For years, Donald Trump was radioactive in elite legal circles. No white-shoe law firm would touch him. Todd Blanche had to quit Cadwalader when he took on Trump’s defense in 2023 —representing Trump was a redline for deep-pocketed clients who wanted nothing to do with Muslim bans or rape allegations. After January 6, they definitely didn’t want to be associated with storming the Capitol and toilet bowl nuclear secrets.
And that’s before one factors in the unpaid bills, public humiliation, and professional ruin that came along with the role.
Generative AI at Work: Boosting e-Discovery Efficiency for Corporate Legal Teams
While generative AI may feel like a hot new topic, the legal industry is no stranger to leveraging artificial intelligence.
Back then, one of the firms that reportedly told Trump “no” was… Sullivan & Cromwell.
But now Sullivan & Cromwell will step in as Trump prepares another challenge to his conviction in the New York hush money case. What a difference eight years and a dose of obsequiousness can make.
Unlike eight years ago, this time all those big-money corporate clients got seats right behind Trump at the inauguration. The best strategy the Democrats have come up with is “Jesus take the wheel.” All those hard-charging #Resistance folks have largely settled into detached horror. Firms can read the room and see an opportunity to cozy up to the ascendent autocrat without fear of compromising their client base. The cost of open collaboration has gone down, and Sullivan & Cromwell is wasting no time cashing in.
Robert Giuffra, the firm’s co-chair, will quarterback the effort. Politico reports that James McDonald, Morgan Ratner, Jeff Wall, and Matthew Schwartz will join the effort. This marks a turning point for Trump — trading in parking garage lawyer Alina Habba for one of the most prestigious firms in the world. A real representational glow-up.
Precision Meets AI: Thomson Reuters’ New Era Of Legal Research
AI-Assisted Research serves as a force multiplier for legal professionals.
“President Donald J. Trump’s appeal is important for the rule of law, New York’s reputation as a global business, financial and legal center, as well as for the presidency and all public officials,” Giuffra said in a statement. “The misuse of the criminal law by the Manhattan DA to target President Trump sets a dangerous precedent, and we look forward to the case being dismissed on appeal.”
The legal foundation of the hush money case — weirdly bootstrapping a misdemeanor into a felony — may be bizarre, but it’s nonetheless exactly what the New York law says. Last year, I argued that it was a case of “coulda but shouldna” because it struck me as a Catch-22 that if campaign funds couldn’t legally be used to pay hush money, it seems unfair that a personal payment for this purpose could be an illegal campaign contribution. But despite my misgivings, that is how the law reads. The legislature may want to change it but as far as the “rule of law” goes, Trump violated this statute.
Looks like the legal profession’s brief flirtation with principles ended with a quiet ghosting.
Earlier: The Biglaw Firms That Said No To Trump
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.