Donald Trump entered his second presidency with something he often lacked during earlier legal battles: a team drawn from one of the most prestigious firms in American law. Sullivan & Cromwell brought experienced appellate lawyers and former Supreme Court clerks into cases that could shape Trump’s criminal record, financial liability, and claims of presidential immunity. Now most of that original group has departed, leaving firm co chair Robert Giuffra Jr. carrying an unusually concentrated role as several major appeals move forward.
The change is striking because Sullivan & Cromwell only joined Trump’s defense after his return to the White House. The original team included Giuffra, Jamie McDonald, Matthew Schwartz, Jeff Wall, and Morgan Ratner. Within months, Wall and Ratner moved to Gibson Dunn, while Trump selected other members of the team for positions carrying significant public authority. The result is less a collapse than a rapid redistribution of elite legal talent between private practice, the judiciary, and the administration.
Trump lawyers move into government
Matthew Schwartz left Sullivan & Cromwell after Trump nominated him to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Senate later confirmed him by a 50 to 45 vote. Schwartz had personally worked on Trump’s criminal and civil appeals and pledged during his confirmation process to recuse himself from matters in which he had represented the president.
Jamie McDonald followed a different route into public service. Justice Department records now identify him as the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, one of the country’s most influential federal prosecution offices. These appointments mean that lawyers once assembled to defend Trump personally are now occupying positions within institutions that exercise substantial federal judicial and prosecutorial power.
That leaves Giuffra at the center of Sullivan & Cromwell’s Trump work. The firm’s responsibilities include Trump’s effort to overturn his New York criminal conviction for falsifying business records, litigation connected to New York Attorney General Letitia James’ civil fraud case, and a Supreme Court petition involving E. Jean Carroll. Managing these cases requires different constitutional, criminal, and civil strategies, creating pressure to rebuild the team rather than rely heavily on one senior partner.
Several appeals now reach critical stages
The Carroll litigation illustrates how quickly the stakes can change. A Supreme Court docket shows that Trump has asked the justices to review an 83.3 million dollar defamation judgment involving statements he made while president. His lawyers are relying partly on presidential immunity arguments. At the same time, the Supreme Court has now rejected his renewed attempt to reopen a separate 5 million dollar Carroll verdict, leaving that judgment intact while the larger case remains unresolved.
Trump’s New York civil fraud fight presents another complicated appeal. A state appellate court previously preserved the finding that Trump and his company were liable for fraud while eliminating the enormous financial penalty imposed at trial. Both sides have continued pursuing arguments before New York’s highest court, keeping Sullivan & Cromwell involved in litigation with major financial and political consequences.
The firm’s expanding role has also created internal tension. Its decision to participate in the Carroll litigation reportedly triggered disagreement among some partners who had understood that the firm’s work for Trump would remain more limited. That tension captures the broader dilemma confronting major law firms that represent politically powerful clients: lucrative and consequential work can strengthen a firm’s influence while exposing it to reputational and institutional pressures.
Trump still has access to elite legal representation, so the departures do not amount to a legal crisis. But the composition of his defense team has changed dramatically. Sullivan & Cromwell must now replenish its bench while handling appeals that could influence presidential immunity, Trump’s criminal record, his business interests, and the relationship between political power and America’s most prominent legal institutions.
Original analysis inspired by Erica Orden from Politico. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
By ThinkTanksMonitor
