...Russian clients present a headache for City law firms...

Because of the global sanctions introduced in recent days, there are [now clients] which, legally, firms can no longer work [for]. If a client is on the sanctions list, that is more or less it. But that still leaves a large category of Russian clients [for whom] firms could act for, but perhaps [they] should not [act for]...

This does not apply to barristers, who are bound by the cab-rank rule to take the next case that comes along, however objectionable. But solicitors have greater choice as to who they represent. And these will be difficult choices for many who have developed lucrative relationships with clients who were, at the time taken on, legitimate...

...beyond ensuring that [their clients] strictly complied with sanctions, firms did not swear off clients linked to the Russian state after [the annexation of Crimea in] 2014...It would also be untenable when many of their other corporate clients are swearing off doing business in Russia at considerable cost...

Firms are doing a lot of “reviewing” of their relationships. White & Case has said it is reviewing its Russian and Belarusian client representations...Baker McKenzie is reviewing its operations. Linklaters is reviewing all of its Russia-related work. A&O has said it will also refuse all new instructions and “stop all Russia-linked work that goes against our values”. Norton Rose has clarified that its lawyers can speak up in defence of Ukraine, they just are not allowed to speak about sanctions.

But mealy-mouthed statements should not be allowed to provide cover for a lack of real action. Firms do not need to shout about dropping Russian clients. It nonetheless needs to be clear that they will not carry on as they were before Russia invaded Ukraine.