Just over two years ago, we named Covington & Burling's Robert Kelner (left) and Stephen Anthony (right) Litigators of the Week for securing a plea deal for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn in the Mueller probe—a single count of lying to federal investigators that set their client up for little or no jail time.

Kelner and Anthony didn't comment for the piece—the matter was (and is) still pending—but colleagues in the white collar bar sang their praises for such a "strong job in achieving that result." If Flynn had been found guilty of any number of the crimes for which Mueller was reportedly investigating, he could have served decades in prison.

Except now, according to Flynn, it wasn't a good deal at all. It was a terrible deal—so bad that he's asked the court to withdraw his guilty plea, citing ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Covington "betrayed" him, Flynn said in court papers filed on Jan. 29, and the "taint of Covington's constitutional violations permeates this case."

So … this would definitely be the first time we named a team as our Litigators of the Week only to have them bounced for ineffective assistance of counsel in the same matter.

What the heck is going on?

To be clear, Flynn isn't just attacking Covington. In an earlier filing in January, he accused the government of "bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement" as another reason to withdraw his guilty plea. Flynn lashed out after prosecutors recommended that he receive a prison sentence of up to six months, backing away from their earlier support of probation only. 

Covington—which in my experience is one of the more discreet, circumspect firms around—so far has kept silent, concluding that it's constrained by attorney-client privilege from hitting back. "Under the bar rules, we are limited in our ability to respond publicly even to allegations of this nature, absent the client's consent or a court order," a firm spokesman said.

But that may change. On Sunday, prosecutors filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia to find that Flynn "waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to matters relating to his ineffectiveness claims." Prosecutors want Sullivan to order Covington to respond to Flynn's allegations "in a declaration or an affidavit, even if there might otherwise be a duty to keep such information confidential."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jocelyn Ballantine also argued that Covington should have the chance to defend its good name.

"To make certain and clear that counsel may take the necessary steps to vindicate their public reputation by addressing and defending against the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and equally to vindicate the integrity of this court's previous proceedings, the government asks this court to issue the attached proposed order," she wrote.

It only seems fair. Because Flynn's 50-page filing totally trashes the firm.

"Not only was Mr. Flynn denied his Sixth Amendment right to 'zealous counsel' devoted solely to his interests, he was misled, misinformed and betrayed by counsel mired in nonconsentable conflicts of interests," it states. (Though honestly it's hard to even pick a quote, there are so many along these lines.)

But the rhetoric doesn't quite obscure a basic contradiction at the heart of the motion. 

Flynn now claims that he's totally innocent—that he never lied to federal investigators.

Yet that would mean this supposed paragon of honesty lied instead when he signed a Statement of the Offense that he "willfully and knowingly" made material false statements to the FBI on January 24, 2017, regarding his contacts with the Russian ambassador, and that he "made material false statements and omissions" in documents filed with the Justice Department pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA. He then swore under oath that his Statement of the Offense was true and correct.

Claiming that you lied about lying isn't the most compelling defense.

Flynn blames Covington for it all. 

"[I]f Mr. Flynn had been given constitutionally adequate advice, he would not have pled guilty in 2017, and he would have withdrawn his plea in 2018," wrote his new legal team, which includes frequent Fox News guest Sidney Powell of Dallas-based Sidney Powell PC and lawyers from Harvey & Binnall in Virginia and The William Hodes Law Firm in Florida.

Right before he signed the plea, Flynn said prosecutors disclosed to Covington lawyers that two of the FBI agents who interviewed him said "they saw no indication of deception," and that he had "a sure demeanor." 

But Flynn said the Covington lawyers didn't pass this information on to him—which he sees as a major failure. 

"It is wholly unreasonable and outside the range of acceptable lawyerly behavior, let alone competence, for counsel—not the government, but the defendant's own counsel—to withhold crucial information that effectively disables the defendant from making a truly voluntary or intelligent decision whether or not to plead guilty," Flynn's new lawyers wrote.

They also noted that the government "leveraged the threat of charges against Mr. Flynn's son" to induce him to sign the plea, an arrangement that they described as a "secret, side deal between counsel."

"While the court did ask him about whether he considered himself guilty, it did not inquire into the basis of that belief. That was crucial here because it may have been that Mr. Flynn was pleading guilty to take responsibility for something that was not criminal activity," they wrote.

Maybe so, but is that ineffective assistance of counsel? Or a father deciding to protect his son?

The bulk of the motion focuses on an alleged conflict of interest stemming from Flynn's FARA registration, which was handled by Kelner and Covington partner Brian Smith. 

Mueller's team detailed three instances where the FARA filing contained false statements about Flynn's work for the Republic of Turkey.

It's easy to see how this is potentially problematic. Since Kelner did the FARA filing, he could be a fact witness adverse to his (now-former) client.

It's also not clear who is to blame for the FARA misinformation. As Flynn's new lawyers put it, "[T]he question became: Were the suspected false statements the result of Covington's misfeasance or malfeasance, or, did Mr. Flynn lie to his lawyers?"

Flynn's new lawyers assert that Covington is at fault—that "all mistakes, errors or omissions, if any, belonged to Covington"—and that the firm covered up its bungled job on the registration by claiming Flynn lied to them. 

"Showing that Mr. Flynn was truthful with his lawyers would cast aspersion on the competence, or perhaps even the honesty of the Covington lawyers and the reputation of 'the Firm;' so would withdrawing from the representation of the highest profile figure in the [special counsel's] investigation," they wrote. "Covington chose the 'Flynn-lied-to-his-lawyers' option."

Flynn also says the conflict was not properly disclosed to him. Covington "did not insist he obtain independent counsel. They did not advise him Special Counsel had focused on FARA issues. They did not withdraw. Instead, his own lawyers kept it all a secret from him for weeks."

If even some of these allegations are true, it doesn't look like Covington's finest hour. 

But here's the thing: Flynn didn't plead guilty to violating FARA, nor apparently was his work for Turkey a main focus of Mueller investigators. 

Instead, Flynn pleaded guilty to "making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in violation of 18 U .S.C. § I00I" in connection with his conversations with the Russian ambassador. Do the FARA allegations actually matter in deciding whether Flynn should be able to withdraw that guilty plea? 

All I can say is, I hope Judge Sullivan lets Covington tell its side of the story.