MoFo agrees £25k settlement over transgender client dispute

MoFo has settled a discrimination dispute with the Good Law Project and a trans man, agreeing to pay £25,000 plus legal costs without admitting liability.
The case was brought after MoFo reversed its decision to act for the individual, with the Good Law Project linking the move to Trump-era political pressure on Big Law firms.
Morrison Foerster has agreed a settlement with the Good Law Project and a trans man who threatened legal action for discrimination, ending a dispute set against the backdrop of Donald Trump’s huge political pressure on Big Law firms earlier this year.
The organisation said the US firm will pay the full £25,000 sought in damages - plus the claimants’ legal costs - but without admitting liability.
Background
The case was brought by the Good Law Project, the campaigning not-for-profit organisation led by barrister Jolyon Maugham KC that has spearheaded a series of challenges on identity and equality rights.
While it praised MoFo for having a "very good record on LGBTQ+ rights", the group argued the firm's decision earlier this year to reverse an agreement to represent a trans man amounted to unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
In a letter before action sent in March, GLP's solicitors highlighted that the U-turn followed "recent political developments in the US regarding transgender rights and the pressure being placed on large law firms by the new Trump administration, including MoFo," adding its clients "are understandably concerned that pressure has been placed on solicitors in the UK to act in a way that is unlawful and promotes transphobia."
The letter demanded a public apology, compensation and an undertaking not to discriminate against transgender individuals.
Political backdrop
The dispute came at the height of Donald Trump’s attacks on Big Law. In March, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was instructed to investigate the diversity policies of 20 major firms in the US. MoFo was among those named.
According to GLP, in earlier correspondence, MoFo acknowledged that "the potentially controversial nature of issues raised by the litigation" had been one factor in its decision not to take the man on as a client, but denied discrimination played any role and rejected claims that political events in the US influenced the move.
MoFo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Join 10,000+ City law professionals who start their day with our newsletter.
The essential read for commercially aware lawyers.