Sullivan & Cromwell’s Trump Role Expands

Sullivan & Cromwell’s relationship with President Donald Trump is expanding beyond the criminal and business appeals that first brought the Wall Street law firm onto his personal legal team.

Lawyers at the firm are reportedly assisting with a planned Supreme Court challenge to the $83.3 million E. Jean Carroll defamation judgment, while a partner connected to Trump’s legal work has moved into a senior Justice Department position in Manhattan.

The Carroll cases must be kept separate

Carroll won two civil judgments against Trump.

A 2023 jury awarded approximately $5 million after finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation. With interest, the amount held for payment grew to about $5.8 million.

A different jury awarded $83.3 million in January 2024 for defamatory statements Trump made after Carroll first accused him publicly.

The cases involve overlapping parties but different statements, verdicts and appellate records.

The Supreme Court docket for the smaller judgment shows that the justices denied Trump’s petition on June 29. A corrected rehearing petition was filed on July 8.

That docket lists James Otis Law Group as counsel of record, not Sullivan & Cromwell.

The firm’s reported new involvement concerns the separate $83.3 million case, for which Trump’s deadline to seek Supreme Court review falls later in July.

📰 Read Also: Judge Clears $5.8M Carroll Payment From Trump Case

The firm’s public role began with other Trump appeals

Sullivan & Cromwell entered Trump’s personal legal orbit through appellate work involving his New York criminal conviction and civil-fraud judgment.

The firm provided experienced Supreme Court and appellate lawyers for challenges that raised presidential-immunity, jurisdiction and evidentiary questions.

That assignment placed a major corporate law firm behind a polarising political client.

Two prominent appellate partners later left for another firm and stopped working on Trump’s defence. Sullivan & Cromwell co-chair Robert Giuffra remained associated with the representation.

Published reports now say the firm has provided help in the $83.3 million Carroll matter despite an earlier internal understanding that the Carroll cases were outside the original assignment.

Sullivan & Cromwell has not issued a detailed public statement defining its current role.

The absence of a firm filing in the smaller Supreme Court docket also means the two matters should not be merged into one claim about representation.

The $83.3 million appeal presents different questions

The larger judgment arose from statements Trump made in 2019 while he was president.

His legal arguments have included presidential immunity, the substitution of the United States as defendant and whether the damages were excessive.

The Second Circuit upheld the verdict and later declined full-court reconsideration.

A Supreme Court petition would need to identify a federal question that at least four justices are willing to review. The court does not automatically reconsider a civil judgment because of its size or political importance.

The separate $5 million case raised evidentiary issues involving testimony from other accusers and a recorded statement. The court’s refusal to hear that petition does not formally decide the different $83.3 million case.

It does, however, show the difficulty of persuading the justices to reopen the wider Carroll litigation.

📰 Read Also: Trump Faces Narrow Path on Birthright Citizenship

A Trump lawyer has moved into federal prosecution

The institutional relationship now extends beyond private appellate work.

The U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York announced James McDonald’s appointment as deputy U.S. attorney on July 8.

McDonald was a Sullivan & Cromwell partner and co-head of its securities and commodities investigations practice.

He had also worked on Trump’s legal team.

The Justice Department appointment places him in one of the country’s most important federal prosecutor’s offices, which handles securities fraud, public corruption, terrorism and major financial cases.

McDonald previously served as a federal prosecutor and led enforcement at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

His qualifications extend beyond Trump representation.

The appointment still highlights the movement of lawyers between a president’s personal defence team and offices exercising federal prosecutorial power.

Prior service creates recusal questions, not automatic disqualification

A lawyer entering government does not become barred from public service because of former clients.

Federal ethics rules generally require officials to avoid matters in which they have conflicts or prior involvement. The scope depends on the specific client, case, financial interest and government role.

McDonald’s appointment announcement did not publish a full recusal plan.

Such plans are normally handled through Justice Department ethics officials rather than a press release.

The Southern District’s jurisdiction includes Manhattan, where Trump, his businesses and several past cases have been located.

That does not mean McDonald will oversee any Trump-related matter.

It means transparent screening and recusals are important to protect the office from claims that personal legal relationships are influencing enforcement decisions.

📰 Read Also: Trump EAC Firings Put Election Support Agency in Limbo

The firm faces a governance problem as well as a legal one

A large law firm can represent unpopular clients while maintaining professional independence.

The harder question is who approves the work, how the scope changes and whether partners understand the institutional risks before the firm expands an engagement.

Reports of internal opposition do not establish a violation of law or professional rules.

They indicate that some lawyers view the Carroll assignment as different from technical appellate work in Trump’s criminal and business cases.

The distinction may be reputational rather than legal.

Carroll’s judgments arise from findings of sexual abuse and repeated defamation. Lawyers are entitled to represent Trump in those appeals, while colleagues and clients are entitled to assess what the representation says about the firm.

The court record will reveal the actual expansion

The most reliable next document will be the Supreme Court petition in the $83.3 million case.

Its signature block will identify counsel of record and show whether Sullivan & Cromwell appears formally.

The petition will also reveal which questions Trump asks the court to decide.

Until that filing, reports about internal work describe preparation rather than a completed public appearance.

The court deadline creates a short window for the firm to clarify its role through action, withdrawal or a statement.

TL;DR

• Sullivan & Cromwell reportedly expanded its Trump work into the $83.3 million Carroll appeal.

• The firm has not publicly defined the full scope of that assignment.

• The $5 million and $83.3 million Carroll judgments are separate cases.

• The smaller case’s Supreme Court docket does not list Sullivan & Cromwell.

• Former firm partner James McDonald joined the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office.

• The next Supreme Court filing should show whether the firm appears formally in the larger case.

Read More

• Federal Election Pressure Moves From Courts to Funding

• Trump Lets Housing Bill Become Law Without Signature

• Hegseth Beard Policy Turns Waivers Into Career Risk