Which major firms and lawyers represent Donald Trump in his lawsuits?
Executive summary
Public reporting assembled here shows that the major national and international BigLaw firms in the headlines over the last year are mainly those that have sued or been targeted by President Trump — not firms publicly identified as his courtroom counsel — and that only a handful of firms have struck explicit “deals” with the White House to avoid punitive executive orders (Skadden is the clearest example) [1] [2] [3]. The sources reviewed do not provide a comprehensive list of major firms or the lead lawyers who are representing Donald Trump personally in his active suits; they instead document a broader clash between the administration and BigLaw over representation and retaliation [4] [5] [6].
1. BigLaw in the crosshairs — which firms are in the headlines and why
Several large firms are front-and-center because they either sued the administration over punitive executive orders (Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey) or have been named as targets by the White House for representing Trump’s political opponents, with those firms arguing the orders violate constitutional protections for lawyers and clients [7] [8] [4] [5].
2. Firms that made “deals” with the White House — the visible examples
Reporting documents at least one high-profile arrangement: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom announced a deal with the White House to provide substantial pro bono services and thus avoid the prospect of an executive order singling it out [1]; AP reporting says the administration reached agreements with five firms to avoid punitive steps, though AP’s story does not enumerate all five in the passages provided here [2].
3. Where reporting identifies individual lawyers — mostly on the plaintiff side
When sources name prominent lawyers, they are largely those who have joined suits against the administration: for example, former U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is noted as counsel in litigation challenging the executive orders (representing firms like Susman Godfrey) and Neal Katyal (Milbank) is cited as a lead advocate in other high‑profile challenges — not as Trump’s counsel in the material reviewed [4] [9] [10].
4. The absence of a clear roster for Trump’s personal plaintiffs/defense teams in these reports
Across these news items and trackers, the emphasis is on firms opposing Trump or negotiating with him; none of the provided stories set out a definitive list of major law firms or marquee trial lawyers retained by Donald Trump to represent him in his own civil suits or government‑filed matters. Reuters’ coverage of Trump’s JPMorgan lawsuit acknowledges the dispute but in the excerpts provided does not name Trump’s counsel [11], and the other pieces focus on BigLaw’s response to the administration, not on the president’s litigation team.
5. Two competing narratives in the sources — pressuring firms versus protecting independence
One narrative, documented by outlets like Reuters and ProPublica, describes firms wrestling with ethical pressures and market incentives after the White House’s public targeting; another, highlighted by advocacy groups, portrays some firms as capitulating or negotiating to avoid sanctions — a tension that shapes who will be willing to sue or defend the administration moving forward [10] [12] [3].
6. What can be concluded, and what reporting does not allow
It can be concluded from these sources that: (a) a set of major firms (Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey, Covington & Burling and others) have been plaintiffs or publicly resisting the administration’s actions [7] [8] [2] [6]; and (b) at least one global firm, Skadden, struck an explicit arrangement with the White House [1]. What the assembled reporting does not provide is a consolidated, source‑backed roster of the top firms and named senior lawyers actively representing Donald Trump in his civil lawsuits and criminal defense matters — that specific list is not present in the excerpts reviewed [11] [13].