Something significant is unfolding at Sullivan & Cromwell, stirring a storm within its walls. The prestigious law firm, known for its influential clientele, is facing internal discord over its decision to represent Donald Trump, especially in highly contentious cases. A recent report by the Wall Street Journal has confirmed the swirling rumors of an internal split regarding the extent to which the firm should advocate for Trump, whom many consider a particularly controversial client.

The partnership at Sullivan & Cromwell drew a distinct line last year when it decided to take on Trump as a client. Bob Giuffra, a prominent figure at the firm, delineated clear boundaries: Sullivan & Cromwell would handle Trump’s criminal appeal concerning a conviction over falsified business records and his civil fraud judgment appeal. However, the firm was supposed to steer clear of the Carroll cases, where Trump was found by a jury to have sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll.

Despite initial assurances, recent developments indicate a shift in stance. The firm is now involved in preparing a Supreme Court petition for Trump seeking review of the $83 million defamation verdict against him—a move that has not only surprised but also angered many within the firm. Giuffra himself is reportedly among the lawyers working on this.

The manner in which these decisions were made has also come under scrutiny. Traditionally, such controversial representations would be deliberated by the firm’s committee of managing partners. However, in this instance, the executive committee took charge, bypassing the usual process and, allegedly, not involving the managing partners in decisions, particularly concerning the Carroll case.

This has not been the first time Sullivan & Cromwell’s governance has been questioned. Issues of transparency and decision-making processes were previously highlighted in a pointed letter from Congress related to another matter involving Trump.

Amidst these controversies, the firm has tightened its grip on information flow, instructing lawyers not to discuss Trump-related work with the press and to report any media outreach. There have also been warnings that leaks could lead to termination.

As Sullivan & Cromwell deepens its engagement with Trump, the dissatisfaction among partners grows. The firm’s initial red line on Trump’s representation, once seemingly set in stone, now appears to have been drawn in pencil, reflecting a significant shift in internal policies and raising ethical and strategic questions that continue to divide one of Wall Street’s most storied law firms.