Catherine Amirfar, with Debevoise & Plimpton.

Earlier this summer, Catherine Amirfar stepped up to the podium to face 15 somber judges at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

The Debevoise & Plimpton partner was appearing before the UN's highest court on behalf Qatar—a notable choice of outside counsel for an Arab nation where women commonly wear abayas and cover their hair, and a wife is required by law to obey her husband.

Citizens of a country would normally have little idea who was representing them in a dispute being litigated 3,000 miles away and in a foreign language, but this case was different. Al-Jazeera broadcast the three-day proceedings live. And people in Qatar actually tuned in, turning Amirfar into a minor celebrity, even recognized in the Doha airport.

“It was a little bit of a shocker to me,” Amirfar said in an interview. Then again, she noted, this litigation “impacts literally everyone in the entire country.”

Qatar sued the United Arab Emirates in June, citing an “ongoing, brutal campaign of sweeping measures” imposed against Qataris by the UAE.

The suit comes amidst a bitter, year-long dispute with UAE, as well as Bahrain, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which have cut ties and boycotted Qatar over its alleged support for extremist groups—a charge which Qatar adamantly denies.

In June of 2017, UAE expelled all Qataris, prevented their re-entry, separated families and prevented Qatari students from seeking or continuing education in UAE, according to the complaint. The suit claims the measures violate UAE's obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The matter is ongoing, but the Debevoise team—which also includes Lord Peter Goldsmith, the former attorney general for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and partner Donald Francis Donovan—won the first round.

In an 8 to 7 vote, the world court imposed provisional measures requiring the UAE to ensure that families including a Qatari who have been separated by its measures are reunited; Qatari students affected by the measures are given the opportunity to complete their education in the UAE or to obtain the necessary records to do so elsewhere; and Qataris affected by the measures must be allowed access to tribunals and other judicial organs.

Qatar's counsel also includes Lawrence Martin of Foley Hoag.

UAE is represented by lawyers from firms including Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle. 

For Amirfar, who was born in the United States but spent her early childhood in Iran until the revolution of 1978, what's been particularly gratifying about the representation is feedback she's gotten from Qatari women, who have told her they see her as a role model.

“The idea of being part of inspiring the next generation…it's an honor,” she said.

The co-chair of Debevoise's public international law group and a member of the firm's management committee, Amirfar represents a mix of Fortune 500 companies, international organizations including the United Nations, and sovereign nations.

She's also got a vigorous pro bono practice. She's currently representing four survivors of a 1990 massacre of 600 people seeking refuge in a church in Monrovia, Liberia. Colonel Moses Thomas, who allegedly directed the attack, has taken haven in the United States since 2000—admitted under an immigration program intended to help war victims.

Along with co-counsel from Center for Justice & Accountability and Blank Rome, Amirfar is suing Thomas under the Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victims Protection Act in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

 

Quinn Team Wins Big for Ukraine in $3B Fight with Russia

Lawyers from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan notched a major win on behalf of Ukraine in a $3 billion dispute with Russia.

On Friday, British appellate judges reversed an earlier finding that Ukraine had to repay Russia part of a $3 billion bond in default, ruling instead that the case should go to trial.

Represented by Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Russia went after Ukraine for non-payment, invoking the bond's English choice of law clause and choosing the English court as the forum.

But Quinn Emanuel's Alex Gerbi on behalf of Ukraine stressed that this was no ordinary breach of contract. The Quinn team argued that Ukraine agreed to the original loan under duress, and that English law provides that a contract made as a result of illegitimate pressure will not be enforceable.

“[T]he claim is in reality a tool of oppression which includes military occupation, destruction of property, the unlawful expropriation of assets, and terrible human cost,” the Quinn team said, arguing that Ukraine was facing an existential threat which prevented it from making a free and positive choice to agree to the deal.

Britain's court of appeals sounded reluctant to tackle such questions of international law, but concluded that it had the authority to do so.

“[A]s a matter of basic justice, it does not seem to us that Russia can expect to seek to have this contract claim vindicated in an English court without that court proceeding to scrutinise the defense of duress which is arguably available to Ukraine,” the judges wrote.

They also pointed out that Ukraine is willing to have International Court of Justice hear the fight, and repeatedly suggested that Russia might consider that as well.

“[A] possible way forward, if Russia wishes the contract claim to proceed in a manner which does not involve determination by the English court of the relevant points of international law but still allows for fair resolution of the contract claim, would be for Russia likewise to agree to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ in relation to those matters,,” they wrote. “Russia, however, despite instructions being sought from it, gave no indication that it was willing to proceed in this way.”

 

What I'm Reading

Kavanaugh Accuser, Speaking Publicly, Puts New Pressure on Republicans

She now more directly enters the potential political maelstrom of the confirmation process, one reminiscent of Anita Hill's experience when she accused then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment shortly after his confirmation hearings had ended. 

Paul Clement on Brett Kavanaugh and the Term Ahead

In the latest edition of Law.com's Legal Speak podcast, Supreme Court correspondent Marcia Coyle talks with former SG Paul Clement about Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.

Trump Ambassador Pick Faced Sexual Harassment Claims at Former Law Firm

Adrian Zuckerman, a Seyfarth Shaw partner nominated by President Donald Trump in July, was sued in 2008, alongside his former firm, Lowenstein Sandler, by a legal secretary who claimed sexual harassment.

Greg Craig Repped by Zuckerman's Bill Taylor Amid SDNY Investigation

The former of counsel at Skadden is in hot water over whether he failed to disclose work as a foreign agent during his time at the firm.

Paul Manafort Flips on Trump as Plea Deal Unveiled

The longtime lobbyist and Republican operative pleaded guilty to two conspiracy counts.

Blank Rome Case Raises Sticky Questions on Law Firm Mergers

The ex-partners allege Blank Rome “tried to 'play cute' by structuring the merger of Dickstein Shapiro into its law firm by the artifice of labeling it as an 'asset sale.'” 

In case you missed it…

Litigators of the Week: In 'Nuclear' Showdown over CBS, Cleary's Kotler and Hou on Top

“We had to be prepared to fight about everything: we were and we did.”