The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, for example, has severed its ties, as have some public pension funds. Interestingly, the American International Group had planned to drop Goldman as its main adviser, after some well-publicized deals that put them in conflict and left A.I.G. on the losing end. But then A.I.G.’s attempt to sell its Asia business fell through recently — a deal that would have helped A.I.G. pay back some of its debt to taxpayers — and now Goldman is back on the case.

Indeed, Goldman’s franchise has endured — no, prospered — through one of the most tumultuous periods in the bank’s history.

Yet rarely has the view from the corner office been so at odds with the view from just about every other corner.

“Goldman has been politicized, and it is important to look beyond the demagogy to examine the facts,” Joseph M. Zubretsky, the chief financial officer of Aetna, the large health insurer, told me in an e-mail message. “Our experience with Goldman is that they conduct themselves consistent with the values we expect from a close adviser.”

Goldman has been good to corporations like Aetna and G.E., and vice versa. Goldman has helped companies raise money and cut deals that keep shareholders happy. G.E. and Goldman even share a big-name benefactor, Warren E. Buffett, who has invested billions in both companies.

So even if some clients do have misgivings, they might not want to speak ill of family. Its critics might suggest that its clients are so close to the action that they are missing the bigger picture.

The former chief executive of Washington Mutual sent an e-mail message about Goldman, disclosed as part of the S.E.C.’s civil fraud suit, that said, “They are smart, but this is swimming with the sharks.” His colleague added, “We always need to worry a little about Goldman because we need them more than they need us and the firm is run by traders.”