From Global to Geopolitical
The past two decades have seen the rise of the global law firm as the ultimate badge of legal prestige. Offices in every continent. Clients in every time zone. One platform, one culture, one seamless promise. For a time, this made perfect sense. The world was globalising fast. Clients needed cross-border solutions. Legal work followed trade, and law firms followed both.
But that world is unravelling.
The rules that underpinned globalisation are being rewritten in real time. Allies are no longer reliable. Shared values feel negotiable. Multilateral institutions are hollowing out or being bypassed altogether. And, for the first time since the Cold War, the idea of “the West” itself is in question.
The US has shifted from a guarantor of stability to a broker of transactional power. Under Trumpism, the message is unambiguous: “we helped you, now you owe us.” Aid is no longer solidarity. It’s an investment, and allies are expected to pay dividends. This posture is mirrored everywhere, where attacks on DE&I policies, the rule of law—including public threats against law firms that acted against him—and erratic claims over foreign territories such as Greenland and the Panama Canal reflect a worldview driven less by principle than by perceived leverage. For Europe, and other regions normally aligned with the U.S., this is strategically uncomfortable.
This shift highlights a broader trend we flagged in a piece last year: global firms are increasingly caught between their public commitments to values such as equality, transparency, and accountability—and the often-conflicting realities of operating across jurisdictions with very different norms and rights. We argued then that this dissonance isn’t just an ethical dilemma; it’s a strategic risk. That thesis now feels prescient. One does not need to look further than headlines like this: “French accuse Trump of interference in business over DEI Demands – The US embassy in France issued a letter stating that companies that supply goods and services to America must comply with its ban on diversity programmes” – The Times, 31 March 2025.
Law firms can’t ignore this.
For years, global integration was the strategic north star. But in a world defined by fragmentation, dependency on one hegemon—especially one that sees relationships as leverage—starts to look like a liability.
That concern is no longer abstract. It’s showing up in client conversations. It’s showing up in talent decisions. Associates in Europe, and elsewhere, are quietly questioning whether their futures are best served inside firms whose centre of gravity is now politically, and possibly ethically, compromised. It’s showing up in pitches, procurement processes, and reputation risk frameworks.
Globalism isn’t dead. But it’s not the strategy it once was.
The real strategic question now is this: what does a viable, credible, future-proof law firm look like in an increasingly transactional geopolitical world?
Some firms may double down on regional dominance. ASEAN, the EU, Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Places where some sense of political alignment, regulatory certainty, and client demand still allow for sustainable growth. Others may split their models—possibly even ring-fencing U.S. operations from their international arms, structurally and symbolically. Still others may embrace a new kind of network: AI-enabled, partner-driven, and politically neutral. Not a single firm with global offices, but a curated ecosystem of local experts, seamlessly integrated by technology.
There will, of course, still be a place for heavyweight global firms—particularly those positioned to handle high-stakes, cross-border, “halo-type” mandates. The world will still require legal infrastructure that can operate across jurisdictions and coordinate at scale when needed. But that cohort of firms may be far smaller than the one that currently dominates the global market. The notion that being “international” or “global” is, in and of itself, a unique selling proposition is now under pressure. If global presence isn’t accompanied by clear strategic value, local trust, and political neutrality, clients will increasingly look elsewhere.
This new model must also incorporate what we previously identified as critical to credibility in a fractured world: the alignment between a firm’s public values and its actual operations. Clients and talent increasingly expect transparency about how ethical dilemmas are handled—whether that means refusing to enter certain markets, standing firm on human rights, or disclosing the trade-offs involved in difficult jurisdictions.
What won’t work is trying to preserve the old model while pretending nothing has changed. That model—centralised governance, U.S.-centric leadership, undifferentiated global presence—was built for a different era. Today, it risks making firms look out of touch.
Add to that the accelerating influence of AI, and the picture sharpens. AI will reduce the need for scale-for-scale’s sake. Cross-border work will increasingly be done by leaner, tech-enabled teams that don’t require bricks-and-mortar offices in 25 countries. The traditional justification for global platforms is fading.
We are entering an era where geopolitical awareness is a strategic asset. Where client trust depends not just on legal excellence, but on alignment, integrity, and independence. Where the ability to say, “we are not compromised by foreign pressure” becomes a competitive advantage.
The law firms that win in this world will not be those that shout loudest about being global. They’ll be the ones that prove they are relevant, resilient, and trusted where it matters most.
This isn’t the end of global ambition. But it is the end of global naivety.