Former City law firm senior partner defends BigLaw’s Trump deals

Avatar photo

By Legal Cheek on

2

Law firms can’t be expected to sacrifice themselves in an unwinnable fight, says former Ashurst boss Charlie Geffen


The former senior partner of leading City law firm has come out in support of the BigLaw outfits who have struck deals with Donald Trump in order to avoid executive orders.

Charlie Geffen, who led Ashurst from 2009 to 2013, argues that firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden play a critical role in facilitating commercial activity. Given that their business models more closely resemble those of investment banks than some of their competitors, he believes it is “entirely right” for them to prioritise their own interests — “uncomfortable as it may be”.

Paul Weiss and Skadden have each struck deals to provide $40 million and $100 million, respectively, in pro bono support for causes aligned with their interests and those of the Trump administration — a move that has helped them avoid executive orders. Other firms to have struck deals are Willkie and Milbank.

The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

In his letter to the Financial Times (£), Geffen argues that no one can reasonably expect firms “to sacrifice their existence in an unwinnable fight with the administration.” He adds that it’s important to remember their “outstanding history” of giving back through pro bono programmes, with partners often serving in government “of either colour”.

Geffen, who spent nearly four years at US firm Gibson Dunn after leaving Ashurst, goes on to say that many other firms — whose business models put them in a stronger position to take on Trump — can do so “without risking their firm’s existence”.

“So we should be highly confident both that the firms that can will do so and that many partners in Big Law will find ways in their personal capacity to support them,” Geffen writes. “The US legal profession has a proud history of defending the rule of law. It will take a little time as the legal process will not be as rushed and dramatic as the daily announcements from the White House. But there is no doubt at all that the right outcome will prevail.”

2 Comments

Just askin’

“Unwinnable fight”: is that because the rule of law has been torn up in the US? If so, then these firms folding is a damning incitement.

Disgruntled of Abbotsbury

Poor response. All BigLaw firms which have folded to Trump can kiss goodbye to any perception that they are serving the social good.

Facilitating commercial activity means nothing without the rule of law. Commercial activity is unreliable and unsustainable without the rule of law. If BigLaw is so important to commerce (as Geffen claims) , then why not prove it by leveraging their ‘essential’ bargaining power to challenge a wayward executive branch?

If BigLaw can’t flex their muscles to help save the American republic (or are unwilling to do so), then that means they are far more expendable – and I daresay irrelevant – to commerce and wider society than their glossy brochures would have us believe. But it cannot cut both ways.

Join the conversation