After the Notorious Nine Biglaw firms traded their principles to curry favor with the Trump administration by offering free legal services worth over $125 million to conservative-friendly causes, the nature and scope of these services have been shrouded in ambiguity and controversy. The firms, while publicly downplaying the significance of these agreements, have hinted at engagements ranging from defending police brutality cases to providing post-presidential legal aid to Trump.

Recently, a clearer picture has begun to emerge with Kirkland & Ellis's latest engagement with The Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank named after Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate known for his staunch libertarian views. This move could be seen as an attempt to meet their pro bono commitments in a more publicly palatable manner.

The Goldwater Institute, while sometimes engaging in questionable campaigns against DEI and campaign finance laws, has also been noted for its more reasonable efforts, such as fighting for the rights of individuals ensnared by arcane licensing regulations. Kirkland’s current project involves a comprehensive 50-state survey on civil jury trial protections, aligning with the Institute's advocacy for the right to a trial by jury and pushing back against administrative adjudications.

This task, though arguably mundane, steers clear of the more direct and politically sensitive work that Kirkland engaged in previously, such as acting as "Junior Deputies for the Commerce Department." Such roles have raised legal and ethical questions, particularly concerning the violation of federal laws against agencies accepting unpaid services.

While volunteering for a conservative think tank may temporarily appease observers and fulfill some portion of the $125 million pro bono promise, the true test of these firms' commitments will come when the administration makes more direct and potentially controversial demands. The question remains whether these firms, when called upon, will comply with requests that may push the boundaries of their publicly stated limits or whether they will divert with less contentious projects like the current one.

The ongoing relationship between Biglaw firms and the Trump administration continues to draw scrutiny and skepticism, challenging the firms to navigate complex legal, ethical, and public relations landscapes. As the situation develops, all eyes will be on these firms to see how they manage their obligations and the implications for their reputations and legal integrity.