Like that old saying, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again, Democrats in Congress are taking a *fourth* shot at trying to get Kirkland & Ellis to be upfront about the firm’s deal with Donald Trump. At this point, it’s almost a tradition. Democrats ask questions. Kirkland & Ellis sends back a politely worded shrug. Repeat.
Now Richard Blumenthal, ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Adam Schiff are trying again — fourth time’s the charm! — to get the world’s richest law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, to explain exactly what it promised the Trump administration in order to avoid one of those retaliatory executive orders targeting Biglaw.
And this time, they sound done playing nice. “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,” the March 2, 2026 letter reads.
Humans in the Loop: The People Powering Trusted Legal AI
As the use of artificial intelligence permeates legal practice, a critical question confronts every legal professional who uses these tools: Can I trust this?
As readers will recall, the Trump administration rolled out a series of executive orders threatening law firms that represented political adversaries or maintained diversity initiatives the White House didn’t like. Some firms fought. They won. The orders were struck down as unconstitutional.
Others? They made deals.
Kirkland was one of nine firms that opted for the “let’s just make this go away” approach rather than litigate. Along with firms like Paul, Weiss, Kirkland entered into an agreement that allegedly resolved an EEOC investigation while committing to certain pro bono work that just so happened to align with administration priorities.
Kirkland’s first response to Congress, dated April 28, 2025, framed the deal as consistent with its “meritocratic ideals” and described the EEOC matter as resolved. Its second letter, dated October 7, 2025, insisted the firm was “comfortable that the agreement does not run afoul of the issues that you raise in your letter.”
Comfortable! That’s nice. Here’s the problem: in that October response, Kirkland acknowledged it was performing legal work — for multiple government agencies — for free. And that’s something lawmakers now characterize as “startling.”
If this saga needed more intrigue, the latest letter raises concerns about contacts with Boris Epshteyn, described in the letter as “a former Trump administration official, legal fixer and a Trump co-conspirator to overturn the 2020 presidential election.”
Lawmakers are particularly interested in any communications or negotiations involving Epshteyn, who has reportedly been linked to alleged pay-to-play schemes involving political appointments.
The Dems are out there making allusions to bribery and that demonstrates just how thin their patience is.
The frustration is palpable, “The time for short, nonresponsive replies—assuring us that Kirkland knows best and feels comfortable about its arrangements with the Trump administration—is over.”
That’s about as close as congressional correspondence gets to “we are not amused.” Ball’s back in Kirkland’s court — let’s see how they read the room.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].