{"id":156262,"date":"2026-07-10T09:17:20","date_gmt":"2026-07-10T17:17:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/10\/sullivan-cromwell-partners-are-big-mad-about-the-firms-latest-trump-representation\/"},"modified":"2026-07-10T09:17:20","modified_gmt":"2026-07-10T17:17:20","slug":"sullivan-cromwell-partners-are-big-mad-about-the-firms-latest-trump-representation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/10\/sullivan-cromwell-partners-are-big-mad-about-the-firms-latest-trump-representation\/","title":{"rendered":"Sullivan & Cromwell Partners Are Big Mad About The Firm\u2019s Latest Trump Representation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Something\u2019s going down at Sullivan & Cromwell. The Wall Street Journal has confirmed <\/a>the rumors swirling around Biglaw that there\u2019s a civil war brewing at Sullivan & Cromwell over just how far the firm should go for its most famous \u2014 and most toxic \u2014 client.<\/p>\n

When S&C took Donald Trump on as a client last year<\/a>, Bob Giuffra reportedly drew a red line for the partnership. The firm would handle Trump\u2019s criminal appeal over the falsified business records conviction, and it would handle his appeal of the civil fraud judgment. But the Carroll cases<\/a> \u2014 where a jury found Trump sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll \u2014 were, Giuffra assured partners, off limits.<\/p>\n

Well, about that line in the sand\u2026 apparently it is gone. According to the Journal, S&C has quietly stepped in to help Trump prepare a Supreme Court petition seeking review of the $83 million defamation verdict (separate from the $5 million verdict SCOTUS already declined to touch). Giuffra himself is reportedly among the S&C lawyers doing the work.<\/p>\n

If this feels familiar, it\u2019s because we caught a glimpse of it in real time. Back in June, we wondered aloud<\/a> what Giuffra was doing showing up at the Second Circuit for oral argument in the Carroll defamation appeal (alongside\u00a0Boris Epshteyn<\/a>, the controversial personal attorney of Donald Trump), a case S&C, at the time, was not<\/em> supposed to be involved in. We chalked it up to schmoozing, but turns out it may have been something closer to homework.<\/p>\n

The optics problem here isn\u2019t just that Giuffra moved the goalposts, it\u2019s how he moved them. Per the Journal, the original decision to represent Trump at all wasn\u2019t made by S&C\u2019s committee of managing partners, the body that typically signs off on controversial representations; instead, the executive committee made the call. And when it came to the Carroll work specifically, the executive committee reportedly didn\u2019t loop in the managing partners at all, while the firm was simultaneously denying to reporters that it had any involvement in the case.<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t the first time S&C\u2019s governance and candor have come under outside scrutiny, either. The firm got a pointed letter from Congress<\/a> over Giuffra\u2019s role in the Paul Weiss deal-brokering, asking exactly the kind of \u201cwho knew what, when\u201d questions that are now resurfacing internally.<\/p>\n

Naturally, the firm\u2019s on-the-record comment is a masterclass in saying nothing. A spokesperson told the Journal that the decision to represent Trump came only after \u201cthorough discussion\u201d with partners and deliberation at the Managing Partners and Management Committees, notably not addressing whether that same process applied to the Carroll pivot. On the Carroll case itself, the firm won\u2019t discuss it at all, citing confidentiality around the president\u2019s representation.<\/p>\n

The firm has reportedly told lawyers not to talk to the press about the Trump work and to flag any reporter outreach \u2014 and, more recently, has warned that those caught leaking risk getting shown the door.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve tracked S&C\u2019s steadily deepening entanglement<\/a> with this White House for over a year now \u2014 the Paul Weiss deal-brokering<\/a>, the ethics questions<\/a> about Giuffra\u2019s role, the government jobs flowing to S&C alumni, and the discomfort S&C partners have had with this client since January 2025<\/a>. What\u2019s new is that the firm\u2019s red line on the Trump representation was apparently drawn in pencil.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Sullivan & Cromwell Partners Are Big Mad About The Firm\u2019s Latest Trump Representation<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBob Giuffra\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Something\u2019s going down at Sullivan & Cromwell. The Wall Street Journal has confirmed <\/a>the rumors swirling around Biglaw that there\u2019s a civil war brewing at Sullivan & Cromwell over just how far the firm should go for its most famous \u2014 and most toxic \u2014 client.<\/p>\n

When S&C took Donald Trump on as a client last year<\/a>, Bob Giuffra reportedly drew a red line for the partnership. The firm would handle Trump\u2019s criminal appeal over the falsified business records conviction, and it would handle his appeal of the civil fraud judgment. But the Carroll cases<\/a> \u2014 where a jury found Trump sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll \u2014 were, Giuffra assured partners, off limits.<\/p>\n

Well, about that line in the sand\u2026 apparently it is gone. According to the Journal, S&C has quietly stepped in to help Trump prepare a Supreme Court petition seeking review of the $83 million defamation verdict (separate from the $5 million verdict SCOTUS already declined to touch). Giuffra himself is reportedly among the S&C lawyers doing the work.<\/p>\n

If this feels familiar, it\u2019s because we caught a glimpse of it in real time. Back in June, we wondered aloud<\/a> what Giuffra was doing showing up at the Second Circuit for oral argument in the Carroll defamation appeal (alongside\u00a0Boris Epshteyn<\/a>, the controversial personal attorney of Donald Trump), a case S&C, at the time, was not<\/em> supposed to be involved in. We chalked it up to schmoozing, but turns out it may have been something closer to homework.<\/p>\n

The optics problem here isn\u2019t just that Giuffra moved the goalposts, it\u2019s how he moved them. Per the Journal, the original decision to represent Trump at all wasn\u2019t made by S&C\u2019s committee of managing partners, the body that typically signs off on controversial representations; instead, the executive committee made the call. And when it came to the Carroll work specifically, the executive committee reportedly didn\u2019t loop in the managing partners at all, while the firm was simultaneously denying to reporters that it had any involvement in the case.<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t the first time S&C\u2019s governance and candor have come under outside scrutiny, either. The firm got a pointed letter from Congress<\/a> over Giuffra\u2019s role in the Paul Weiss deal-brokering, asking exactly the kind of \u201cwho knew what, when\u201d questions that are now resurfacing internally.<\/p>\n

Naturally, the firm\u2019s on-the-record comment is a masterclass in saying nothing. A spokesperson told the Journal that the decision to represent Trump came only after \u201cthorough discussion\u201d with partners and deliberation at the Managing Partners and Management Committees, notably not addressing whether that same process applied to the Carroll pivot. On the Carroll case itself, the firm won\u2019t discuss it at all, citing confidentiality around the president\u2019s representation.<\/p>\n

The firm has reportedly told lawyers not to talk to the press about the Trump work and to flag any reporter outreach \u2014 and, more recently, has warned that those caught leaking risk getting shown the door.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve tracked S&C\u2019s steadily deepening entanglement<\/a> with this White House for over a year now \u2014 the Paul Weiss deal-brokering<\/a>, the ethics questions<\/a> about Giuffra\u2019s role, the government jobs flowing to S&C alumni, and the discomfort S&C partners have had with this client since January 2025<\/a>. What\u2019s new is that the firm\u2019s red line on the Trump representation was apparently drawn in pencil.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Something\u2019s going down at Sullivan & Cromwell. The Wall Street Journal has confirmed the rumors swirling around Biglaw that there\u2019s a civil war brewing at Sullivan & Cromwell over just how far the firm should go for its most famous \u2014 and most toxic \u2014 client. When S&C took Donald Trump on as a client […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":156252,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-156262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-9usf0t.jpg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156262","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=156262"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156262\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/156252"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}