Every year, Bloomberg Law selects a few standout law firms for their Pro Bono Innovator awards, highlighting significant contributions to public service through legal work. This year, Latham & Watkins has been honored for its commendable efforts in key legal battles, such as securing a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court victory in *A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools*. This landmark decision ensured that children with disabilities, like Ava Tharpe who suffers from severe epilepsy, have their discrimination lawsuits treated with the seriousness they deserve. Additionally, Latham’s work on the environmental front in Chicago’s South Side has not gone unnoticed. The firm played a crucial role in setting up a renewable natural gas offtake agreement for Green Era’s anaerobic digester at a remediated brownfield site, a project that supports urban farming and sustainable energy solutions.

However, despite these noteworthy contributions, a significant shadow looms over Latham’s pro bono record this year, which Bloomberg Law conspicuously omitted from its accolade. The firm was part of a controversial strategy involving a staggering $125 million offered to the government, purportedly as pro bono legal services, to placate Donald Trump and put an end to his unconstitutional demands. This move, unprecedented in the legal community, has sparked a heated debate about the ethical boundaries of pro bono work and the integrity of the legal profession.

Ironically, Latham wasn’t the first to make such a deal; Paul Weiss had already taken a similar step before them. This raises questions about the true innovation in Latham’s approach, as well as the broader implications of such actions for the legal industry. While these firms may continue their pro bono work, the nature and reception of these efforts have undeniably changed. The legal community and its observers are now grappling with the chilling effects these actions have had on other firms' willingness to engage in pro bono work, especially in politically sensitive areas.

The fallout has been significant, with other firms hesitating to take on cases that might draw political ire, particularly those involving immigrants or other groups disfavored by the Trump administration. This retreat from advocacy has broader societal implications, potentially leaving vulnerable populations without crucial legal support.

As the legal community reflects on these developments, the message seems clear: while firms like Latham continue to make valuable contributions to public service law, the broader ethical context and long-term impacts of their actions must also be acknowledged and scrutinized. It’s a complex tableau where commendable legal victories for the disadvantaged stand side by side with strategic decisions that may undermine the very foundations of justice and equity the pro bono system aims to uphold.