Ed. note: Please welcome Vivia Chen back to the pages of Above the Law. Subscribe to her Substack, “The Ex-Careerist,” here.

THEY MIGHT BE LAUGHING their way to the bank but they aren’t crowing about it. Not openly, at least.

And who can blame them? It’s embarrassing to talk about selling your soul for profit.

I’m referring to the Capitulating Nine — Paul Weiss, Skadden, Latham & Watkins, Kirkland & Ellis, Milbank, Simpson Thacher, Willkie, A&O Shearman, and Cadwalader — law firms that pledged nearly $1 billion in “pro bono” work for Trump-approved causes to escape his wrath. They’re not talking about what kind of free services they’re offering Trump or how their client base has changed — and certainly not a word about morale at their firms.

They’re not talking, but Republican lobbyist Brian Ballard, who brokered some of those deals, is. Recently, he sat down with reporters and editors at Bloomberg Law (my former employer) to offer “a rare full-throated defense of firms that pledged $940 million in free legal services to President Donald Trump.”

What was touted as an “exclusive” boiled down to a puff piece for Ballard’s lobbying business. You’d expect tough questions for Ballard in a room full of journalists. But that’s not what came across. Sadly, it’s another example of how toothless the media has become in the age of Trump.

Ballard was quoted at length about the unique service he offers law firms and how the really smart ones (he cited Kirkland & Ellis and Simpson Thacher as clients) hired him to smooth the path:

If you are in the business in Washington, DC, of working for clients that have issues before the government, it’s better to be someone who can work with the government than someone who just says screw you. I think it’s pretty smart for those guys to have done what they’ve done — the guys we represented and others.

The self-promotion was shameless, but where was the follow-up? Where were the questions about how these “smart” deals damage a firm’s brand, compromise its integrity, or threaten the independence of the profession writ large? Isn’t there a moral component to these deals that merits discussion?

Puzzling, too, is why this statement by Ballard was left to stand without a rejoinder:

This administration wants to resolve things. They’re looking to address the issues that they’ve raised, but they’re not looking for battles. They’re looking for more friends than enemies

Really, the administration is just looking to make “friends”? And everyone in that room just let it go?

Ballard also slammed four firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — that did not capitulate but instead sued the administration over executive orders.

“Some of these law firms like the idea of having an enemy,” Ballard blithely told his audience, as if he had deep insights into the psychology of each firm. “Either for business reasons or political reasons, that’s why they do it.”

And was there a raised eyebrow to that statement? Well, it certainly wasn’t detectable from my reading. The reporting only noted, rather perfunctorily, that Bloomberg contacted the four firms but got no reply.

The article is chock full of Ballard’s self-serving comments, like how Kirkland got rewarded with trade work for the US government after making the deal with Trump. Though there was a passing nod or two to how controversial these deals are — “the firms since have faced a backlash in the legal community and among Democratic lawmakers” — the overall impression is that Ballard is the indispensable fixer for law firms in the Trump era.

It’s possible that some journalists in that room did ask him probing questions but that his responses were off-the-record. But if that’s the agreement, shouldn’t that be disclosed? Because as written, it appears as if the audience was so cowed by his remarks, so pleased that a Trump insider would regale them with his tales, that everyone stayed quiet like well-behaved children at a school assembly.

The real question is why Ballard was given this platform at all. If the hope was that he would cast a bright light onto the sausage-making process, he didn’t deliver. We learned nothing about the actual negotiations, how the firms and the Trump administration arrived at the price tag, or how much Ballard charges for his services. Instead, he controlled the narrative, driving home the point — ad nauseum — that he’s The Man.

To put it bluntly, this was an infomercial.

Journalists are supposed to be hellraisers. Not docile listeners. Guess I’m hopelessly old fashioned.

Subscribe to read more at The Ex-Careerist….

Vivia Chen writes “The Ex-Careerist” column on Substack where she unleashes her unvarnished views about the intersection of work, life, and politics. A former lawyer, she was an opinion columnist at Bloomberg Law and The American Lawyer. Subscribe to her Substack by clicking here:

The post Once Again, The Media Gets Snookered appeared first on Above the Law.