Judge: Perkins Coie's Work for Clinton Should Limit Firm's Role in Arpaio Case
In dissent from the motion panel's order, Circuit Judge Richard Tallman wrote that Perkins Coie, which has represented amici pushing for a special prosecutor, should be precluded from getting the nod since the firm "represented President Trump's former political rival, Hillary Clinton."
April 17, 2018 at 03:08 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Perkins Coie stands ready to help the Ninth Circuit find a special prosecutor to argue a contempt ruling against now-pardoned sheriff Joe Arpaio should remain on the books. But the firm's prior work representing Hillary Clinton should give the court pause in allowing Perkins Coie a role in that decision, a dissenting judge said to an order allowing for the creation of a special prosecutor in the case.
A federal appeals court will appoint a special prosecutor to defend the ruling of a district judge in Phoenix who refused to vacate the record of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio after President Donald Trump pardoned him last year.
A group of amici represented by counsel including Perkins Coie asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appoint a special prosecutor to advocate against Arpaio after lawyers at the Justice Department stated on appeal that the trial judge below should have erased Arpaio's criminal contempt verdict and other rulings after the president pardoned him in August 2017.
Two members of a divided Ninth Circuit motions panel—Circuit Judges A. Wallace Tashima and William Fletcher—on Tuesday found that they had the authority to appoint a special prosecutor under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42.
“Because the United States has abandoned any defense of the district court's decision with respect to vacatur, the merits panel of our court that will decide this appeal will not receive the benefit of full briefing and argument unless we appoint a special prosecutor to defend the decision of the district court,” they wrote.
In dissent, Judge Richard Tallman wrote that the move was “ill-advised and unnecessary.”
“I fear the majority's decision will be viewed as judicial imprimatur of the special prosecutor to make inappropriate, unrelated, and undoubtedly political attacks on presidential authority,” Tallman wrote. “We should not be wading into that thicket.”
Arpaio was convicted of contempt of court in a case involving racial profiling, but the president pardoned him prior to sentencing. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton of the District of Arizona dismissed the government's case against Arpaio last year at his lawyers' request, but in October declined to vacate the court record in the case, finding the president's pardon “does not erase a judgment of conviction, or its underlying legal and factual findings.”
John “Jack” Wilenchik, one of Arpaio's lawyers at Wilenchik & Bartness in Phoenix, said in an email Tuesday that the Ninth Circuit's appointment of a special prosecutor “is nothing new in this case, which has been a battle from day one between the law and deep-seated judicial prejudice.”
“The idea that the Ninth Circuit can appoint 'another' prosecutor to a criminal case, just because the actual prosecutors agree with the defendant and the law is clearly on his side, is deeply disturbing,” he said.
Although the motions panel held off actually naming a special prosecutor in Tuesday's order, Tallman wrote in a footnote to his dissent that Perkins Coie should be out of the running.
“Given that the law firm serving as the primary signor for amici represented President Trump's former political rival, Hillary Clinton, their possible opposing interests should at least preclude them from appointment as special counsel, as they requested,” Tallman wrote.
Reached by email Tuesday, the lead Perkins Coie lawyer on the case, Jean-Jacques “J” Cabou of the firm's Phoenix office, clarified that the firm hadn't requested to be appointed in their brief, but rather said that they “stand ready to recommend a qualified practitioner to serve this role pro bono if that would assist [the Ninth Circuit].”
“We did not ask the court to appoint us,” Cabou said. “We asked the court to appoint a qualified practitioner, which we are confident the court will now do.”
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 AllBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readLatham's New Partner Class Leans Toward Corporate Practices
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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