Big Law Billed Republicans Millions to Sue Obama. Against Trump, Firms Are Working for Free
House Republicans struggled to find lawyers willing to work on their challenges to the Obama administration due to the unpopularity of the stances.
August 22, 2019 at 03:00 PM
6 minute read
House general counsel Douglas Letter is getting a boost from Big Law in his legal fights with the Trump administration—all for free.
The private law firms tapped to help the House handle its unprecedented caseload—Munger, Tolles & Olson, Hogan Lovells and Sidley Austin—have pro bono arrangements, lawyers familiar with the deals and a spokesperson for Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi confirmed.
Georgetown Law's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, which offers free legal services for all of its clients, has done the same for the three House lawsuits it's involved in, ICAP executive director Joshua Geltzer said.
The House has turned to outside counsel in the past, but the free help being offered now stands in contrast to the steep legal bills outside attorneys racked up under Republican Speaker John Boehner in his lawsuits against the Obama administration.
Kerry Kircher, House general counsel from 2011 to 2016, said he wasn't able to get the kind of free representation Letter is accessing because the Republican lawsuits were unpopular among D.C. law firms.
"It wasn't like I could have gotten top-notch representation on a pro bono basis to do that," Kircher said.
During the Obama administration, the GOP-controlled House turned to private lawyers, first David Rivkin with Baker & Hostetler and then Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's William Burck, to lead their suit against the Affordable Care Act. Rivkin was reportedly paid $500 an hour, according to an ABA Journal report.
But Rivkin dropped out of the case, reportedly over concerns that the unpopular position could hurt his firm, and Burck also backed out. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley was eventually hired for the lawsuit.
Turley received $500 an hour for his work on the suit, and was authorized to receive up to $350,000, according to a Democratic letter discussing the terms of his 2014 House contract.
Paul Clement, initially with King & Spalding, left the practice and joined Bancroft in 2011 to work on the House lawsuit defending the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court, after the Obama Justice Department decided to stop protecting the law from legal challenges.
King & Spalding first backed Clement's work but later pulled its support from the suit, saying the "process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate." Clement is now a partner at Kirkland & Ellis.
Rivkin, Burck and Clement did not respond to requests for comment.
A contract obtained by ThinkProgress in 2011 shows that Clement, a former solicitor general, was paid $520 an hour for his work. The House initially set aside $500,000 for that litigation in 2011, but bumped it up to $3 million in 2013.
Kircher said that lawyers in D.C. are now "aroused" by the legal battles between lawmakers and the Trump administration, and are eager to get involved in the cases, even if it means they aren't getting paid for it.
"I'm not at all surprised he's turned to outside assistance," Kircher said of Letter. "I'm happy for him he's able to find it, I think he's gotten very good pro bono assistance."
Thomas Hungar, House general counsel from 2016 until Letter was brought on this year, said the kinds of legal cases on the House's docket are intriguing to private attorneys.
"A lot of times in kind of high-profiles cases like these against the government, people are willing to do it pro bono for a combination of reasons," Hungar said. "For ideological reasons, the opportunity to litigate a fun, exciting, cutting-edge case that's going to have a lot of public attention."
Under House ethics rules, lawmakers can accept free legal help for civil cases challenging the validity of federal rules and regulations, or federal officials or agencies' actions, given that it's not a private issue. The House also passed a resolution in June that authorized Letter to use external lawyers in court cases to enforce subpoenas.
While Letter still leads arguments in the courtroom, he's taken advantage of the outside counsel. ICAP helped his office in the legal fight over the census citizenship question, as well as seeking to defend a female genital mutilation ban that the DOJ stopped defending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Georgetown Law institute teamed up with the House again in the lawsuit to compel testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn, whose testimony Democrats believe will play a key role in making the decision on whether to formally start impeachment proceedings.
Several of the attorneys signing on to help for free have extensive experience in the areas being litigated. Former Solicitor General Don Verrilli, who successfully defended Obamacare before the Supreme Court in 2012, is now helping defend the law again in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Three Sidley Austin attorneys—former DOJ lawyers Virginia Seitz and Joe Guerra, as well as U.S. Supreme Court veteran appellate lawyer Carter Phillips—have expertise in constitutional separation of powers issues. They are now pitching in on the House's appeal of its suit to block the Trump administration from diverting military funds for a border wall.
And former acting solicitor general and Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal said he's also helped with the census and female genital mutilation cases pro bono. While it didn't involve the House, Katyal also worked pro bono on litigation opposing the Trump administration's travel ban for individuals from several majority-Muslim countries.
"There's a whole range of stuff that Republican administrations engage in all the time, and you don't see the law firms challenging it," Katyal said. "But what's going on here, like the census case, is so beyond the pale. That's why you're seeing lawyers stand up and do this."
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 All'Sharp and Profound' Policy Shifts Prompt DC Law Firms to Evaluate Opportunities, Challenges
5 minute read'Rapidly Closing Window': Progressive Groups Urge Senate Votes on Biden's Judicial Nominees
5 minute readBig 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
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 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