WASHINGTON — Representative Jamie Raskin formally requested Wednesday that the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom produce detailed billing records for the $100 million in pro bono legal services it agreed to provide the White House. Both parties described the arrangement as a 'settlement.' Neither has been able to identify what was settled.
The deal was announced in February 2025, after Little Donnie Dollhands’s administration issued an executive order threatening to suspend security clearances for attorneys at firms that represented political targets. Skadden at the time faced no known lawsuit, claim, or regulatory inquiry from the federal government. A firm press release called the commitment a 'voluntary demonstration of the firm’s civic duty.'
The pro bono work since then has included drafting amicus briefs defending the administration’s most contested executive orders, reviewing candidate vetting materials for the White House personnel office, and preparing a 147-page memo on whether the president can lawfully instruct the IRS to audit a private citizen who criticized him on cable news. A Skadden associate granted anonymity described the memo as 'ultimately inconclusive but very well-researched.' The associate added, 'I tried to list it as a publication credit on the firm website. They said no, which was probably a gift.'
In his letter, Raskin wrote that 'a settlement traditionally requires the resolution of some actual adverse action. We are simply trying to ascertain what action Skadden resolved.' He demanded time entries, client-matter codes, and all correspondence with the White House Counsel’s office related to the $100 million figure. He also requested records of any entertainment expenses incurred by partners who met with officials to discuss the agreement.
A Skadden spokesperson declined to address the letter directly. The firm’s previous public statement said it was 'gratified to have reached an amicable understanding with the Executive Office of the President regarding a confidential administrative review.'
Legal ethics scholars expressed puzzlement. 'The word "settlement" implies a pre-existing dispute. Without one, this resembles a payment—except the currency is legal labor, which somehow makes it stranger,' said Ellen Rosenfield, who teaches professional responsibility at Georgetown Law. 'It’s like a restaurant paying a health inspector in free meals to settle an inspection that never happened.'
The firm has until August 23 to produce the records. In response, Skadden assembled a team of 14 associates to review the letter and draft a reply. The time will be billed to a newly created pro bono matter code: 'Executive Inquiry Compliance Review.' An internal memo advised partners that their billing rates, which top $2,100 per hour, would be disclosed if requested. A preliminary review of expenses found a $4,700 dinner at a Washington steakhouse charged to a matter code labeled 'Transitional Governance Planning.'
