In 2011, a federal judge in Washington scolded prosecutors for maneuvering that “effectively snookered” the defense lawyers in a groundbreaking foreign-bribery case in which charges were brought against more than 20 individuals arrested in a sting operation. The case ended in dismissals and not guilty verdicts.

Last year, in an unrelated civil fraud case against one of the country's largest providers of skilled nursing centers, a federal magistrate judge lambasted prosecutors for what she described as a “house of cards” case built on an expert who suffered from an “utter lack of credibility.” The government went on to drop its case against HCR ManorCare.

Between the two remarkable cases is a common element: Reed Smith litigation partners Katherine Seikaly and Eric Dubelier.

Now, Dubelier and Seikaly are now displaying similarly sharp elbows as they advocate for a Russian business entity charged in the special counsel's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Eric Dubelier.

Dubelier and Seikaly, the managing partner of the firm's office in Tysons Corner, Virginia, are the sole defense counsel to make an appearance in the largest case, by the number of defendants, that special counsel Robert Mueller III has brought since he was appointed to lead the Russia investigation. The two Reed Smith partners represent Concord Management and Consulting, a firm that was indicted in February with 13 Russian individuals and two other business entities.

Early wrangling in the case highlights that Mueller's prosecution team faces no easy path forward in Washington's federal trial court. The Reed Smith attorneys, for instance, successfully resisted the government's effort to postpone the arraignment in the case against Concord.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich of the District of Columbia, siding with Concord's attorneys, on May 5 denied the special counsel's request to delay the arraignment. That hearing remains scheduled for Wednesday before Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey.

Dubelier and Seikaly did not return messages seeking comment about their representation of Concord.

Prosecuting a foreign individual or company in U.S. federal court can pose challenges for the government in any case, especially at the start. The special counsel's prosecution of Concord and the other Russian business entities and individuals has proven no exception.

The government wanted Friedrich to postpone arraignment amid a dispute over whether Concord has been properly served a summons—essentially the formal start of the criminal prosecution in Washington.

Russia's Office of the Prosecutor General has declined to accept the summonses, Jeannie Rhee, a prosecutor on Mueller's team, told Friedrich last week. “The [U.S.] government has submitted service requests to the Russian government pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty. To the government's knowledge, no further steps have been taken within Russia to effectuate service,” Rhee said in a court filing.

Dubelier and Seikaly, according to Rhee's court filing, did not respond to the special counsel's question of whether they were authorized to receive service of the summons on Concord's behalf. Instead, Dubelier responded: “Since your communication to me of the attached summons does not comply with [federal rules of criminal procedure], I am returning it to you.”

In her brief May 4, Rhee argued that if the Reed Smith attorneys “in fact represent Concord, Concord has been served.” She said it was particularly important to resolve whether Concord was properly served in light of the “sensitive intelligence gathering, national security, and foreign affairs issues” presented by the defense lawyers' information requests.

On April 11, the same day Dubelier and Seikaly formally entered appearances to represent Concord, they introduced themselves to their opposing counsel with “broad-ranging requests for information to the government,” Rhee wrote in court papers last week.

The Reed Smith lawyers asked for the names of potential witnesses and requested discovery, “including of all statements, recordings or electronic surveillance” of Concord employees.

Also that day, they requested what Rhee described as “information about more than 70 years of American foreign policy”: An account of “each and every instance” since 1945 in which the U.S. government “engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes in any foreign country.”

In a court filing May 5, Concord's attorneys said the company is entitled to a speedy trial, under federal law, and that any briefing about proper service of the summons “has no legitimate purpose and will create unnecessary delay.”

Concord intends to plead not guilty at Wednesday's hearing, the company's lawyers said in court papers.

Read more:

What New Russia Trade Sanctions Mean for US Companies and Investors

Ex-Skadden Associate Gets 30-Day Jail Sentence for Lying to Mueller's Team

Mueller's Team Charges Russian Nationals in US Election Interference

Judge Scraps Manafort Suit Seeking to Restrain Robert Mueller

Paul Manafort Boosts Defense, Hiring Epstein Becker & Green's Richard Westling