Christopher E. Palmer

Top congressional Democrats are once again pressing Kirkland & Ellis on the nature of its deal with President Donald Trump, according to a newly published letter of inquiry addressed to firm chairman Jon Ballis. The latest letter from Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee; and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, is now their fourth attempt to get concrete answers about the nature of Kirkland’s deal with the president, in which the firm promised to provide $125 billion in pro bono services under the president’s term. Since striking the deal, Kirkland has also reportedly taken on work for the U.S. Department of Commerce for free. “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 latest inquiry, postmarked March 2, 2026, reads. “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.” In two April 2025 letters, Blumenthal, Raskin and Schiff first sought information regarding Kirkland’s deal with the president as well as Kirkland’s possible attempts to recruit lawyers from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which was targeted with a punitive executive order from the Trump administration earlier in the year. In a third inquiry, posted in September 2025, the group of representatives sought information regarding the nature of Kirkland’s work with the Commerce Department or any other government agency as well as details on whether the firm was being compensated for that work. In two responses, both signed by Kirkland litigation partner W. Neil Eggleston, a former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, Kirkland provided minimal details about its agreement with the president. The first response, dated April 28, 2025, described the deal as adhering to the firm’s meritocratic ideals and resolving an EEOC investigation into the firm; the second response, dated Oct. 7, 2025, indicated that the firm was “comfortable” with the agreement it made with the administration, stating that Kirkland retained its autonomy in selecting whom to represent and was keenly “attuned” to potential client conflicts as a result of the agreement. “Your (September 2025) letter raises a number of legal issues in connection with legal work the firm performs without pay for government agencies pursuant to the agreement. We are comfortable that the agreement does not run afoul of the issues that you raise in your letter,” Kirkland's second response reads. However, the most recent Congressional inquiry takes issue with Kirkland’s admission to performing work for an unidentified set of government agencies for free. “This admission is startling,” the letter states, referring to Kirkland’s October response. “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 letter ultimately suggests that Kirkland’s work for the federal government may fall under the category of bribery. Compounding that accusation, the letter also raises concerns about the role of former Trump administration official Boris Epshteyn in striking the deal and describes previous allegations of bribery involving Epshteyn. “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,” the letter reads. “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.” Furthermore, the inquiry raises several other concerns with Kirkland’s deal, ranging from creating conflicts around clients looking to sue the Trump administration, violations of the American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct, and possible violations of the Antideficiency Act. “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,” the inquiry insists. The letter requests that Kirkland provide Blumenthal, Raskin and Schiff with all of its communications with Boris Epshteyn or his agents; a list of individuals or entities who wrote to Kirkland or its agents to discuss an agreement with the administration; all agreements made with the administration, including client retainers and conflict disclosures; and a list of federal agencies the firm has provided work to, including the number and billable value of the hours worked. However, while Democratic lawmakers have continued to press firms to provide details on their deals with the president, since they are in the minority, they aren’t able to force firms to respond to inquiries and would likely need Republican support for any subpoena efforts. A spokesperson for Kirkland & Ellis did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Representatives for Blumenthal and Raskin did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for Schiff pointed to a recent X post from the Senator. "Top law firms are still providing free legal services at Trump's bidding, even though doing so may be a clear violation of the law. Just one day after the administration said it would abandon its defense of its attacks on law firms, they unsurprisingly reversed course," Schiff's post reads, tagging Raskin and Blumenthal. "[We] are continuing to demand answers — including the role Trump fixer Boris Epshteyn played in brokering these corrupt bargains." This article has since been updated with a comment from Sen. Adam Schiff.

Mar 3

4 min

Top congressional Democrats are once again pressing Kirkland & Ellis on the nature of its deal with President Donald Trump, according to a newly published letter of inquiry addressed to firm chairman Jon Ballis. The latest letter from Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; and Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee is now their fourth attempt to get concrete answers about the nature of Kirkland’s deal with the president, in which the firm promised to provide $125 billion in pro bono services under the president’s term. Since striking the deal, Kirkland has also reportedly taken on work for the U.S. Department of Commerce for free. “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 latest inquiry, postmarked March 2, 2026, reads. “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.” In two April 2025 letters, Blumenthal, Raskin and Schiff first sought information regarding Kirkland’s deal with the president as well as Kirkland’s possible attempts to recruit lawyers from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which was targeted with a punitive executive order from the Trump administration earlier in the year. In a third inquiry, posted in September 2025, the group of representatives sought information regarding the nature of Kirkland’s work with the Commerce Department or any other government agency as well as details on whether the firm was being compensated for that work. In two responses, both signed by Kirkland litigation partner W. Neil Eggleston, a former White House counsel to President Barack Obama, Kirkland provided minimal details about its agreement with the president. The first response, dated April 28, 2025, described the deal as adhering to the firm’s meritocratic ideals and resolving an EEOC investigation into the firm; the second response, dated Oct. 7, 2025, indicated that the firm was “comfortable” with the agreement it made with the administration, stating that Kirkland retained its autonomy in selecting whom to represent and was keenly “attuned” to potential client conflicts as a result of the agreement. “Your (September 2025) letter raises a number of legal issues in connection with legal work the firm performs without pay for government agencies pursuant to the agreement. We are comfortable that the agreement does not run afoul of the issues that you raise in your letter,” Kirkland's second response reads. However, the most recent Congressional inquiry takes issue with Kirkland’s admission to performing work for an unidentified set of government agencies for free. “This admission is startling,” the letter states, referring to Kirkland’s October response. “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 letter ultimately suggests that Kirkland’s work for the federal government may fall under the category of bribery. Compounding that accusation, the letter also raises concerns about the role of former Trump administration official Boris Epshteyn in striking the deal and describes previous allegations of bribery involving Epshteyn. “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,” the letter reads. “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.” Furthermore, the inquiry raises several other concerns with Kirkland’s deal, ranging from creating conflicts around clients looking to sue the Trump administration, violations of the American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct, and possible violations of the Antideficiency Act. “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,” the inquiry insists. The letter requests that Kirkland provide Blumenthal, Raskin and Schiff with all of its communications with Boris Epshteyn or his agents; a list of individuals or entities who wrote to Kirkland or its agents to discuss an agreement with the administration; all agreements made with the administration, including client retainers and conflict disclosures; and a list of federal agencies the firm has provided work to, including the number and billable value of the hours worked. However, while Democratic lawmakers have continued to press firms to provide details on their deals with the president, since they are in the minority, they aren’t able to force firms to respond to inquiries and would likely need Republican support for any subpoena efforts. A spokesperson for Kirkland & Ellis did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Representatives for Blumenthal and Raskin did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for Schiff pointed to a recent X post from the senator. "Top law firms are still providing free legal services at Trump's bidding, even though doing so may be a clear violation of the law. Just one day after the administration said it would abandon its defense of its attacks on law firms, they unsurprisingly reversed course," Schiff's post reads, tagging Raskin and Blumenthal. "[We] are continuing to demand answers — including the role Trump fixer Boris Epshteyn played in brokering these corrupt bargains." This article has since been updated with a comment from Sen. Adam Schiff.

Mar 3

4 min

Kirkland & Ellis advised private equity funds sponsored by Tract Capital, an alternative asset manager focused on creating businesses that support digital infrastructure growth, data centers and generative AI, on the lease and purchase and sale of real property for a 230-megawatt utility capacity (200-megawatt critical IT capacity), turnkey data center and electrical substation to be built in Storey County, Nevada. The project has been 100% leased to a AA- investment grade rated tenant pursuant to a 197-month “triple net” lease. Read Tract Capital’s press release The Kirkland team advising on the lease included real estate lawyers Kim McGrath and David Arbus; investment funds lawyers Jordan Murray and Joseph Baldwin; and tax lawyer Mark Schwed. The Kirkland team advising on the purchase and sale included corporate lawyers Melissa Kalka and Emily Lichtenheld; real estate lawyer Andy Small; investment funds lawyers Jordan Murray and Joseph Baldwin; and tax lawyer Mark Schwed.

Mar 2

1 min

Rather than opening doors in Miami or Fort Lauderdale, New York midsize firm Cullen and Dykman is opting for a different approach for its first office in Florida. Palm Beach has seen substantial wealth arrive from the Northeast in recent years, and it's no longer a trend, but a permanent shift, according to firm managing partner Christopher H. Palmer. That's why the firm, which focuses on banking and financial services, opened a new office in the area Monday and is set on serving the corporate and high net worth clients that have established residency or secondary headquarters in Palm Beach. "Our goal is that the entire firm and all practice areas within our firm and all departments will identify growth opportunities," Palmer said. "We're starting to see that already: Demand is strong." Palmer said that the firm is launching with six attorneys who are Florida admitted. The firm's website currently lists four lawyers attached to the Palm Beach office. Partners Saara J. Pekale, Konstantine G. Traganas and associate Brittany L. Froning are also attached to the firm's Long Island office, while partner Leon Sokol is also attached to the Hackensack, New Jersey office. Palmer added that the firm is looking for lateral opportunities for growth in South Florida. The firm, which was founded in 1850 and is the fourth oldest law firm in New York, had 185 lawyers nationwide in 2024, according to ALM data. The new office is the firm's eighth nationwide and first outside of the mid-Atlantic region. Cullen and Dykman joins a growing number of Am Law 200 and midsize firms that have followed the money to South Florida in recent years. Am Law 50 firms have largely targeted Miami, with prominent examples including Winston & Strawn, Cooley, Kirkland & Ellis, Sidley Austin and Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. Many firms in the Second Hundred, meanwhile have looked to Fort Lauderdale, including Freeman Mathis Gary, Offit Kurman and Hinckley Allen & Snyder. Cullen and Dykman—alongside Am Law 100 firm Taft Stettinus & Holister, which signed a 10-year lease in West Palm Beach just five months after first entering Florida via a merger with Mrachek Law—are outliers in Palm Beach County. "By opening the office in Palm Beach, we're really following our client's capital and servicing them," Palmer said.

Mar 3

2 min

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson has added two partners in its mergers and acquisitions and private equity practice, as the firm seeks to further bolster its trans-Atlantic transactional offerings. Kirkland & Ellis’ Rhett McPhie joined Fried Frank in London, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius’ Nathan Pusey joined the firm in New York on Tuesday. Both were partners at their former firms and are the latest in a series of lateral additions Fried Frank has made to its M&A team in recent months. Steven Epstein, Fried Frank’s managing partner and co-head of the M&A and PE practice group, said in an interview that growing that practice area has been a priority for the firm. Fried Frank works on a financial year that ends February 27, last Friday, and Epstein said that the M&A group's performance in 2025 was some of the best it has ever seen. Epstein did not speak to specific revenue figures for the firm, but said that in 2025, Fried Frank saw close to $5 trillion in deal volume in the M&A space at large, a number which he said would make it the second strongest year in the M&A space behind 2021, which just surpassed $5 trillion in deal volume. According to Epstein, the market had more than 70 deals in 2025 valued at $10 billion or more, and he expects to see continued strength in the market despite the ongoing uncertainties in the economic and political landscape. “A lot of the uncertainties .. remain for boardrooms and C-suites, like affordability, inflation, interest rates, geopolitical risks, tariffs, onshoring production, or onshoring manufacturing,” Epstein said. “They existed in 2024, 2025, and they persist in 2026. Having said that, I think a lot of C-suites and boardrooms have learned how to price those risks into their transactions. And what you're seeing is very large transactions getting done.” Much of the firm's client work is happening across borders between the United Kingdom and the United States, Epstein said, noting that this is supported by Fried Frank’s years-long project to expand its asset management and M&A and private equity offerings into London. According to Epstein, the growth of Fried Frank’s offerings in London has led to an organic client growth in the area that overlaps with the firm’s clients in America, which then led to trans-Atlantic deals. Lateral partner additions like McPhie and Pusey help meet increased demand in the M&A and private equity space, Epstein said. Including those two new laterals, Epstein said the practice now has 26 partners and just over 100 total lawyers across the firm. A representative for Morgan Lewis said in an email to Law.com that the firm wishes Pusey well. Representatives for Kirkland did not immediately respond to requests for comment on McPhie’s departure. The trans-Atlantic growth effort has involved several lateral hires, including McPhie and Pusey. At the beginning of February, Fried Frank also added Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman’s mergers and acquisitions and private equity practice leader Stephen Amdur in New York. In Washington, D.C., the firm added antitrust partner Shawn Johnson from Crowell & Moring in January. The firm also took another mergers and acquisitions partner from Kirkland, Saif Shah Mohammed, for its D.C. office in December, making McPhie the second Kirkland mergers and acquisitions partner to move to Fried Frank in the last six months. While the firm has been adding lateral partners to its mergers and acquisitions and private equity practice, it has also lost partners in that same practice over the past few months. In September, the firm lost two mergers and acquisitions partners when Andrea Gede-Lange moved to Clifford Chance and Thomas Lee went to Latham & Watkins, both in New York. Epstein said that the firm has made and added more partners to the mergers and acquisitions and private equity team than it has lost. He said competition for strong talent remains robust, and the firm is itself in talks with more potential laterals for the mergers and acquisitions and private equity practice, as well as other practices like antitrust, though he declined to provide specific names.

Mar 3

3 min