NEWS: Sens. Schiff, Blumenthal, and Rep. Raskin Probe Involvement of Notorious Trump Fixer’s Role in Brokering Deals Between Kirkland & Ellis and Trump Administration

Washington, DC - Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Ranking Member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; and U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, are pressing top law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Kirkland) for answers on the involvement of Boris Epshteyn - President Trump's legal fixer and a co-conspirator to overturn the 2020 presidential election - in cutting deals with the firm to provide free legal services to the Trump administration.

The lawmakers' letter to Kirkland comes after the firm admitted that it is providing free legal services to federal agencies under the terms of its April 2025 deal involving Epshteyn but declined to provide any information except that Kirkland is "comfortable" with the arrangement.

"Kirkland has not only informed Congress that it is conducting legal work for government agencies-plural-but that it is doing so for free. In effect, Kirkland concedes providing free legal work directly after being threatened by the Trump Administration with a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation and the prospect of financial- and access-related penalties that were previously imposed on other law firms," the lawmakers wrote.

"We again request all records related to your agreement with the Trump Administration, including communications and written agreements, as well as all communications, meeting records, or documents relating to any negotiations with Mr. Epshteyn," the lawmakers continued.

The lawmakers previously sought information from Kirkland and other firms involved in negotiating pro bono deals with the administration, including Skadden Arps and Paul, Weiss. Kirkland confirmed the pro bono work in their most recent reply to the lawmaker's inquiry in October.

In their new letter, the lawmakers emphasize how offering valuable legal services while under threat from the federal government could involve violations of anti-bribery statutes, federal law, and the ethics rules governing attorneys.

Kirkland's reply to the lawmakers' last inquiry can be found here.

The full text of the letter to Kirkland is available here and below.

Dear Mr. Ballis:

We write (once again) regarding the profoundly troubling agreement that Kirkland & Ellis LLP ("Kirkland") entered into with the Trump Administration to provide "pro bono and other free services" to causes chosen by the President. We have written to your firm three times previously seeking documents and answers regarding this corrupt bargain, and Kirkland has provided no responsive information or records in response to any of these letters. In light of Kirkland's failure to meaningfully respond, and your firm's potential violation of federal law, we seek additional information about your firm's contacts with Mr. Boris Epshteyn and details of your work for the federal government.

We last wrote to Kirkland in September 2025 seeking to understand why your law firm promised $125 million in pro bono legal service to causes hand-picked by President Trump. Of particular concern are reports that your firm has provided legal counsel to the U.S. Department of Commerce regarding the Trump Administration's efforts to leverage unlawful tariffs into foreign trade agreements. Such legal work raises a host of obvious potential issues involving the Anti Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. §1342. It also implicates your ethical duties under bar association rules to other clients who have hired Kirkland to litigate or negotiate against the Trump Administration, duties that categorically prevent divided loyalties and arguably foreclose the work you have embarked upon.

Your October 6, 2025 response does not deny that you have undertaken free legal work for a government agency. Indeed, you confirmed that Kirkland is performing "legal work" without pay "for government agencies pursuant to the Agreement [with the Trump Administration]." Far from offering concrete assurances, you simply stated Kirkland is "comfortable that the agreement does not run afoul of the issues that you raise in your letter."

This admission is startling. Kirkland has not only informed Congress that it is conducting legal work for government agencies-plural-but that it is doing so for free. In effect, Kirkland concedes providing free legal work directly after being threatened by the Trump Administration with a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation and the prospect of financial- and access-related penalties that were previously imposed on other law firms.

Bribery, as defined by federal law, is a corrupt offer to-or solicitation by-a public official of anything of value, in exchange for official action.5 The elements of bribery are not difficult to trace here, even if the fact pattern is unique: Kirkland has offered free legal services, a thing of immense value, directly to the government (and to the President's pet legal causes), in exchange for not issuing an executive order targeting Kirkland and dropping an EEOC investigation into Kirkland's hiring practices. A government contractor cannot legally avoid debarment by promising free goods or services; a law firm cannot avoid an investigation and sanction by doing the same. If your agreement to provide pro bono services to Trump's pet causes was problematic, your agreement to provide free legal services to his Administration could prove illegal.

The involvement of Mr. Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump Administration official, legal fixer, and a Trump co-conspirator to overturn the 2020 presidential election, raises yet further concerns about this arrangement. Mr. Epshteyn has been dogged by reports that he solicited illegal pay-to-play schemes in exchange for securing political appointments in the Trump Administration. Former Missouri Governor Eric Greitens reportedly submitted a sworn declaration to the Trump Transition Team, because he "was concerned there was an offer [by Epshteyn] to advance a nomination in return for financial payments." Mr. Epshteyn was subsequently removed from the Trump 2024 presidential campaign and has been the subject of multiple criminal complaints. It is highly troubling that your agreement with the Trump Administration was brokered by an individual with a demonstrated history of seeking private payments for official acts from other individuals or organizations during the same time period.

Kirkland's provision of free legal services to the Trump Administration may cause Kirkland's attorneys to be in violation of the American Bar Association (ABA) Rules of Professional Conduct and your fiduciary duty to many of your clients. Under ABA Rule 1.7, a concurrent conflict of interest exists where "there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client. Unquestionably, there exists a "significant risk" that your representation of any client adverse to the Trump Administration "will be materially limited" by your responsibilities to the Trump Administration itself. The Deputy Attorney General has, in fact, taken exactly this position, issuing guidance specifying that a private lawyer's opposition or adversity to any element of the federal government is a conflict imputed to the entire executive branch. Under the D.C. Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct, every lawyer at Kirkland would be affected by this conflict of interest because it affects them financially. To proceed despite such a conflict, Kirkland's attorneys must reasonably believe that they can provide competent and diligent representation, and, "receive the client's 'informed consent' to the conflict 'after full disclosure of the existence and nature of the possible conflict and the possible adverse consequences of such representation.'"

Thus, either Kirkland has obtained each client's "informed consent" to its representation of the Trump Administration, and the hundreds of downstream, potential conflicts posed by such a representation, or it has likely failed to abide by its ethical responsibilities. If Kirkland believes it possesses a defense under the Rules of Professional Conduct, including that it has individually informed its clients of the potential and particularized conflict or that its agreement with the Trump Administration was a project of coercion, it should say so. If not, then Kirkland's attorneys may have violated their ethical responsibilities en masse.

The time for short, nonresponsive replies-assuring us that Kirkland knows best and feels comfortable about its arrangements with the Trump Administration-is over. We again request all records related to your agreement with the Trump Administration, including communications and written agreements, as well as all communications, meeting records, or documents relating to any negotiations with Mr. Epshteyn.

This information is crucial to our work conducting oversight of the Trump Administration's outrageous and unprecedented efforts to coerce major law firms and law firms' willingness to enter into unlawful agreements to provide pro bono work to the Administration. This inquiry will inform potential legislative reforms into laws and regulations governing the ethical requirements of federal public officials, agencies' engagement of outside counsel, and the regulation of attorneys and interstate law firms, the Antideficiency Act, or the scope of bribery laws impacting pseudo-public and private deals with an Administration

Please provide the following information by March 16, 2026:

1. All communications from Kirkland, or its agents, with Boris Epshteyn or his agents or associates, including but not limited to, meetings records, phone calls, emails, text messages, or letters;
2. A list of all individuals or entities who corresponded with Kirkland, or any of its agents, to discuss an agreement with the Trump Administration, including the date(s) of any and all contacts;
3. All agreements made with the Trump Administration, including but not limited to, settlement records, client retainer letters, conflict disclosures, and any communications informing such agreements; and
4. A list of all federal agencies that Kirkland has performed work for, the number of hours spent working for those agencies, and the billable value of those hours;

Please contact the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House Judiciary Committee should you have any questions about responding to these requests.

###