At the beginning of President Donald Trump's second term, Texas Civil Rights Project legal director Dustin Rynders thought he would find a large law firm to help lead the nonprofit's response to the coming surge of immigrant arrests.

Instead, as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests have reached record levels, a network of attorneys largely from smaller firms has volunteered to help people challenge their detention in federal court.

Rynders said he couldn't find a BigLaw firm to commit to the effort because of what he called large firms' "unprecedented pulling away" from publicly taking on civil rights cases.

"It has required moving to nontraditional partners in many ways to build up that pro bono infrastructure," Rynders said.

Legal advocacy groups face a changed pro bono landscape during Trump's second administration. Soon after he returned to office, Trump targeted law firms and lawyers for reasons including their pro bono work, which can include assisting people with individual legal problems or fighting court battles through litigation. While some firms have since doubled down on pro bono efforts amid increased demand for help, others are still avoiding cases against the federal government, nonprofit leaders say.

In turn, some legal organizations are developing volunteer networks, relying on smaller shops and solo practitioners, and leaning more on their own staff attorneys, they told Law360. These efforts, though, can't match the resources of the world's largest and most profitable firms — from their huge teams of lawyers and paralegals to expensive legal technology tools that nonprofits cannot afford.

"We're doing what we can to make up the difference," said Lauren Bonds, executive director of the National Police Accountability Project. "We're being strategic and pivoting and seeing how we can put together teams that can be effective advocates. But it is much harder. … We know that there are cases that are falling through the cracks as a result of the divestment of pro bono firms."

She said her organization used to work with three major firms as co-counsel on federal civil rights litigation, but now doesn't partner with any of them. Instead, it is working with boutique firms and pooling resources with other civil rights litigation groups. The lack of support from BigLaw contributed to the nonprofit's decision to add another staff attorney to its small team, she said.

The situation has put pressure on the firms that are willing to handle certain issues.

Bonds said firms that didn't back away from civil rights and criminal justice reform work are inundated with requests.

It's "hard to get on people's schedules and to get your issue in front of them," she said.

Rynders said that during the second Trump administration, there have been instances where attorneys from large firms have reached out to express interest in working on cases, but could not get their firm's approval. The organization has received multiple offers to "ghostwrite" legal filings, meaning their names won't appear in public documents, or do other behind-the-scenes work, such as research.

"The reality is that what you really want is a true partner," he said. "That doesn't mean we won't take the resource, but firms spend a lot more time on things they put their names on."

"Overwhelming demand"

Early in his second term, Trump issued a series of executive orders aimed at law firms, some of which cited firms' pro bono work. The orders suspended security clearances for firm employees, limited their access to government buildings and took other actions against them.

Nine firms struck deals with the White House, while four others sued over the measures.

Large firms have historically played a key role in pro bono litigation against the government. But amid the White House orders, nonprofits saw BigLaw back away from working on topics that could be viewed unfavorably by the administration, such as transgender and immigration rights. Some firms also erased references on their websites to past pro bono work.

One BigLaw pro bono leader who did not want to be named recently told Law360 that the 2025 executive orders created a chilling effect on some pro bono work at the time, and that some firms are still "being overly cautious" about what work they take on.

But that doesn't nearly "explain the whole story here," the person said, citing "overwhelming demand" for pro bono work combined with capacity constraints. Many BigLaw firms "are now more dominated by corporate attorneys than litigators," and "a lot of these matters that nonprofits need help with need litigators."

Trump administration policies are increasing demand for pro bono help, the BigLaw pro bono leader said, pointing to the surge in immigration detention. Cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and other federal benefits are also driving the need for legal assistance as they put pressure on incomes, leading to problems with housing and other issues.

During the second Trump administration, immigration habeas work — where people challenge the lawfulness of their detention — has become a significant practice for many pro bono teams at large law firms, which in turn decreases their capacity for other pro bono cases, the person said.

"If I've staffed federal court litigators on a bunch of habeas cases, they're not available to do that other work," the person added.

In the first year of Trump's second term, ICE arrests more than quadrupled compared with the last six months of the Biden administration, according to the Deportation Data Project at UC Berkeley and UCLA.  

This August, ICE arrested nearly 51,000 people, marking the second straight month of more than 50,000 arrests, the agency said in September.

In addition to ICE activity, Trump's deployment of the National Guard to cities has spurred more requests for legal support and civil rights attorneys, said Bonds of the National Police Accountability Project.

Across the legal industry, fewer large firms are sharing specifics on their pro bono work. For this year's Law360 Pulse Pro Bono Leaders ranking, 184 firms qualified for the ranking by providing enough data. That was down from 221 in 2024, the year before the federal government issued executive orders targeting firms.

But some nonprofit attorneys have seen a rebound in firms' openness to work.

"2026 has seen not a complete return to normal, but definitely a return to a lot more willingness for firms to be doing pro bono work," said Michael Lukens, executive director of the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, a Washington, D.C.-based organization.

Lukens recalled that last year, some firms stood by the nonprofit, but others were "declining to be involved without saying why, and we really had to beat the bushes to find firms to take on cases."

This year, however, many are assisting on the record with children's asylum cases, deportation defense, habeas work and impact litigation, Lukens said.

At GLAD Law, which focuses on LGBTQ+ rights, legal director Joshua Rovenger said firms have had mixed reactions to the second Trump administration. Some have avoided administration-facing litigation, he said, but "we saw just as many firms double down on their efforts."

"We have continued to be able to staff our matters against the administration with firm partnerships," Rovenger said.

The group's litigation has increased during Trump's second term and become more federally focused, he said. So far, it has filed 13 challenges to administration policies. That includes lawsuits over issues such as retirement benefits for transgender service members and U.S. Department of Justice subpoenas for private medical records of transgender minors.

Some firms are willing to work on impact litigation against states or private entities, but not against the federal government. Some do not want to work on transgender issues related to sports and healthcare. But he said that there are also "a ton of firms that are not taking that approach and aren't imposing those limitations."

If a firm can work with the organization on some issues but not on others, or work in some capacities but not take on a full case, "we can work with folks," Rovenger said.

Turning to New Resources

To build capacity for pro bono work, the group Lawyers for Good Government launched the Pro Bono Litigation Corps in summer 2025 to mobilize solo attorneys, small-firm practitioners and retired lawyers to volunteer. The initiative provides malpractice insurance, administrative support and other resources to volunteer lawyers.

Its clients have included federal employees who have been disciplined or terminated for speaking out about issues at the agencies; detained immigrants seeking release; and groups whose federal funding has been canceled by the Trump administration.

One of the group's goals is to "take cases that are otherwise having trouble getting counsel," with its attorneys aiming to take cases that other organizations turn down because they don't have capacity, project lead Gary DiBianco told Law360. Interest from the legal community has been "terrific," with hundreds of lawyers signing up to volunteer, DiBianco said.

People from small firms and solo practices are now "absolutely in the trenches" said Carrie LeRoy, a former BigLaw partner who worked most recently at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, handling technology transactions and overseeing pro bono work.

LeRoy now leads an informal network of attorneys, retired lawyers, and paralegals across the country in filing habeas petitions on behalf of immigrants challenging their detention. One big firm is involved in the project "behind the scenes," LeRoy said, but does not want its name on court filings.

She recalled that during the first Trump administration, many BigLaw firms were on the frontlines of the legal battle against the government's family separation policy. Back then, major firms publicized their efforts, such as sending attorneys to Dilley, Texas, home of an ICE detention center holding children and families.

The Texas Civil Rights Project, the Texas Immigration Law Council and VECINA have worked together to train more than 1,000 volunteers and placed hundreds of cases for a pro bono initiative focused on habeas petitions.

Austin personal injury attorney Dicky Grigg, whose office has two attorneys, is among Texans who have volunteered their time on immigrant cases.

As a lawyer, it's "an area where you can really make a meaningful contribution," he said.

"It's been really difficult work," he said, "because the odds are so stacked against you, but it's been very rewarding."

Litigation "Requires Scale"

According to a Law360 analysis of more than 400 lawsuits filed in the first year of Trump's second term, public interest groups such as Democracy Forward and the ACLU handled most of the litigation filed against the administration.

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said lawyers from small and midsize firms "have stepped forward in communities across this country." But she emphasized that individual lawyers' efforts can't replace BigLaw's resources.

Perryman said that "much of the litigation that is needed against this administration requires scale, and that is why Democracy Forward, the ACLU, and the state AGs have been able to drive so much of the volume of the litigation, because we have scaled teams."

Bonds of the National Police Accountability Project said her organization hoped to initiate private litigation to address civil rights issues in cities where the DOJ has abandoned consent decrees aimed at curtailing police misconduct. But such work requires a level of legal staffing and resources they don't have without the assistance of major firms, said Bonds, whose organization has three staff attorneys and several other employees.

A large firm's backing can also provide leverage in legal disputes, LeRoy said.

"If you don't have that power, it is much more challenging," LeRoy said, and "a lot more likely that the other side is going to make you litigate."

Rynders of the Texas Civil Rights Project said that with many cases, staff attorneys are "doing the lion's share of the work" that would have been handled by outside firms in the past.

"I love that they're getting the experience," he said, "but it practically means that you're able to handle a lot fewer cases."

Some nonprofit attorneys think that legal and political developments this year are changing the pro bono climate once again.

Lukens, for instance, said the court wins for the firms that have fought the executive orders might have eased some fears. Four federal judges ruled that the orders were unconstitutional last year. The Trump administration appealed those decisions and the cases have been consolidated in the D.C. Circuit, which heard arguments in May.

He also expects Democrats' sweeping wins in this month's midterm elections to further alleviate firms' concerns, saying he believes the White House's power will be diminished.

Rynders, though, said he recently placed a case with a large firm that wants to remain "a silent partner."

He wonders whether "a new normal" for BigLaw pro bono could persist after Trump's term ends.

"Assuming that the next presidential administration expressly removes these threats, do they jump back to action?" Rynders said of BigLaw. "Or do they just stick with a smaller role in protecting the rule of law going forward?"

--Additional reporting by Jack Karp and Gerald Schifman. Edited by Daniela Porat and Tim Ruel.

Have a story idea for Access to Justice? Reach us at accesstojustice@law360.com.