Who Is Uttam Dhillon, White House Counsel Who Reportedly Misled Trump on Firing Comey?
A report Friday said Dhillon withheld his conclusion that Trump had the authority to fire the former FBI director because he feared the repercussions of such a move.
January 05, 2018 at 02:21 PM
4 minute read
White House lawyer Uttam Dhillon made headlines after a Thursday report claimed he misled President Donald Trump about whether he could fire former FBI Director James Comey.
Dhillon, according to The New York Times, feared firing Comey, as Trump ultimately did last May, would put the presidency in danger. He told Trump the president needed cause to fire the FBI director. After a junior lawyer's researched concluded Trump could fire Comey for any reason, Dhillon never corrected the record, the Times report said.
So who is Dhillon, the White House lawyer who tried to stop Trump? Turns out he's worked all over the federal government, including stints at the Justice Department, the Hill, the Department of Homeland Security and private practice. Here's what to know:
Values executive oversight: As oversight counsel for the House Financial Services Committee in 2014, Dhillon told The National Law Journal his main mission was to help provide a check on the executive branch's authority.
“Oversight is a critical constitutional function,” he said.
Working closely under Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, Dhillon and his team of lawyers investigated the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Export-Import Bank and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Except when he doesn't: But, as part of Trump's White House “compliance team”, Dhillon had a slightly different take on oversight. Dhillon reportedly told top officials at various federal agencies last spring that they don't need to respond to oversight requests for information from Democratic lawmakers.
A White House spokeswoman told Politico the policy was that the White House would honor requests from committee chairs, regardless of political party. However, Democrats don't chair any committees since Republicans have the majority in both chambers.
Government service: Dhillon has worked in the federal government on and off since 1990. In addition to serving as chief oversight counsel for the House Financial Services Committee, a job he held from 2013-2017, he also worked for the House Committee on Homeland Security and the House Republican Policy Committee from 2002-2003, and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight from 1997-1998.
He was head of of Homeland Security's Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement under President George W. Bush from 2006-2009, and an associate deputy attorney general at the DOJ from 2003-2006. He also worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles from 1990-1997.
Married to EEOC nominee: Dhillon's wife is on her way to joining her husband in federal government work. Trump nominated Janet Dhillon, the general counsel at Burlington Stores Inc., to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last June. Janet Dhillon's ethics agreement does not mention her husband's White House job.
Worked for Comey: As Buzzfeed News' Chris Geidner reported, Uttam Dhillon actually worked for Comey during his time at the Justice Department, from 2003-2006. In his role as associate deputy attorney general, Dhillon worked right under Comey, who was deputy attorney general from 2003-2005.
Private practice years: In between years in federal government, Dhillon also worked in private practice. After graduating from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 1987, he joined the firm Gray, Cary, Ames & Frye for a year, and then moved to Stroock & Stroock & Lavan.
Later, from 1998-2001, he worked at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy. Then, before returning to work on the Hill, Dhillon spent nearly four years at the Dallas firm Fitzpatrick Hagood Smith & Uhl, where he was a partner handling federal litigation, white-collar defense and federal appeals.
Dhillon's financial disclosure form from last near noted the firm could still compensate him for past services, and that he would consult with the counsel's office before accepting payments.
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 AllHolland & 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 readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
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