Tempers Flare at Russia Hearing Over Prosecutor, Defense Phone Call
The episode underscored the heated nature of the special counsel's case against Concord Management and Consulting, which was charged along with 13 Russian individuals and two separate entities with subverting the 2016 election.
May 16, 2018 at 03:21 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Reed Smith partner Eric Dubelier. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi/ National Law Journal
Tensions escalated Wednesday between the special counsel's office and the defense lawyers representing a Russian business charged with interfering in the 2016 presidential election, as the two sides disputed whether a recent phone conversation ended with an abrupt hang-up.
During a hearing before U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich of the District of Columbia, special counsel prosecutor Jeannie Rhee said Reed Smith partner Eric Dubelier, a defense lawyer for Concord Management and Consulting LLC, hung up nine minutes into a “meet and confer” call that was scheduled to last an hour May 11.
Dubelier responded that Rhee's account was “absolutely false,” saying that the phone call ended after both sides said they had nothing more to discuss.
“It is demonstrably false,” Dubelier said in court.
“It didn't happen,” he added. “She knows it.”
Immediately after the hearing, Dubelier walked across the courtroom, pointed a finger at Rhee and continued to dispute her version of events. Standing across a desk from Rhee, a visibly upset Dubelier described her account of the events as “bullshit.”
Rhee is among the former Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr lawyers who joined Robert Mueller's prosecution team after his appointment last year.
Dubelier declined to comment after the hearing. A spokesman for Mueller's office also declined to comment.
The episode underscored the heated nature of the special counsel's case against Concord Management and Consulting, which charged 13 Russian individuals and two separate entities with subverting the 2016 election. Prosecutors allege Concord Management helped fund a conspiracy to sow discord into the election.
A week earlier, during an arraignment before U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey, Dubelier appeared to take issue with Rhee revealing that Reed Smith had filed papers with the Treasury Department suggesting that it was representing not only Concord Management but one of the other Russian entities: Concord Catering.
Dubelier said it was “in and of itself a disturbing fact” that the special counsel had access to the submissions, which he described as “confidential.” He clarified that he was appearing only for Concord Management and entered a not guilty plea on the Russian firm's behalf.
Wednesday's status hearing came two days after Dubelier and his co-counsel, Reed Smith partner Katherine Seikaly, filed a brief asking to review the legal instructions Mueller's team gave to the grand jury that indicted Concord Management and Consulting.
But the request went further than that. The Reed Smith lawyers ridiculed the alleged crime as “make-believe” and derided the prosecution as having “absolutely nothing to do” with the special counsel's core mandate of investigating coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.
In the court filing, the Reed Smith lawyers said the prosecutors' reason for bringing the case “is obvious, and is political: to justify his own existence the special counsel has to indict a Russian—any Russian.”
Dubelier and Seikaly are so far the only defense lawyers who have made appearances in the special counsel's case against the 16 Russian defendants. The attorneys and the firm have not spoken publicly about the legal services they are providing to Concord Management.
On Wednesday, Dubelier said he was agitated by language that grouped Concord Management and Consulting in with the other defendants in the case. He said the 13 Russian individuals were affiliated with another entity, the Internet Research Agency, and noted that Concord Management and Consulting is accused of funding the alleged conspiracy.
“It appears that we're the only ones that are going to show up,” he said.
Friedrich urged the two sides to meet in person and scheduled a hearing for June 15.
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 AllFDA Defends Rejection of Vape-Flavor Applications Before Sympathetic Supreme Court
FactSet Finds New Legal Chief at Financial Data Rival S&P
State Attorney General Faces Federal Courtroom Test Over Crypto Mining Ban
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
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