Review: Five Things to Know About U.S. Attorney John Durham
Amid widespread reports that Connecticut-based U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation into the origins of a probe into Russian influence in the…
October 25, 2019 at 12:09 PM
4 minute read
Amid widespread reports that Connecticut-based U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation into the origins of a probe into Russian influence in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has evolved into a criminal investigation, we look back at our report, "Five Things to Know About John Durham," which ran shortly after he was chosen by Attorney General William Barr to head up the investigation.
First reported by the New York Times, the move to a criminal investigation means Durham will be able to subpoena witnesses, impanel juries and file charges based on his findings.
The following is a short background summary on Durham, who's had a four-decade-long career as a federal prosecutor, and is now known as the key official who is "investigating the investigation."
|1. Durham prosecuted the Boston Mob.
A Republican, Durham is the 52nd U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut. He began in his role as the lead federal prosecutor in that state in February 2018.
He has been a Justice Department attorney since 1982. He is a former acting U.S. attorney and deputy U.S. attorney, and was chief of the Criminal Division. He also once headed the New Haven field office and the Boston Strike Force on Organized Crime, and was involved in special investigation projects under four attorneys general.
In 2002, Durham helped secure the conviction of retired FBI agent John Connolly Jr., who was sentenced to 10 years in prison on federal racketeering charges tied to his relationship with well-known mobster James "Whitey" Bulger.
|2. He led investigations into a former Connecticut governor.
Durham also helped prosecute former Republican Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, who served two prison stints for not paying taxes and accepting $107,000 in gifts from people doing business with the state. He was also responsible for prosecuting mobsters in the Boston area, and led an inquiry into allegations that FBI agents and Boston police had ties with the mob.
|3. He investigated the Central Intelligence Agency.
In 2009, then-Attorney General Eric Holder, a Democrat, appointed Durham to lead the Justice Department's investigation into the legality of the CIA's use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques.
|4. Durham's reputation as nonpartisan made him Barr's 'surprise choice.'
Those who know Durham said they are surprised that Barr, who many view as a partisan Trump ally, would pick a prosecutor who is reputed not to allow politics to enter into his work.
"Frankly, I'm very surprised Barr picked John Durham," attorney and ethics expert Jamie Sullivan said. "Like [Robert] Mueller, Mr. Durham has an impeccable reputation. Barr did not pick someone who is in any way political."
Sullivan, a managing partner with Hartford-based Howard, Kohn, Sprague & FitzGerald and the co-author of a book on Connecticut legal ethics, added that Durham has a reputation for being "extremely tenacious and skilled and driven to come to the correct result."
"He gives the process integrity," Sullivan said.
For instance, when Durham conducted his investigation of Rowland, who had been a popular and well-liked governor, both men were staunch Republicans, Sullivan said.
"There was no political basis of any kind in that investigation and prosecution," he said.
|5. Observers say he permits no leaks.
Stan Twardy Jr., Day Pitney partner and U.S. attorney for Connecticut from 1985 to 1991, has known Durham for more than three decades and says the career prosecutor "is straight down the middle."
"He is a person of tremendous integrity and is completely apolitical," Twardy said Tuesday. "He does not have a political bias in any way. … He avoids it by keeping his head down and conducting the investigation without leaks. He is as close to Bob Mueller as anyone can be. He will conduct the investigation thoroughly."
Read More:
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 AllFDA Defends Rejection of Vape-Flavor Applications Before Sympathetic Supreme Court
From 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute readLaw Firm Associates, Staffers Continue to Put a Premium On Workplace Flexibility, Study Finds
Trending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
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