Sullivan & Cromwell's Ties to Trump Raise Ethical Concerns

London, United Kingdom Jul 12, 2026 ALN: Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the most prestigious law firms in the world, has developed a mutually beneficial relationship with President Donald Trump — rankling some of the firm’s top talent in the process. The firm has long been recognized for its expertise in corporate law, mergers and acquisitions, and litigation, often representing some of the largest corporations and financial institutions in the United States and abroad. However, its association with Trump has raised ethical concerns and created internal divisions among its partners.

The elite firm represents Trump in a variety of his personal legal matters, including an appeal of his criminal conviction on 34 counts of business fraud in the Manhattan hush money case, his effort to move that case to federal court, and his appeal of a New York state civil fraud verdict. These cases are particularly significant given the political and legal ramifications they hold, as they could impact Trump's business empire and future political aspirations. The legal strategies employed by Sullivan & Cromwell in these matters not only reflect the complexities of the law but also the contentious atmosphere surrounding Trump's presidency and the ongoing investigations into his business practices.

Trump has rewarded Sullivan & Cromwell's partners handsomely. Jay Clayton, who had a more than 20-year career at Sullivan & Cromwell, is Trump’s nominee to be director of national intelligence. While Clayton awaits a confirmation hearing, he remains the Manhattan U.S. attorney, one of the most powerful prosecutorial roles in the country. This position gives him significant influence over legal proceedings and investigations that could intersect with Trump's interests.

Furthermore, Trump nominated Matthew Schwartz, one of his lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell, to be a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Schwartz’s confirmation is pending, and if successful, he would occupy a critical position in the federal judiciary, which could have long-term implications for legal interpretations affecting Trump and his business dealings. Additionally, Trump has tapped James McDonald, another Sullivan & Cromwell partner on Trump’s legal team, to replace Clayton as Manhattan U.S. attorney. McDonald is slated to join the office first as deputy U.S. attorney, where he is expected to assume day-to-day leadership while Clayton turns to confirmation matters. This pattern of appointments raises questions about the interplay between legal representation and political influence.

The relationship stems from Trump’s friendship with the firm’s co-chair Robert Giuffra Jr. People familiar with the matter say he has encouraged the firm’s alliance with Trump. Giuffra, who is also a member of the president’s legal team, was among those considered by Trump for the job of attorney general after he was elected to a second term. This close connection between high-ranking officials in the legal community and the presidency underscores the blurred lines between legal counsel and political allegiance, prompting discussions about ethical standards within the legal profession.

The firm’s relationship is starkly different from the president’s past experience with the white-shoe legal community. When Trump first hired Todd Blanche to represent him in the Manhattan hush money case in 2023, Blanche was forced to resign from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, the elite law firm where he had been a partner, telling colleagues he “obviously” couldn’t take Trump as a client while remaining at the firm. This incident highlights the potential reputational risks that law firms face when associating with controversial clients, particularly those involved in high-profile legal battles.

Inside Sullivan & Cromwell, some partners have bristled at the firm’s coziness with Trump. One longtime partner, Karen Seymour, well-known for having prosecuted Martha Stewart earlier in her career, accelerated her planned departure from the firm as a result of her discomfort with its Trump work. She left the firm in April 2025, according to her LinkedIn page, about three months after it took on the president as a client. Seymour's departure reflects a broader concern among some legal professionals about the ethical implications of representing a figure like Trump, whose actions and policies have been divisive.

Seymour and her husband, also a longtime Sullivan & Cromwell lawyer who left the firm in 2021, are close friends with James Comey, the former FBI director and Trump foe who is facing his second prosecution by the Trump administration, and Dan Richman, a Comey ally and Columbia Law School professor. Their connections to Comey and the ongoing legal battles involving Trump may have influenced Seymour’s decision to leave the firm, as her professional values appeared to conflict with the firm's direction.

Other partners have opposed the firm’s work on Trump’s appeal of a jury verdict in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit. Carroll, a writer and journalist, accused Trump of defaming her after she publicly alleged that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. This case has garnered significant media attention and public interest, further complicating the firm's position as it navigates the legal and ethical ramifications of representing Trump in such a contentious matter. That internal rift was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, highlighting the growing discontent among some partners regarding the firm’s association with Trump.

“There’s a general sense that the firm has sort of bought into Trumpworld,” said a person familiar with the firm’s work, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. “There’s very much a sense — of the people who don’t like it — that these decisions are being made that are short-term decisions. They’re not the right thing to do from an ethical standpoint, and I think the more thoughtful people start to worry: Eventually, does this all catch up with you?” This sentiment reflects a broader concern within the legal community about the potential long-term consequences of aligning with a client whose actions and reputation are often at odds with traditional legal and ethical standards.

A spokesman for the firm said its decision to represent Trump “was undertaken following thorough discussion with our firm’s nearly 200 partners, and deliberation at our Managing Partners Committee and Management Committee.” This statement suggests that the firm has sought to maintain a level of transparency and accountability within its ranks, despite the internal dissent. “As with all of our client representations,” the spokesman added, “we do not publicly discuss confidential matters involving our representation of the President.” This commitment to confidentiality is standard practice among legal firms but may also serve to shield the firm from public scrutiny regarding its decisions.

The firm’s proximity to Trump has not been lost on those hoping to gain an edge with the Justice Department. CBS News reported that McDonald was one of the lawyers involved in convincing the department to drop a criminal investigation of Southern Coal, a mining company run by the son of Republican Sen. Jim Justice. This incident underscores the potential influence that legal representation can wield in matters involving government investigations and prosecutions, raising questions about the integrity of the legal process.

McDonald has also represented Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Polymarket, two companies that have tangled with the Justice Department. These representations further illustrate the firm’s active role in navigating complex legal landscapes, often involving high-stakes negotiations and potential conflicts of interest. And last summer, lawyers from the firm, including Giuffra and McDonald, began representing Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, who was facing bribery charges. This case has drawn international attention and highlights the firm’s global reach and influence.

Giuffra met with Justice Department officials to attempt to persuade them to take the highly unusual step of dropping the charges, according to court filings, with Trent McCotter, a top department official, later saying “it would have been entirely fair” for Giuffra, “perhaps the most respected and experienced securities attorney in the country,” to have mentioned potential investments in the United States as part of his pitch. This statement raises ethical questions about the appropriateness of leveraging political connections and potential financial incentives in legal negotiations.

In May, officials said they would drop the charges. But they have met resistance from the federal judge overseeing the case, who on Wednesday balked at what he described as McCotter’s admission of “the specter of a possible agreement (involving one or multiple Defendants) in connection with the dismissal of the Indictment.” This ongoing legal saga illustrates the intricate interplay between law, politics, and business, and the potential ramifications for all parties involved. As Sullivan & Cromwell continues to navigate its relationship with Trump and other high-profile clients, the firm must grapple with the ethical implications of its decisions and the potential impact on its reputation within the legal community and beyond.