Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, a prestigious UK-based law firm, has recently taken a bold stance in a politically charged landscape by supporting Perkins Coie, a firm embroiled in a controversial executive order issued by President Donald Trump. This order sought to ban Perkins Coie and similar firms from federal contracts due to their representation of Trump’s political adversaries, including Hillary Clinton and George Soros. Freshfields distinguished itself as the sole top-20 global law firm to file an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie, demonstrating a significant cultural and strategic shift within a firm historically rooted in European conservative values.

This decision underscores Freshfields’ ambitious push into the US legal market, which has been characterised by aggressive expansion strategies since 2019. The firm’s recruitment of high-profile figures, such as mergers and acquisitions lawyer Ethan Klingsberg from Cleary Gottlieb, has not only bolstered its capabilities but also broadened its client base, attracting major corporations like Google. Yet, this relentless pursuit of growth has come with financial repercussions; global staff costs have surged by nearly 60% since 2019, while profits have only risen by 32%, creating tensions within a partnership that must now navigate the complexities of American legal and political environments.

The decision to support Perkins Coie was driven by Georgia Dawson, Freshfields’ senior partner, who consulted with a select group of largely US-based senior lawyers before taking the leap. While some partners expressed concerns about potential retaliation from Trump, particularly in light of the firm’s recent receipt of an inquiry from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), many viewed the move as an opportunity to solidify Freshfields’ brand among clients who value firms willing to take principled stands on pressing issues.

This shift is emblematic of a larger generational change in the legal industry, where firms are increasingly expected to express their values publicly. A partner at Freshfields noted that this moment reflects an evolving expectation for law firms to engage with societal issues rather than remain apolitical. This has already begun to reshape the firm’s internal culture, as European partners balance the traditional norms of their backgrounds with the more politically engaged attitudes prevalent in the US.

In signing the amicus brief for Perkins Coie, Freshfields has positioned itself apart from its US counterparts, many of whom have opted instead to negotiate deals with the Trump administration to avoid punitive actions for past associations. Notably, firms like Skadden and Paul Weiss struck agreements that involved commitments to provide pro bono services whilst navigating political sensitivities, highlighting a notable divide in strategies among firms responding to Trump’s executive actions.

While Freshfields has not faced the direct repercussions seen by other firms, the situation remains fluid. The recent ruling by a Washington DC district judge, which blocked the executive order targeting Perkins Coie, serves as a temporary reprieve for those firms embroiled in litigation against the administration. Nonetheless, the legal community is left grappling with the implications of these executive actions, which critics argue may undermine judicial independence and ethical standards in the profession.

As Freshfields continues to navigate this turbulent environment, the firm’s future will hinge on its ability to maintain its principled stance without alienating vital client relationships or jeopardising its expanding American presence. The firm’s willingness to withstand political pressures could well become a distinguishing factor in its quest to establish a robust foothold in one of the world’s most competitive legal markets.

The repercussions of Freshfields’ decisions will soon manifest in shifts in partner recruitment and client engagement. Law firms that have aligned with Trump’s administration are now facing scrutiny from clients concerned about their ethical obligations and political affiliations. With Freshfields’ recent actions stirring interest among potential hires from firms that opted for compromise, the long-term implications of this political stand will be critical as the firm seeks to balance its legacy with its ambitious future.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve under the shadow of political turbulence, Freshfields’ decisions will likely serve as a benchmark within the industry, exemplifying the challenges and opportunities firms face in asserting their identities in an increasingly politicised world.

Reference Map

  1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6
  2. Paragraphs 3, 5, 6
  3. Paragraphs 1, 4, 5
  4. Paragraphs 3, 5
  5. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6
  6. Paragraphs 2, 4
  7. Paragraphs 3, 4

Source: Noah Wire Services