“Skadden’s Intel Work Conflicts With Trump Deal, Lawmakers Say” —

• “Top Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday sought information from Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom on the law firm’s agreement with President Donald Trump for free legal services.”
• “The firm’s work advising Intel Corp. on the US government’s 10% stake in the company ‘presents a host of conflicts given Skadden’s agreement with the Trump administration,’ Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote in a letter.”
• “Intel shareholders in a Delaware Chancery Court complaint in March alleged such a conflict, the lawmakers said in their letter to firm Executive Partner Jeremy London. ‘It is hard to understand how Skadden’s provision of free legal services to the Trump administration and the allegations made in the complaint do not cause Skadden’s attorneys to be in violation’ of professional conduct rules, they said.”
• “The letter emphasizes the investigatory threat Democrats pose to Skadden and eight other Big Law firms that collectively pledged $940 million in free legal services to the Trump administration last year in return for avoiding punitive executive orders. Democratic wins of either the House or Senate in the fall mid-term elections would supply committees they run with subpoena power to press investigations.”
• “So far the firm ‘has provided no responsive information or records in response to our requests,’ the lawmakers wrote, noting they have twice previously asked Skadden for information. The law firm didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.”

“When Hiring Rainmakers Demands ‘Surgical’ Precision” —

• “Not every lateral partner, even with a book of business, can add value to a Big Law firm’s practice. Some rainmaking laterals could be business accretive and add value, while others could afflict a firm’s culture or other partners’ business after a lateral move.”
• “‘We have to be surgical with our hires at this point to not cannibalize the business,’ noted Frank Lopez, chair of Paul Hastings, which has a leading finance practice within Big Law, when speaking of a lateral hire earlier this month.”
• “He’s far from alone. Other firm leaders also spoke on considerations of adding lateral partners to already well-built-out and mature practices, such as the potential for conflict and business conflicts, impact on culture, and the impact on other partners’ business.”
• “One Am Law 50 leader, speaking on condition of anonymity to speak freely, said that at their firm, knowing the reaction of the existing partnership is key to the hiring process. ‘No matter who you hire, you have to care about how your people are going to feel about them,’ the firm leader said. ‘You can’t talk about how culture matters and then bring people without taking that into consideration. That fit can be more important than the business case for bringing them on.'”
• “A lateral hire could impact an existing practice in a number of ways, including conflicts, taking business credit away from a current partner, or just adjusting the culture within a firm. If a firm has a highly ranked practice, with brand names staffing it as well as a strong market reputation, firms don’t want to cannibalize their own practice.”
• “‘Law firms don’t want to risk hiring into a practice and then losing someone,’ said Jon Truster, partner at recruiting firm Macrae. ‘And that is where firms need to be more surgical.'”
• “Law firms should ultimately be hiring people who can effectively leverage off the platform, noted Matthew Bersani, founding partner of Cliff Group recruiting firm. ‘That goes to the whole question about strategic hires,’ he said.”
• “Still, firms can also seek out laterals who have the same clients but different types of matters, such as trying to obtain litigation work from a client that has only given their transactional matters to a firm. Smart lateral hiring should be less about the book of business and more about the relationships laterals can bring and how those fit into the existing platform, he said.”
• “Business conflicts or actual client conflicts from a lateral can also damage a practice. Law firms always do conflict checks with laterals, but sometimes a potential conflict is missed, or the move is not as ‘accretive’ as the firm thought it would be, due to a conflict, Bersani said.”
• “For instance, a restructuring partner who is averse to big banks in debtor representations could lose out on business to banking and finance partners, who have strong relationships with these bank clients. ‘You’re forcing partners to pass up on other business,’ Bersani said.”
• “These lateral hiring conflict and business clash issues are a frequent problem for law firms, Bersani said, but it’s a matter of degree — some lateral partners may reduce or overlap with other partners’ business, but not significantly.”
• “‘It’s very hard to assess the magnitude of those issues from the outside,’ Bersani added. It’s important for the law firm bringing laterals in to do a deep dive on these potential issues before bringing them on board, he said.”
• “Lateral move conflicts and clashes with other partners’ business ‘probably happen more than firms would like them to,’ Bersani said. ‘In the current rapid-fire hiring market, sometimes these issues have been overlooked or under-appreciated in terms of the impact they can make.'”
• “And these issues are popping up more, as firms hire more laterals and more quickly. ‘One of the risks of bringing in laterals fast is you might be under-appreciating the potential conflicts issues,’ Bersani said.”
• “Rainmaker hiring is the one that firms put on the full court press, as one of these hires can have an outsized effect on the future of the firm. ‘Rainmakers are always on the table.'”