Reed Smith's Russia Work in Mueller Case Gets Closeup in Court
Two Reed Smith partners had entered an appearance for Concord Management and Consulting in April, but not for a second entity, Concord Catering, both of which were indicted in the special counsel's case. A Reed Smith partner told a judge Wednesday the firm was only appearing at this time for Concord Management.
May 09, 2018 at 03:05 PM
5 minute read
Reed Smith came under scrutiny Wednesday over its defense of a Russian business charged in a conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
A federal prosecutor revealed the law firm is representing not only Concord Management and Consulting but a second Russian entity that was also indicted in special counsel Robert Mueller III's probe of Russian meddling in the election.
Two Reed Smith partners—Eric Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly—had entered an appearance for Concord Management and Consulting in April, but not for the second entity, Concord Catering. Both entities were among a group of Russian businesses and individuals indicted in February for alleged roles in the Russian interference campaign.
During an arraignment in Washington federal district court, prosecutor Jeannie Rhee said it was the government's understanding that Reed Smith was representing both Concord Management and Concord Catering and raised the question of whether the firm was appearing on behalf of both clients.
Rhee said Reed Smith had filed a submission with the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control disclosing its representation of Concord Management and Concord Catering. The two entities, along with the Internet Research Agency, participated in a conspiracy to sow “discord” in the 2016 presidential race, according to prosecutors.
Dubelier said it was “in and of itself a disturbing fact” that the special counsel's office had access to the “confidential” Treasury Department submission. He clarified that he was appearing at Wednesday's hearing only for Concord Management. “There's an issue of representation. There's an issue of what I'm authorized to do today,” Dubelier said.
Dubelier entered a not guilty plea for Concord Management. He then added, “We exercise our right to a speedy trial.”
According to the February indictment, individuals working for the Russian organization Internet Research Agency posed as U.S.-based activists and set up social media pages “designed to attract U.S. audiences.”
Federal prosecutors alleged in the indictment that Concord Management and Concord Catering were the Internet Research Agency's “primary source of funding for its interference operations” in the United States. Concord controlled funding, recommended personnel and oversaw” the Internet Research Agency's activities, according to charging documents.
Concord Consulting and Concord Catering were among the Russian entities designated on a sanctions list by the OFAC published in March. Both entities had been previously designated last year. Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, according to U.S. Treasury officials, controls Concord Management and Consulting. Prigozhin, indicted in the February charges, has been called ”Putin's chef.”
No other defense lawyers have made appearances on behalf of any of the other charged Russian entities in the special counsel's case. Reed Smith has not publicly said how the firm connected with Concord Consulting and Management.
At the end of Wednesday's arraignment, U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey of the District of Columbia asked—without any apparent optimism—whether any of the other defendants were in attendance.
“Alas, they are not here,” Rhee replied. “The government would be thrilled if they were here.”
Entering Wednesday's arraignment, Rhee asked U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich of the District of Columbia to postpone the hearing amid a dispute over whether Concord Management had been properly served a summons. That procedural step, meant to formally begin criminal proceedings, has been complicated by the refusal of Russian authorities to help serve the 16 named defendants.
Russia's Office of the Prosecutor General declined to accept the summonses, Rhee wrote in a brief 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.”
Dubelier maintained on Wednesday that Concord Management has not been properly served under the rules of criminal procedure. He added that, with Concord Catering, the special counsel had indicted the “proverbial ham sandwich” because it was not an operating entity at the time of the alleged election subversion.
Read more:
Reed Smith Team Puts Early Squeeze on Mueller Prosecutors in Russia Case
What New Russia Trade Sanctions Mean for US Companies and Investors
Mueller's Team Charges Russian Nationals in US Election Interference
Former Tax Prosecutor Jay Nanavati in DC Joins Manafort Defense Team
Paul Manafort Boosts Defense, Hiring Epstein Becker & Green's Richard Westling
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
© 2025 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 AllFTC Sues PepsiCo for Alleged Price Break to Big-Box Retailer, Incurs Holyoak's Wrath
5 minute readSupreme Court Will Hear Religious Parents' Bid to Opt Out of LGBTQ-Themed School Books
Wells Fargo and Bank of America Agree to Pay Combined $60 Million to Settle SEC Probe
Trending Stories
- 1Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 2With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 3Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 4Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
- 5Top 10 Developments, Lessons, and Reminders of 2024
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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