Defense Lawyers, Profs Dish on Special Counsels and 'No Perfect Solution'
The panelists at a recent Harvard Law School discussion about the power of special prosecutors agreed on this: There's no flawless system that uses the executive branch to investigate the executive branch. Panelists at the Harvard event, part of the law school's bicentennial program, offered varying perspectives of what works, what doesn't and what might be done about it.
November 21, 2017 at 01:49 PM
5 minute read
Robert Luskin, Patrick Fitzgerald and Michael Bromwich, left to right, speak at a Harvard law bicentennial event panel in October. Credit: Martha Stewart/ Harvard Law School
The panelists at a recent Harvard Law School discussion about the power of special prosecutors agreed on this: There's no flawless system that uses the executive branch to investigate the executive branch.
Give an independent counsel too much power and too little oversight, and investigations—unmoored from their foundation—will drag on for years. The flipside: Too much supervision by top brass at the U.S. Justice Department could give the perception that an independent investigation isn't independent at all.
Panelists at the Harvard event, part of the law school's bicentennial program, offered varying perspectives of what works, what doesn't and what might be done about it. These were lawyers and Harvard law alums—now working at private firms, or at law schools—who brought unique insight to the challenges facing Robert Mueller III, the special counsel leading the investigation of any collaboration between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia's interference last year in the election.
Robert Luskin, a white-collar partner at Paul Hastings in Washington, said if he had his choice, he'd want a career prosecutor over a special counsel “100 times out of 100″ sitting on the other side of the table from him.
The assignment of a special counsel, Luskin said, reveals inherent mistrust in the institution of the Justice Department. Independent counsels—”some of whom are wonderful, some of whom are not so wonderful,” Luskin recalled—operate outside the “hierarchy and norms and experience” of the Justice Department. He said there's a danger in using the criminal justice system essentially to infuse credibility into the political process of holding elected officials accountable.
“The question of whether or not Donald Trump is fit to be president is not going to be answered by Bob Mueller. The kinds of questions that he is asking are not the questions that we need to be asking,” said Luskin, who represented Karl Rove in the special investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA official. “To outsource—which is what we've done, because of failure of confidence in our political institutions—to outsource that task to the criminal justice [system] is a huge mistake. I think we underestimate the price that is paid for doing that.”
Michael Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general, offered a solution to the group of speakers, one he said he pitched years ago but didn't get any traction on. The DOJ inspector should be considered a “special counsel in waiting.” The role would be clearly conveyed at the time of confirmation: The inspector would know there's a possibility that he or she would lead an independent investigation.
“When it does work, it works because we get lucky. I think we're extraordinarily lucky that someone like Bob Mueller was appointed to do the current Russia-related investigation,” said Bromwich, founder and managing partner of Washington's The Bromwich Group. He added later: “We got Pat Fitzgerald and we got Bob Mueller—but we were damn lucky to get those two. We could have easily have had a U.S. attorney or a former FBI director of far lesser stature and far diminished reputation and quality.”
Patrick Fitzgerald, a former U.S. attorney in Chicago and now partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, was sitting next to Bromwich on the Harvard panel. Fitzgerald led the George W. Bush-era Plame investigation. “There's no perfect solution,” Fitzgerald said, speaking generally about special investigations.
His supervisor was the late David Margolis at the Justice Department. Margolis, Fitzgerald said, did not have the power to challenge a decision he didn't like. But Margolis could fire Fitzgerald.
“If you can look at the system, you could put the play in the joints where there is closer supervision or less supervision. The closer the supervision you have less of a concern that something goes out of the norms but more of a risk that people perceive there to be political influence if it's coming from DOJ. That's sort of the issue. The person you put in charge of who has the knife to cut the cord to say 'you're fired' is somebody you need to really trust. That was David Margolis to a T.”
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 AllEx-Deputy AG Trusts U.S. Legal System To Pull Country Through Times of Duress
7 minute read'Even Playing Field?' Wiley Rein Intervenes in Federal Election Campaign Spending Row
3 minute readBig Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 3Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
- 4Thursday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
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