Lawyer for Assange Leaves Miller & Chevalier as Mueller Probe Heats Up
Barry Pollack, who said he is also representing a client in connection with the Robert Mueller investigation, quietly left Miller & Chevalier to join Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber as a partner.
March 13, 2018 at 01:37 PM
4 minute read
Barry Pollack, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's Washington, D.C.-based attorney, has left Miller & Chevalier for a smaller boutique law firm and is representing an unnamed client involved in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.
“I am representing someone with respect to the Mueller probe,” said Pollack, who is now a partner at Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber. “The representation is not public at this point,” he said.
Pollack said Assange, whose organization in 2016 released troves of Democratic Party emails stolen by Russian hackers, has not been contacted by Mueller's office thus far. Pollack said he is representing Assange only in relation to an ongoing criminal investigation in the Eastern District of Virginia. He gave no hints as to who he was representing in connection with Mueller's investigation.
Last month rumor spread that former Trump campaign official Richard Gates had retained Pollack, following a report in The Daily Beast. Pollack told The National Law Journal he did talk to Gates about representing him at trial, before Gates ultimately pleaded guilty, but he was never retained.
“I had spoken to Mr. Gates about the possibility of representing him at trial if he was not able to resolve the case through a plea,” Pollack said. “Obviously, ultimately he decided that he did want to resolve the case through a guilty plea, and so there was no need for me as trial counsel. When I had spoken with him it was about the potential of representing him at trial, if [Sidley Austin senior counsel] Tom Green was not able to get a plea deal for him that he thought was in his best interest to take.”
Pollack added, “I have not spoken with anybody else [besides Gates] who has been charged or is in a position where they're looking for trial counsel with respect to that investigation.”
The timing of Pollack's exit from Miller & Chevalier follows a familiar path for attorneys with clients in Mueller's crosshairs. Kevin Downing, a defense lawyer for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, left Miller & Chevalier last year, with the firm citing a client conflict. Downing has continued to represent Manafort, who has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges.
Pollack gave no indication that he was also leaving Miller & Chevalier because of conflict issues. He said he wanted to join Robbins Russell because he thinks his practice brings trial-level criminal work that is a better fit for the firm. Pollack said Miller & Chevalier had a number of practice areas that were not necessary to support his work.
“I had been at Miller Chevalier for a little over nine years, and it is an excellent firm, but it has grown,” Pollack said. “Robbins Russell is more of a litigation boutique: A little bit smaller and just a very high-end litigation firm, and a firm that I feel like I can really be part of the next generation at that firm and that's an exciting opportunity.”
Robbins Russell counts 35 attorneys on its website, including Pollack, while Miller & Chevalier has little more than 100 lawyers in its ranks.
Pollack also said he will continue to represent Assange while working as partner at Robbins Russell, but he will do so though his own independent firm, not through his new firm. Pollack said Robbins Russell did not want to take on Assange's representation “for a variety of client and other reasons,” but he said the firm also did not want to interfere with Pollack's relationship with Assange.
Pollack said his independent representation of Assange is unique to the controversial WikiLeaks founder.
“There are not presently other clients that fall in that same category [as Assange], but part of the idea of establishing my own firm is that if there are representations that I want to take on that for whatever reason Robbins Russell does not, it would give me the flexibility to do that,” Pollack said.
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 AllDemocratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
6 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1$34M Verdict Shows How 1 Claim Could Ratchet Up Employment Suit
- 2OIG Progress Puts Connecticut in Leadership Position
- 3Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 4Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 5Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
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