Political considerations are rising up the agenda for GCs when selecting which external law firms to work with, with concerns over values increasingly impacting relationships with outside counsel.
The Association of Corporate Counsel’s annual Chief Legal Officers Survey, which surveyed more than a thousand chief legal officers and legal executives around the world, found that 13% had changed their approach to evaluating and selecting outside counsel based on political developments in the US.
Of that group, almost half (41%) said that they had added new risk categories to their outside counsel evaluation criteria, including vetting a firm’s political affiliations, public statements or client roster.
More than a third (37%) said they had gone even further and stopped working with specific law firms due to concerns about their political associations, their stances on specific policies and public profile.
Legal Business spoke with a number of GCs to get their thoughts on how these factors are influencing relationships with law firms.
‘It makes me think twice about the loyalty they’d have for us as clients’
One GC did not mince his words, commenting: ‘If the biggest and most powerful law firms in the world are going to let themselves be bullied and not stand up for the rule of law, separation of powers, and, frankly, not stand up for groups of people that aren’t as well equipped to defend themselves, then shame on them.’
‘It also makes me think twice about the loyalty they’d have for us as clients and their staying power in defending those clients who choose to stand up to bullying behaviour. At some point, money and profit can’t be everything.’
One GC at a company with a prominent presence in North America said they were surprised that the proportion of legal heads factoring political considerations into their choice of law firms was not even higher.
The survey did provide evidence of stronger views in other Western economies, with 18% of respondents from European companies saying that they had altered their stance, above the US at 15% and Canada at 14%.
In contrast, just 7% of respondents from Asia, Australia and the Middle East said these factors had changed the way they evaluate law firms.
‘Some suppliers and customers are very, very red, and others are very, very blue’
For some senior in-house lawyers, the response from some law firms to US President Donald Trump’s accusations of ‘illegal DEI discrimination’ has served as a line in the sand.
Many firms opted to cut deals with Trump, offering millions of dollars in pro bono and other legal work in exchange for protection from his threats, although others did opt to challenge the President in court, with some success.
One GC cited the increasingly polarised nature of US politics as a serious issue when doing business in the States – particularly given the legal considerations relating to positive discrimination.
‘In the US, it’s illegal to have positive discrimination against or for any employees based on characteristics other than social mobility. You’ve got to go through your entire stakeholder map and understand how your own organization is viewed, particularly in the US,’ they said.
Referring to the Republican/Democrat divide in the US, the GC elaborated: ‘We have some suppliers and customers who are very, very red, and some who are very, very blue – we have to change our narrative in terms of what our company position is. For certain sectors, it’s really important.’
A number of major companies, including GSK, Boeing and Disney, made headlines at the start of last year for cutting DEI targets and modifying their outside messaging after Trump’s executive orders were issued.
While for some companies, political developments in the US are an unavoidable issue, for others, they are not seen as business critical.
One GC was very clear that the quality of service a firm provides remains the key driver: ‘Politics is not a primary consideration for me. My focus remains on core factors like quality of work, responsiveness, judgement, and the firm’s ability to support the business effectively.’
Another GC reiterated this point: ‘We always evaluate our panel firms based on a lot of different criteria. What’s important to us is ensuring that we’re getting the best advisers with the best technical skills that are well-regarded and well-connected.’
However, the GC acknowledged that when values don’t match, in their experience, there could be problems in the working relationship further down the line, ‘if we don’t have that alignment, then there is the potential for us to be unable to work collegiately.’
‘You can’t go on any device without seeing the former chair of Paul Weiss’
While the fallout from Trump’s executive orders last year appears to have subsided, the revelations in the recent release of the Epstein files – many of which involve lawyers and law firms – have once again given GCs pause for thought on the affiliations or perceived affiliations of the firms they work with.
One GC explained their perspective on the recent headlines with specific reference to Brad Karp, who stood down as chair of Paul Weiss following revelations about his connections to Epstein.
‘You can’t go on any device without seeing the former chair of Paul Weiss,’ they said. ‘If an individual in a law firm that we engage in was directly involved, we would certainly be carefully considering what our relationship with them should be, and the capacity in which we would continue to work with them.’
They continued: ‘The criteria we have for law firm engagements and appointments includes ethical conduct and integrity – we screen all of our law firm relationships through that.’
For more, see:
Line to the top: more GCs than ever now reporting directly to their CEO, research finds


