In terms of impact as to recruitment and retention, while it remains to be seen how pervasive it is, there are certainly arguments to be made that there will at least be some negative effect on the firms who have gotten most media attention for striking a deal (as of now, Paul, Weiss, Skadden, Milbank, Willkie, and if rumors are to be believed, Kirkland). We have already seen a number of Skadden associates quit, and there are reports of widespread internal discontent. On the partner side as well it is thought that there might be lateral moves from (i) the partners with strong connections to the Democratic Party (such as Kamala Harris' husband, Douglas Emhoff, who is a partner at Willkie) and (ii) the star litigation partners (as many argue striking these deals under the threat of potentially illegal executive orders could damage firms' reputations on the contentious side, especially for representation in cases involving Government interests). Nevertheless, this will likely depend on how many other firms strike their own deals or change their DEI policies, as if this becomes the status quo in the industry, practitioners may have no choice but to accept it.
On the recruitment side, some argue that the firms that have struck deals will become less attractive and thus lose out on top talent, particularly in the US - where there is a lot more competition between firms to recruit candidates with high GPAS from target universities (which is why they employ the 'campus interviews' system). It is however unclear how much the firms themselves will change their recruitment policies in regards to DEI and use of contextual data: as I have seen it reported in the press, the firms generally seem only to say that as part of the deal with the US Administration, they have affirmed their commitment to being compliant with federal anti-discrimination employment rules. Nonetheless, presumably these firms already considered themselves to be compliant before they struck the deal; so perhaps this involves a commitment to compliance with a different interpretation of said rules. Since the details of the agreements have not been published, little can be said as to what this interpretation could be and how major a revision of recruitment policies it requires.
Finally, on the question about impact to recruitment policies of satellite offices, it is again difficult to opine with any level of certainty. If US firms have large satellite offices and if keeping current recruitment policies keeps them in better standing with the relevant foreign government and their foreign practitioners (which would both likely be the case in London), it is plausible this could happen. In my view it is unlikely that the US Administration would be too interested in the employment practices of firms in foreign jurisdictions.
