Kirkland & Ellis Partner's Ninth Circuit Nomination Advances Despite Residency Concerns
California's Democratic senators had opposed the nomination to fill the California-based seat, saying that Kirkland's Daniel Bress was really based in Washington, D.C.
June 20, 2019 at 12:08 PM
4 minute read
Despite opposition from Califorina's Democratic senators, Kirkland & Ellis litigation partner Daniel Bress moved a step closer to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Thursday.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Bress' nomination in a party line vote setting the stage for a full Senate vote.
California's Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, both members of the Judiciary Committee, came out publicly against the nomination in January in a joint statement saying that Bress was based in Washington, D.C. Ahead of the committee vote Thursday, Feinstein said she could not support Bress's nomination, because he is a not a California attorney and the seat is based in California. She said Kirkland & Ellis listed him as a lawyer practicing in San Francisco only after his nomination, and that the land he owns in California is one share of a family business. The senator also said that more than half of the 26 cases he's been involved with in California courts were on behalf of the same two clients.
“As senators we have the right to demand that an individual being nominated to represent our state on the circuit court actually be a practicing lawyer based in our state,” she said. “This is a departure from that. It should not happen. If it happens here, it will happen in other circuits.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said the nomination is not unusual. Graham cited judges who had been nominated for postings outside their states, and underlined Bress' California connection by mentioning that he interned for Feinstein.
Harris said she would not talk about Bress' merits, because she believed the process was flawed.
Bress, for his part, defended his California ties at his confirmation hearing on May 22.
“When my wife's career brought us from San Francisco to Washington, I chose to continue making California central to my practice. I've been involved in cases at all levels of the California court system, federal and state and worked on more litigation in California than any other state by far,” he said. “It has been my great privilege to be a practicing lawyer in those courts; I could not be more excited about the possibility of returning home and serving our legal system in a part of our country that means so much to me.”
President Donald Trump first nominated Bress to the Ninth Circuit in January. The White House initially nominated Patrick Bumatay, a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice, for the seat, before replacing him with Bress after the initial nomination expired. Bumatay was nominated to a Los Angeles-based federal district court instead, though his name has surfaced in connection with another seat set to come up at the Ninth Circuit with Judge Carlos Bea's recent announcement that he intends to take senior status once his replacement is named and confirmed.
Bress clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia from 2006 to 2007, the same term as Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Judge Eric Murphy of the Sixth Circuit—another Trump pick. If confirmed, Bress would join another fellow Scalia clerk on the Ninth Circuit bench—former Munger, Tolles & Olson Los Angeles partner Daniel Collins, who was confirmed last month despite opposition from Feinstein and Harris.
According to the financial disclosure form Bress filed with the Senate Judiciary, he made $1,763,556 in income from Kirkland & Ellis in 2017, $1,881,855 in 2018, and $18,000 in 2019 at the time of the form's filing on Feb. 8. Kirkland had profits per equity partner of $5,037,000 in 2018 and average compensation—all partners of $2,510,000, according to the latest figures from The American Lawyer.
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 AllFTC Receiver Eyes Fraudulent Messages Ecommerce Company's Clients
Big Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readPolicy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1DC Judge, Applying 'Loper Bright', Dismisses Complaint in Medicare Drug-Classification Dispute
- 2Environmental Law in Trump’s Second Term
- 3Lock-Maker's Veteran GC Takes Old Job Back After Successor Lasts Just 3 Months
- 4Judge Sets April Retrial Date in Sarah Palin Defamation Action Against NY Times
- 5HSF and Kramer Levin Leaders Set Out Merger Timeline, Structure
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