Kirkland & Ellis' Bill Barr Confirmed as Attorney General
Barr was confirmed Thursday afternoon by a 54-45 vote.
February 14, 2019 at 02:03 PM
4 minute read
William Barr, a former U.S. Attorney General and a conservative Kirkland & Ellis lawyer, will return to head the Justice Department, stepping in to oversee the special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election as it appears to near its end.
Barr was confirmed Thursday afternoon by a 54-45 vote in the U.S. Senate. Three Democratic senators—Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, and Doug Jones of Alabama—joined the Republican majority to approve Barr's nomination. Only one Republican—Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky—broke from GOP ranks to oppose Barr's bid.
Barr was nominated to head the Justice Department by President Donald Trump in December following the forced resignation of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Since then, Matthew Whitaker has served as acting attorney general—even as his own installation atop the Justice Department became mired in controversy and drew challenges in federal courts.
Barr is expected to bring a new team with him to the Justice Department. CNN reported Wednesday that the top contender to be Barr's deputy is Jeffrey Rosen, a former Kirkland & Ellis senior partner who currently serves as deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation. If Rosen were selected and confirmed by the Senate, he would replace Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is expected to leave the Justice Department once special counsel Robert Mueller III's investigation ends.
Barr is expected to take the helm of the special counsel probe, overseeing an investigation he has been accused of criticizing. During his January confirmation hearing, Barr vowed to consult the department's career ethics officials on whether he would need to recuse from the probe. But, he told senators, the final decision on recusal would be his to make.
During his nomination, there was little question about Barr's qualifications for the post. Before he was the attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, Barr previously served as a deputy attorney general and headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.
Still, most Democrats have opposed his nomination, largely pointing a memo Barr sent to Justice Department officials and members of Trump's personal legal team last June. In the memo, Barr described a possible obstruction of justice inquiry into the president as “fatally misconceived.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has described Barr's letter as “disqualifying.”
Democrats have also expressed dissatisfaction over Barr's refusal to commit to the full release of Mueller's findings to the public, once the special counsel's work has concluded.
Pressed at his hearing about the fate of a final Mueller report, Barr vowed to “provide as much transparency” as possible in sharing the special counsel's findings with lawmakers and the public. But the nominee's responses also left open the possibility that he would only release his summary of Mueller's findings to the public, rather than releasing the special counsel's own prepared report.
“I am going to make as much information available as I can consistent with the rules and regulations that are part of the special counsel regulations,” Barr said during his hearing.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, who voted for Barr's confirmation 28 years ago, but voted against his nomination Thursday, said this week that Barr's responses “could lay the groundwork for potentially no transparency at all.”
At the same time, some of Barr's defenders have observed that the nominee could not commit to full disclosure of Mueller's findings. Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University's law school, told senators last month that the nominee could not commit in advance to releasing information he had not yet reviewed, in part because some of those findings could include grand jury or privileged information he would be precluded from disclosing.
Read more:
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 AllBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readWhere May Vacancies for Trump Arise? These GOP-Appointed Circuit Judges Qualify for Senior Status
'Even Playing Field?' Wiley Rein Intervenes in Federal Election Campaign Spending Row
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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