lingers. Legal experts and insiders speculate that while Trump might forget, his administration will not. Yet, the very nature of these agreements—informal and precarious—means that their unfolding will be as unpredictable as the political climate they sprang from.

In the end, these Biglaw firms may find themselves in a prolonged state of limbo, caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, with their future actions possibly dictated by the whims of a forgetful, yet strategically astute, administration.