Reed Smith's Russia Work in Mueller Case Gets Closeup in Court
Two Reed Smith partners had entered an appearance for Concord Management and Consulting in April, but not for a second entity, Concord Catering, both of which were indicted in the special counsel's case. A Reed Smith partner told a judge Wednesday the firm was only appearing at this time for Concord Management.
May 09, 2018 at 03:05 PM
5 minute read
Reed Smith offices in Washington, DC. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi/ NLJ
Reed Smith came under scrutiny Wednesday over its defense of a Russian business charged in a conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
A federal prosecutor revealed the law firm is representing not only Concord Management and Consulting but a second Russian entity that was also indicted in special counsel Robert Mueller III's probe of Russian meddling in the election.
Two Reed Smith partners—Eric Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly—had entered an appearance for Concord Management and Consulting in April, but not for the second entity, Concord Catering. Both entities were among a group of Russian businesses and individuals indicted in February for alleged roles in the Russian interference campaign.
During an arraignment in Washington federal district court, prosecutor Jeannie Rhee said it was the government's understanding that Reed Smith was representing both Concord Management and Concord Catering and raised the question of whether the firm was appearing on behalf of both clients.
Rhee said Reed Smith had filed a submission with the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control disclosing its representation of Concord Management and Concord Catering. The two entities, along with the Internet Research Agency, participated in a conspiracy to sow “discord” in the 2016 presidential race, according to prosecutors.
Dubelier said it was “in and of itself a disturbing fact” that the special counsel's office had access to the “confidential” Treasury Department submission. He clarified that he was appearing at Wednesday's hearing only for Concord Management. “There's an issue of representation. There's an issue of what I'm authorized to do today,” Dubelier said.
Dubelier entered a not guilty plea for Concord Management. He then added, “We exercise our right to a speedy trial.”
According to the February indictment, individuals working for the Russian organization Internet Research Agency posed as U.S.-based activists and set up social media pages “designed to attract U.S. audiences.”
Federal prosecutors alleged in the indictment that Concord Management and Concord Catering were the Internet Research Agency's “primary source of funding for its interference operations” in the United States. Concord controlled funding, recommended personnel and oversaw” the Internet Research Agency's activities, according to charging documents.
Concord Consulting and Concord Catering were among the Russian entities designated on a sanctions list by the OFAC published in March. Both entities had been previously designated last year. Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, according to U.S. Treasury officials, controls Concord Management and Consulting. Prigozhin, indicted in the February charges, has been called ”Putin's chef.”
No other defense lawyers have made appearances on behalf of any of the other charged Russian entities in the special counsel's case. Reed Smith has not publicly said how the firm connected with Concord Consulting and Management.
At the end of Wednesday's arraignment, U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey of the District of Columbia asked—without any apparent optimism—whether any of the other defendants were in attendance.
“Alas, they are not here,” Rhee replied. “The government would be thrilled if they were here.”
Entering Wednesday's arraignment, Rhee asked U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich of the District of Columbia to postpone the hearing amid a dispute over whether Concord Management had been properly served a summons. That procedural step, meant to formally begin criminal proceedings, has been complicated by the refusal of Russian authorities to help serve the 16 named defendants.
Russia's Office of the Prosecutor General declined to accept the summonses, Rhee wrote in a brief last week. “The [U.S.] government has submitted service requests to the Russian government pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty. To the government's knowledge, no further steps have been taken within Russia to effectuate service.”
Dubelier maintained on Wednesday that Concord Management has not been properly served under the rules of criminal procedure. He added that, with Concord Catering, the special counsel had indicted the “proverbial ham sandwich” because it was not an operating entity at the time of the alleged election subversion.
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 All'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read5th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
5 minute readDOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
Trending Stories
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