More than a third of top law firms are exacerbating the climate crisis by supporting some of the world’s biggest polluters through their advisory work, according to the latest Law Students for Climate Accountability report.

The sixth annual climate scorecard found that while the number of firms receiving a top A grade for their climate change mitigation work had doubled to 14 compared to last year, more than a third of firms that were part of the study (38) received an F grade for increasing their fossil fuel-related work.

The scorecard evaluates prominent global law firms based on their rankings in the Vault 100, using a scale from A to F. It considered litigation, lobbying efforts and other legal transactions related to the extractive energy industry, particularly oil and gas, from 2020 to 2024.

Over that time period, Vault 100 firms participated in 623 representations that the report’s authors asserted exacerbated climate change, earned $35.8m for lobbying on behalf of fossil fuel corporations, and facilitated more than $2trn in transactions supporting fossil fuel interests.

Firms that received an F grade included some of the world’s top law firms, including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, White & Case and Skadden.

UK law firms were not without criticism either, with the 2025 Scorecard presenting UK law firms’ fossil fuel data alongside public commitments to sustainability, according to Lawyers Are Responsible, a UK-based association of lawyers concerned about climate change.

LAR stated that the report revealed “a clear disparity between outward communications and the industries for which they provide legal services”.

The report highlighted that London-based firms alone facilitated $59bn in fossil fuel transactions in 2024, with 80% of Magic Circle firms receiving failing grades of D or F. A&O Sherman was ranked the worst firm for fossil fuel transactions, while Linklaters ranked fifth.

The report also revealed disparities in compensation for lobbying efforts, with compensation for fossil fuel lobbying being double that of renewables. However, the report indicated a slight decrease in lobbying activities on behalf of fossil fuel companies by Vault 100 firms.

Litigation also further reflected the compensation imbalance, as 88% of cases involving Vault 100 firms promoted fossil fuel interests. Five firms carried out a quarter of fossil fuel representations, with Paul Weiss being named “the worst actor in the litigation field”.

“This is a moment of truth for the legal industry,” stated Aidan Bassett, LSCA’s national student leadership committee research co-chair. “The business case for clean energy has never been stronger, and the moral courage of major firms has never been so in question.”

Seven firms receiving an F grade in the report also agreed on settlement deals with US President Donald Trump to provide substantial pro bono legal services to support various causes endorsed by the Trump administration, including Kirkland, Latham, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, A&O Shearman, Paul Weiss, Skadden and Milbank.

Of the firms contesting the administration’s executive orders, Jenner & Block received a C grade, Perkins Coie and Wilmer Hale received D grades, and Susman Godfrey, the latest challenging the orders, received an F grade.

Paul Weiss, A&O Shearman, Slaughter & May and other law firms named prominently in the report were approached for comment.

Among the 14 A-grade firms, the report named Foley Hoag “a standout in this crowd; it has done mitigating work in lobbying and litigation”, alongside well-known UK names like BCLP. 

For the first time, the 2025 Scorecard includes additional firms beyond the Vault 100, including in Australia, Canada, South Africa and the EU.