In the intricate dance between politics and business, the question often arises: does political alignment influence corporate trajectories? This week, David Lat via his Bloomberg column, delves into this query by examining whether engagements with former President Trump have affected attrition rates at key law firms.

Lat, leveraging data from SurePoint Legal Insights, scrutinizes changes in headcount over the past six months among 14 law firms that have been either targeted by Trump's executive orders or have willingly entered deals with him. His analysis surfaces a nuanced landscape, suggesting that while Trump’s deals have an impact, they do not fundamentally alter the firms’ overall paths.

The statistics from these firms present a mixed bag. On average, Am Law 100 firms experienced a modest attrition rate of -1.7%. Breaking it down further, five firms that resisted Trump’s executive orders saw an average decrease in headcount by 2.8%. Conversely, the nine firms that engaged with Trump witnessed a more pronounced average drop of 4.9%. Notably, A&O Shearman and Cadwalader, both of which entered into agreements, faced the steepest declines in headcount, at -10% and -11% respectively.

Interestingly, not all firms engaging with Trump saw declines. Milbank and Simpson Thacher, which also settled with Trump, bucked the trend by expanding their headcounts by 5% and 2%, respectively. On the flip side, Perkins Coie, staunch in its opposition to Trump’s executive order, experienced an 8% reduction, aligning closely with the attrition rates observed in Paul, Weiss and Skadden, both of which had earlier made deals with Trump.

Other firms like Covington and Jenner & Block, which remained neutral or did not settle, showed little to no change in their workforce numbers.

These discrepancies raise an important question: Are these headcount changes a direct result of Trump-related dealings, or are they merely coincidental, influenced by broader market forces or internal firm strategies? While the data points to a correlation, the true causality might be muddied by external variables not readily apparent in the raw numbers.

This discussion emerges amid broader professional dissent as revealed in recent surveys where the legal community expressed overwhelming opposition to deals with Trump. This backdrop of professional discontent suggests that the implications of political dealings are not only measured in headcount changes but in the broader reputational impacts and moral considerations within the legal sector.

As the legal industry continues to navigate these turbulent waters, the intersection of law, politics, and business remains a hotbed of strategic decisions that could define the future trajectories of many prominent firms. Whether these decisions are driven by cause or coincidence, or perhaps a complex blend of both, will continue to be a point of keen interest and debate.