Kramer Levin Butts Heads With Trump Organization, Republicans Over Barry Berke Hire
An alleged conflict of interest involving New York partner Barry Berke of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel became a flash point as Congress probes the president and his businesses.
February 27, 2019 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel is publicly butting heads with the Trump Organization and congressional Republicans this week, with an alleged conflict of interest involving New York partner Barry Berke becoming a flash point as Congress probes the president and his businesses.
Earlier this month the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Democratic majority retained Berke, a Kramer Levin partner and one of the country's leading trial lawyers, as special oversight counsel to assist the committee, including in its investigation of the Trump Organization.
Trump Organization attorney Alan Futerfas balked at the hire in a Feb. 22 letter to Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, that demanded an end to the investigation, citing Kramer Levin's representation of the organization in the past, the Washington Post reported.
“This state of affairs violates recognized ethical obligations and irreparably taints the Committee's work,” Futerfas wrote, according to Politico, adding it “requires that the Committee cease and desist from any and all activities that are adverse to the Company.”
Kramer Levin scrubbed portions of its website mentioning its work with Trump's network of companies on Friday, the Trump Organization later said, and Kramer Levin has since acknowledged making changes to the site to “remove confusion” about its work.
Mention of Kramer Levin's work for the Trump Organization was deleted from the profile page of Jay Neveloff, a Kramer Levin partner and chairman of the firm's real estate team. Neveloff has not previously shied away from talking about his work with Trump, and he told The Wall Street Journal in 2017 that he was in Donald Trump's office for hundreds of hours over the course of several decades leading to Trump becoming president of the United States.
On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, sent Kramer Levin a letter requesting more information about Berke's work, his compensation, and the firm's changes to its website.
“[T]he financial aspect of Mr. Berke's relationship with both your firm and the Committee needs further examining,” Collins said in the letter, addressed to Kramer Levin managing partner Paul Pearlman. “[N]ot only will the Committee be providing a six-figure income to Mr. Berke, but the American people—whose taxes will be paying for Mr. Berke's second salary—will be prevented from understanding the financial entanglements and possible financial conflicts of interest Mr. Berke brings to the table as a consultant to the Democrats.”
Kramer Levin said Wednesday it has received the letter and is reviewing it, but did not answer whether it intends to answer Collins, the committee's top-ranking Republican.
Earlier in the week Kramer Levin pushed back against the Trump Organization, telling CNN, “For the past several years the firm's work has involved only minor tasks for single-purpose companies, such as pro forma amendments to condominium offering plans that date back more than a decade or the clearing up of minor building violations for management companies.”
The Trump Organization has disputed the firm's claims about the nature of its work, and said in a Monday evening statement to the Washington Post that it remains a client of Kramer Levin.
Kramer Levin managing director Jennifer Manton said in an email that no other steps beyond removing references to the Trump Organization on its website were necessary to eliminate confusion about the firm's work.
Collins' letter set a deadline of 5 p.m. on Friday for Kramer Levin to respond to the ranking Republican's request for information. A Judiciary Committee aide to Collins said the committee is aware the firm has received the letter and is awaiting a response, but gave no clue as to any next steps the committee planned to take.
|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 AllWhy the Founders of IP Boutique Fisch Sigler Are Stepping Away From the Law and Starting an AI Venture
‘How to Succeed as a Trial Lawyer’: Talking Shop With Author and Veteran Litigator Stewart Edelstein
Litigation Leaders: Labaton’s Eric Belfi on Running Case Investigation, Analysis and Evaluation In-House
Trending Stories
- 1Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 2Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 3Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 4Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
- 5In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
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