Berman Describes Pressure From Barr, Planned Legal Challenge to House Judiciary Committee
The "interests of the Office" were Berman's sole concern throughout his tumultuous exit, he said, and he was planning a legal challenge to his ouster before Attorney General William Barr abruptly changed course.
July 09, 2020 at 04:04 PM
5 minute read
Geoffrey Berman arrives to his office in New York on June 20. Photo: Kevin Hagen/AP
Former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, who was removed from his post in the Southern District of New York in a dramatic manner in June, shared details about the circumstances surrounding his departure in a closed-door meeting of the House Judiciary Committee Thursday.
The "interests of the Office" were Berman's sole concern throughout his tumultuous exit, he said, and he was planning a legal challenge to his ouster before Attorney General William Barr abruptly changed course.
In the opening statement, which was shared with media outlets, Berman said that on June 18, he received an email saying that Barr wanted to meet with him at the Pierre Hotel the next day.
During the 45-minute meeting on June 19, Barr asked Berman to resign his job and take on a role as assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's civil division, so that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton could be nominated as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Berman told the committee.
Berman said he told Barr that he loved his job and asked if Barr was dissatisfied with his performance.
"He said that he was not at all dissatisfied," Berman said, according to the text of the opening statement. "He said the move was solely prompted by Jay Clayton's desire to move back to New York and the Administration's desire to keep him on the team. I told the Attorney General that I knew and liked Jay Clayton but he was an unqualified choice for U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York because he was never an [assistant U.S. attorney] and had no criminal experience."
Berman told Barr he had no interest in resigning but would leave the job when a nominee was confirmed by the Senate. Barr continued to press him to take the civil division role, saying it would help build Berman's resume. Berman was a shareholder at the New York law firm Greenberg Traurig before he became U.S. attorney.
"He said that I should want to create a book of business once I returned to the private sector, which that role would help achieve," Berman said. "He also stated that I would just have to sit there for five months and see who won the election before deciding what came next for me."
Barr told Berman that if he did not resign, he would be fired, Berman said. Getting fired "would not be good for my resume or future job prospects," Barr told Berman, according to the opening statement. Berman said he told Barr he did not want to be fired but would not resign, adding that he wanted to see important investigations to completion and guide the office through the coronavirus crisis.
After sharing his cellphone number with Barr at Barr's request, Berman left the meeting and immediately called his executive staff, he said. He also called attorneys who could represent him in a legal challenge if he were fired. The challenge would be based on the fact that he was appointed U.S. attorney by the judges of the Southern District of New York and could not be fired by the attorney general or President Donald Trump, he said.
At 4:44 p.m. Friday, Berman said, he missed a call from an unfamiliar phone number with Washington, D.C., area code that did not leave a voice mail. At 7:21 p.m., he called the number and had a three-minute conversation with Barr, in which he said he had not changed his mind and Barr asked if he was interested in Clayton's job as chairman of the SEC.
"I told him my position was unchanged and that I wanted to wait until Monday to have our final conversation," Berman said. "He asked why I needed to talk to my Executive Staff. He said this is about you. I said it is about the Office. He refused my request to call me on Monday and said that he would call me the next day, Saturday, June 20th."
Berman did not talk to Barr or anyone on his staff again, he said, but sometime after 9 p.m., a Justice Department press release announced Berman would be stepping down.
The press release was false, Berman said, and the announced appointment of U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito of the District of New Jersey as acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District would have been "unprecedented, unnecessary and unexplained."
Berman issued his own press release saying he had not resigned and had no intention to do so.
During the day Saturday, Berman had a series of calls with his private attorneys and his executive staff, he said.
In the afternoon, Barr released a letter saying Berman had been fired by the president, but the letter contained a "critical concession by the Attorney General," Berman said.
"The Attorney General stated that Audrey Strauss, my hand-picked and trusted Deputy, and not Craig Carpenito, would be Acting U.S. Attorney and was expected to serve in that capacity until a permanent successor is in place," Berman said. "With that concession, and having full confidence that Audrey would continue the important work of the Office, I decided to step down and not litigate my removal."
READ MORE:
Berman to Depart as US Attorney in Manhattan, Justice Department Announces
Geoffrey Berman Resigns as Manhattan US Attorney, Ending Standoff With William Barr
Financial Disclosure From 2018 Offers Glimpse Into Audrey Strauss' Private-Sector Earnings
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 All![Justice 'Weaponization Working Group' Will Examine Officials Who Investigated Trump, US AG Bondi Says Justice 'Weaponization Working Group' Will Examine Officials Who Investigated Trump, US AG Bondi Says](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/aa/c6/cf82c06b4d7882a436520799935e/pam-bondi-2025-016-767x633.jpg)
Justice 'Weaponization Working Group' Will Examine Officials Who Investigated Trump, US AG Bondi Says
!['A Shock to the System’: Some Government Attorneys Are Forced Out, While Others Weigh Job Options 'A Shock to the System’: Some Government Attorneys Are Forced Out, While Others Weigh Job Options](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/02/c8/47d457c84e2ba6f1200184b3b2e2/murphy-767x633-1.jpg)
'A Shock to the System’: Some Government Attorneys Are Forced Out, While Others Weigh Job Options
7 minute read![The Lawyers Waging the Legal Fight Against the Trump Administration The Lawyers Waging the Legal Fight Against the Trump Administration](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/4e/db/1bd26a0247e8afb36d78c52e415a/donald-trump-executive-orders-767x633.jpg)
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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