# Biglaw Co-Founder's Role in Panama's Separation From Colombia Raises Ethics Questions
A prominent BigLaw co-founder engineered the territorial division of Panama from Colombia in the late 19th century, then billed the new nation handsomely for his services. The arrangement exemplifies how elite lawyers have shaped geopolitical outcomes while monetizing their influence.
The unnamed BigLaw partner orchestrated the canal route through Panama and facilitated the country's independence from Colombia in 1903. His work included diplomatic maneuvering, legal structuring, and political positioning that resulted in Panama's breakaway. Following the separation, he submitted substantial legal bills to the nascent Panamanian government, establishing a precedent for attorney compensation in nation-building exercises.
The canal project required more than engineering expertise. It demanded legal frameworks that addressed sovereignty, territorial rights, and bilateral agreements between multiple nations. A BigLaw firm possessed the institutional capacity and political connections to navigate these complexities. The co-founder leveraged his firm's resources and his personal relationships with government officials to advance the project's interests.
Panama's separation from Colombia occurred amid broader American imperial expansion in the Western Hemisphere. The United States government backed the separation to secure the canal concession. The BigLaw attorney operated at the intersection of American commercial interests, geopolitical strategy, and private legal practice. His dual role as both architect and paid counsel created obvious conflicts of interest, yet such arrangements remained standard practice during the Gilded Age.
The billing arrangement reveals how legal services in major infrastructure projects merged profit motive with political objectives. The new Panamanian state bore the costs of the legal work that had enabled its creation. This dynamic persists today in infrastructure development across emerging markets, where international legal firms negotiate the terms of their own engagement while representing or advising clients on project structuring.
The canal's construction under American control generated vast wealth and geopolitical leverage. The BigLaw firm's role in establishing the legal and territorial foundations positioned it as a key player in one of history's most consequential infrastructure projects. The attorney's compensation reflected the deal's scale and complexity, yet the arrangement sidestepped questions about whether a lawyer can fairly represent a new state's interests while simultaneously collecting fees that depend on the project's completion.
Modern legal ethics rules address such conflicts through disclosure requirements and recusal provisions. The 1903 context lacked such guardrails. Professional responsibility standards were nascent, and attorneys operated with minimal oversight regarding conflicts between personal financial gain and client interests. The story illustrates how BigLaw's influence on major historical events extended beyond legal advice into political engineering, with compensation flowing directly from the outcomes the attorney helped produce.
The episode offers historical perspective on contemporary international law practice. Today's firms advising governments on constitutional matters, territorial disputes, or infrastructure projects face heightened scrutiny regarding conflicts of interest. The BigLaw co-founder's side project succeeded financially because no meaningful institutional framework existed to constrain such arrangements. His billing to Panama for services rendered in separating Panama from Colombia would face legal challenges under current professional responsibility standards.