There’s been no shortage of commentary around how U.S. law firms are responding to recent executive orders and political pressure from the Trump administration. But beneath the headlines, a deeper concern is growing — one that cuts to the core of the profession itself: what happens when the rule of law starts to feel negotiable?
The “settlement” reached last week by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP has only added fuel to that concern. The firm, by its own admission, faced the real prospect of being “destroyed” if it didn’t agree to terms. The result is a deal that, to many, looks more like retreat than resolution. Some question the specific terms; others are worried about what this means for the credibility of the legal profession.
Despite calls for a more robust response, Big Law leaders have largely kept quiet. Firms like Perkins Coie, directly targeted by Trump, are largely left to fight their corner alone. The legal sector’s collective silence is starting to echo — loudly.
And it’s not just echoing in Washington. These events have triggered an internal reckoning for many global and international law firms, particularly those with a significant U.S. presence — which is most of them.
In many of these firms, the U.S. offices hold sway, not just because of their size, but because of their financial firepower. Policy, strategy, and culture often bend towards the American centre of gravity. For years, that dynamic was simply accepted. The U.S. market was delivering results — and if that meant doing things the American way, most were content to fall in line.
But that quiet alignment now looks increasingly fragile.
Across the firm, from partners to new joiners, people are starting to ask tough questions. What do we stand for as a firm? Are we prepared to speak out when core legal principles are undermined? Or is our silence just the price of doing business in America?
These are no longer abstract debates. They’re practical, pressing, and in some cases, personal. A Skadden associate recently resigned in protest, frustrated by what she described as her firm’s unwillingness to take a public stand. She’s not alone in her concerns — and crucially, many clients share them.
Which brings us to the real strategic problem.
Clients don’t just expect legal advice. Increasingly, they expect alignment — with their values, their culture, and their tolerance for risk. A firm that appears willing to bow to political pressure can’t offer that kind of assurance. And in today’s market, clients don’t need much of a nudge to look elsewhere.
This is especially true outside the U.S., where many of these firms also operate. In Europe, Canada, and elsewhere, lawyers and clients are watching these events unfold and wondering: where does our firm stand? When does financial deference to the U.S. cross the line into moral compromise?
And it’s not just the legal sector asking that question. We’re seeing it in politics and finance too. European governments are openly questioning the U.S. as a dependable ally. Investors are moving capital out of the U.S. into European markets. Canadian leaders are visibly distancing themselves from the current political rhetoric. These trends reflect a shift — not just in sentiment, but in confidence.
At the same time, figures like Elon Musk, Trump, and others in his orbit, are making provocative statements about political dynamics in places like Germany, the UK, and South Africa. These are not isolated outbursts. They form part of a wider narrative that feels increasingly out of step with the values many global clients care about. And when law firms are closely associated with the U.S. — by design or by default — they can get caught in that same undertow.
For years, the idea of securing a significant U.S. presence was the holy grail for many international firms. Now, that presence could become a source of strategic risk. Domestic competitors not seen as politically compromised will be more than happy to offer themselves as alternatives — aligned, stable, and free from awkward entanglements. The idea of “America First” can quickly backfire on global and international firms that are swept up in this rhetoric. Just last week a partner in a smaller jurisdiction
within one of our global clients was asked directly by an important local corporate client: “how much of the revenue you get from us is shared with your US business”?
So what should firms do?
Some may choose to subtly reframe their public image — softening overtly American messaging, spotlighting local leadership, and reviewing governance structures to give non-U.S. offices more influence. Others may hope to quietly move past the storm and wait for calmer waters.
But in moments like this, staying neutral risks looking like complicity. Silence may preserve short-term relationships, but it comes at the cost of long-term trust — with clients, with colleagues, and with the next generation of legal talent.
The firms that emerge strongest from this period will be those that take a stand. Not a political one — but a principled one. A public reaffirmation of commitment to independence, to advocacy, and to the rule of law. One that signals clearly: we protect our clients’ interests, even when those interests put us at odds with power.
Yes, the U.S. remains the world’s largest and most influential legal market. But global firms can’t treat what’s happening there as business as usual. The stakes are too high — and the risks, too visible.
In the end, clients and talent vote with their feet. And firms that fail to act may soon find themselves on the wrong side of that decision.