Law.com
  • News
    • Newswire
    • Supreme Court
    • International
    • Legal Blog Watch
    • The Hot Seat
    • Video
  • Publications
    • The American Lawyer
    • Corporate Counsel
    • Law Technology News
    • The National Law Journal
    • New York Law Journal
    • New Jersey Law Journal
    • Connecticut Law Tribune
    • The Legal Intelligencer (PA)
    • Daily Business Review (FL)
    • Delaware Law Weekly
    • Daily Report (GA)
    • The Recorder (CA)
    • Texas Lawyer
    • Publication E-Alerts
    • More Publication Sites
  • Legal Research & Directories
    • Books Online
    • Smart Litigator
    • ALM Experts
    • Verdict Search
    • Court Reporters
    • Legal Dictionary
    • LegalTech® Directory
    • Newsletters
    • More Directories
  • Surveys, Lists & Rankings
    • Amlaw 100
    • NLJ 250
    • Global 100
    • The A-List
    • ALM Legal Intelligence
    • Surveys
    • More Lists & Rankings
  • Special Reports
  • lawjobs.com
  • LawCatalog Store
  • CLE & Events
    • CLE Center
    • ALM Events
    • LegalTech
    • Virtual LegalTech
    • Insight Legal Events
    • Webinars
Home
 
Article
Twitter LinkedIn RSS
Sign Up for Newsletters

Law.com Home > Kagan Discloses She Met With Skadden Lawyers Before Nomination

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Kagan Discloses She Met With Skadden Lawyers Before Nomination

The White House made use of outside legal advice during the nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, too

By David Ingram All Articles 

The National Law Journal

May 19, 2010

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •       Comments (1)
 

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan submitted her answers Tuesday to a background questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee -- opening windows into her year as solicitor general, her finances, and the nominating process.

Her 202 pages of answers, along with boxes of supporting documents, will form the foundation of Kagan's confirmation hearing before the committee. Lawyers for the committee's Democratic and Republican staffs will be combing through the materials for information to support or oppose her confirmation.

Kagan disclosed that, in the weeks before her nomination, she sat down on at least two occasions with lawyers from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

Amy Sabrin, a partner in the firm's Washington office who represented President Bill Clinton in the lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, met with Kagan on April 15. They were joined by Skadden associates Leslie Abrams, Robyn Carr, and Maya Florence and Deputy White House Counsel Susan Davies. Sabrin and Carr met again with Kagan on April 28.

Kagan listed the meetings in response to the committee's Question 25, which asked her to name whom she spoke with before her nomination. She also noted that she communicated -- she doesn't say how -- with Julia Kazaks, a partner in Skadden's tax practice.

The White House made use of outside legal advice during the nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, too. Leslie Kiernan, a partner in the Washington office of Zuckerman Spaeder, was the first to interview Sotomayor about a potential nomination when she met the judge in her New York chambers last May, according to Sotomayor's answers to the Senate questionnaire.

Most of the pre-nomination work, though, was done by the White House's legal shop, Kagan wrote: White House Counsel Robert Bauer, Davies, Vice President Joe Biden's Chief of Staff Ronald Klain and Counsel Cynthia Hogan, White House Staff Secretary Lisa Brown and Attorney General Eric Holder Jr.

In response to a separate question, Kagan disclosed that she had recused from one Supreme Court case as solicitor general -- because a clinic at Harvard Law School, where she was dean, was involved -- and in three lower-court cases -- two because of Harvard clinics and one because of her friendship with former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

Kagan wrote that she considered recusing from the U.S. Justice Department's civil racketeering case against cigarette makers, because she worked on tobacco issues in the Clinton White House. But she said she consulted with two department ethics advisers, and both "advised me that there was no reason to recuse myself from the case," Kagan wrote.

She lists a net worth of $1.76 million, up from $1.01 million when President Barack Obama nominated her to be solicitor general. She listed a $1.22 million mortgage a year ago, and she lists no liabilities now.

Also on Tuesday, Kagan continued her meetings with senators in their Capitol Hill offices, focusing on members of the Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he spoke with Kagan about legal issues surrounding antiterrorism, and he said his initial impression is positive. "During her time as solicitor general, for the most part, I think she's taken pretty well-reasoned positions about the legal rights of detainees," Graham told reporters after the meeting. He was the only Republican on the Judiciary Committee to vote to confirm Sotomayor.

Much of the written material the White House sent to the Judiciary Committee Tuesday relates to Kagan's years as dean of Harvard Law School. Senators wanted copies of materials she wrote or edited, and she lists scores of Harvard news releases that quote her. She writes that she personally edited "almost all" of the news releases.

She included at least two pieces that she had no role in writing: "Two April Fool's Day columns in the Harvard Law Record appear under my name, although I had no involvement in writing them," Kagan writes in response to Question 12. "They are attached."

The document dump includes 102 pages of stories that Kagan wrote, as an undergraduate, for The Daily Princetonian. In one piece, published after the November 1980 election, Kagan wrote that she did not expect so many Republicans Senate candidates -- including "Grassley" -- to win. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is now a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

For complete coverage of the Kagan nomination, see our special report, "The Choice."



Subscribe to The National Law Journal

You must be signed in to comment on an article

 

Reader Comments

  • Peter S. Chamberlain

    August 18, 2010 06:13 PM

    Let me be sure I’ve got this straight. Kagan reported an increase from a million to one and three-quarters million dollars in net worth, and paying off a mortgage of $1.2 million, in the less than two years since she went to work, supposedly on a full time basis, as Solicitor General of the United States, during one of the worst economic times in history for ordinary, honest Americans without the right connections and without the favors these have to sell. Without looking up the exact salary of the Solicitor General, that’s a net increase in net worth about three times what her boss the Attorney General, or a Supreme Court justice, gets paid, and nobody I know’s net worth increases by an amount like that in absolute terms or in relation to her salary.

    I don’t know what kind of deal she got on her mortgage, which should be looked into given other sweetheart mortgage deals we’ve seen for the connected, including Obama, but, given the prevailing rates on home mortgages, the fact that she would pay hers, of this size, off in full while Solicitor General, much less if she did so after being chosen for the Court, raises a number of questions that should also have been investigated while this appointment was before the Judiciary Committee. The fact that these facts are only now being disclosed to the public is troubling.

    We expect the politically connected to get payola, payoffs, bribes, in the form of sweetheart deals, being cut in on deals based on inside information, or good old fashioned cash under the table. The Washington Post carried one very interesting story awhile back about Members of Congress’ investments, typically in alleged and purported blind trusts, quite typically out-performing the results obtained for other people by professional money managers. The Post didn’t say it straight out, but that screams of misuse of non-public information or other things that got Martha Stewart hard time and would get you or me indicted.

    Now, given that Post report, for example, do we really trust the appointment process, the Judiciary Committee process, or the vote of the full Senate on confirmation? How often are we really getting the best potential Justices? Given the politicization both of the judging process, where the Justices don’t even agree on the proper role of the Court and the most fundamental principles of Constitutional interpretation, the modern abuses of the confirmation process, and such evidence of undue and improper influence, not to mention payola and corruption, among Members of Congress, including the Senate, what can we really expect?

    Kagan wouldn’t have been my choice. Among liberal Democratic possibilities, I would have appointed Lawrence Tribe, or maybe Barack Obama. I’m a conservative on most issues, and would have preferred someone like Ted Olson, though I disagree with his position on “gay marriage.” The Presidential candidates’ thoughts and preferences on Constitutional interpretation and judicial selection should be one of the most important reasons for voting for one candidate for President and the Senate rather than another, but way too many voters don’t really know the difference between the basic theories of Constitutional interpretation, much less the qualifications and potential disqualifications of judicial appointees. A retired lawyer, I’ve been reading Supreme Court opinions for more than fifty years and never yet found anyone with whom I agreed close to 100% of the time.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Post a Comment »
Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
  • Zuckerman Spaeder
  • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
  • Zuckerman Spaeder

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Senate Judiciary Committee
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • Harvard
  • Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
  • White House Counsel Robert Bauer
  • U.S. Justice Department
  • Clinton White House
  • Daily Princetonian
  • Republicans Senate
  • Senate Judiciary Committee
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • Harvard
  • Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
  • White House Counsel Robert Bauer
  • U.S. Justice Department
  • Clinton White House
  • Daily Princetonian
  • Republicans Senate

Key categories

    
  • US Supreme Court
  • US Supreme Court

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Court Officials Seek to Reform Process of Naming Acting Justices
    •      
  2. The 2013 Am Law 100
    •      
  3. Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit
    •      
  4. Lawyers Sanctioned Over Porn Lawsuits File Appeal
    •      
  5. Law for Laymen
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

Hiring Interns? Be Sure to Do It Right

ACC Weighs in on Arizona's In-House Pro Bono Rules

Ex-Dewey Partners Face New Foe in Firm's Bankruptcy

S&C Adds Linklaters Restructuring Partner in London
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Enron Sandbox Stirs Up Private Data, Again

LegalTech West Coast Wraps Up With Ethics, VC News

In Tricky Prosecutions, Judges Play Peacemakers

Ropers Majeski Tries to Re-Invent Itself
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fla. Attorneys Lead Force-Placed Insurance Fight

Lawsuit Names Missing Fla. Attorney for Alleged Fraud
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Summer Programs Still in a Drought

Lawyer Not Covered for Alleged Malpractice at Prior Firm
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Firm Takes Another Hit in Bid for 'Unconscionable' Fees

New York's Martin Act Faces Test in Challenge to 2005 Case

Castille Testifies in Favor of 'Civil Gideon' Funding

Workers' Comp Judges Can't Fight Rescinded Raise
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Advising Clients on Weather and the Workplace
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Texas Sues BP, Others Over Deepwater Oil Spill Disaster
  •      
    • Subscription Required

'Follow That Escapee!'

Judge Who Tossed Defense Counsel Accused of 'Partiality'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media