Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Was Discreet Presence at Squire Patton Boggs
Between the start of his unusual relationship with the firm and this week's raid on his office, the nature of Cohen's work at Squire Patton Boggs was a mystery to many there.
April 10, 2018 at 06:17 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
For many at Squire Patton Boggs, the nature of Michael Cohen's presence in the firm's New York office was a mystery.
Cohen, who was given an office on the firm's 23rd floor at Rockefeller Center as part of a “strategic alliance” with his practice, kept a lock on his door. He didn't appear to work on client matters with firm attorneys in New York, and whatever benefit he provided to the firm wasn't apparent to his office colleagues.
Some inside the firm also had concerns about the alliance, even before Cohen's legal troubles devolved to the point of FBI agents raiding his office.
Sources who spoke to New York Law Journal on Tuesday said Cohen, a longtime aide to President Donald Trump and his private attorney, kept to himself and didn't frequently interact with New York personnel at Squire.
Federal agents swept into Squire's office at 30 Rockefeller Plaza on Monday morning to seize records—a highly unusual event for any law office. “I'm surprised any time FBI agents show up at an office to collect documents,” said one attorney tied to the firm when asked for a reaction.
On the same day as the raid, Squire announced that the partnership with Cohen had been called off. “The firm's arrangement with Mr. Cohen reached its conclusion, mutually and in accordance with the terms of the agreement,” the firm said in a statement Monday. “We have been in contact with federal authorities regarding their execution of a warrant relating to Mr. Cohen. These activities do not relate to the firm and we are in full cooperation.”
Squire's alliance with Cohen, lasting roughly a year, was first announced in April 2017. A press release by the firm said it would partner with Michael D. Cohen & Associates to “advance the interests” of its clients.
The National Law Journal reported at the time that a statement from Squire's chairman and global CEO Mark Ruehlmann—now removed from the firm's website—said the arrangement would benefit clients by bringing together Cohen and the firm's lobbyists. “Clients worldwide increasingly confront challenges and look to seize business opportunities that intersect with governments worldwide,” Ruehlman said in a statement at the time.
A spokesman for the firm on Tuesday described the arrangement as a type of referral relationship between Cohen and Squire.
But what exactly Squire or Cohen gained from the “strategic alliance” in the end is unclear. Two attorneys who asked not to be named said the firm kept them in the dark about any client interests Cohen was advancing for the firm, and said they did not observe his work on any firm matter. Some inside Squire were also ”concerned” about him being at the firm office and having his connection, one source said.
Still, the attorneys said Cohen was not disruptive and was a discreet presence, his door sometimes seen closed. He spoke with other lawyers only in passing to say hello in the elevator or hallway. He didn't go to office meetings, lunches or social events, one source said.
The firm gave him a partner-size office with stock furniture, but he wasn't connected to the firm's equipment and he didn't have secretarial support, sources said.
“He was a tenant,” said one source, describing the relationship. “He had space he was given.”
“I had no idea what he was working on,” the source added.
News reports on Tuesday said investigators were searching for documents about payments to women who claim they had affairs with Trump.
A spokesman for the firm said he had “nothing further to add” beyond the firm's comment. Stephen Ryan, Cohen's attorney and a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, did not respond to an email message seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSquire Patton Boggs Associate Among Those Killed in String of Methanol Poisonings
1 minute readMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Holland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute read'There Is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250