Latest news with #WilmerHale
Zawya
7 days ago
- Business
- Zawya
BCG says some of its staff circumvented its controls in Gaza work
LONDON: An investigation commissioned by Boston Consulting Group has found that some of its U.S.-based staff sidestepped its risk controls to do work related to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and to "post-war reconstruction" for the Palestinian enclave, the consulting firm said. In a response to a British parliamentary committee inquiry published on Thursday, BCG detailed the role some of its staff played in establishing GHF during late 2024 and early this year, and then the efforts made by one of its managing directors to carry out further work in March. GHF is a U.S.- and Israeli-backed organisation that began delivering humanitarian supplies to Palestinian civilians in Gaza in May, bypassing traditional aid channels including the United Nations. Its operations have been beset by violence and chaos including deadly shootings of scores of Palestinians near its food distribution sites guarded by Israeli forces, Reuters has reported. The U.N. and other humanitarian groups have refused to work with GHF, questioning its neutrality and criticising the new distribution model as militarising aid and forcing displacement of Palestinians. "We deeply regret that, in connection with the work about which the committee has asked, we did not live up to our standards," BCG said in its July 22-dated response to the parliamentary committee inquiry. BCG's role in the setting up of GHF dragged the firm into controversy and raises questions over its internal risk processes and controls. Its decision not to publish the full investigation could lead to further questions about the level of that involvement. A "largely complete" review led by law firm WilmerHale had shown that "BCG's approval processes were circumvented" by now-former BCG staff, the Boston-based management consulting firm said, in relation to work carried out earlier this year. BCG said it "will not publish the findings of this investigation" by WilmerHale. BCG said a team led by two U.S.-based and now former employees "provided pro bono support" to establish GHF between October last year and January, including its subsidiary in Switzerland, and that such work was directed by a U.S.-based security contractor, Orbis Operations. BCG said the information provided by its staff related to the establishment of the foundation was "incomplete, inaccurate and/or untruthful". SECOND PROJECT Later in March, a BCG employee started "a second, for-fee, project related to the operational and logistical effort to deliver aid", and entered into a contract with U.S.-based private equity firm, McNally Capital. BCG said it cancelled the invoice for this project "as soon as we understood more about the scope and nature of the work." Representatives for McNally Capital did not immediately reply to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Orbis said that "Orbis's involvement was limited to feasibility work," without giving further details. Despite being told by BCG's risk officer not to engage in such a project, the same employee started a team to model "post-war reconstruction" scenarios, BCG said in its letter. He did not enter into a contract with any counterparty for this work, BCG said. "This unapproved work was shared and discussed on Signal" and "those communications were not maintained," the consulting firm said. BCG added that "the only UK-based organisation with which we understand the team interacted during this work was the Tony Blair Institute," referring to post-war scenario planning for Gaza. The Financial Times reported on July 4 that BCG had modelled the costs of "relocating" Palestinians from Gaza and that the Tony Blair Institute participated in a project to develop a post-war Gaza plan. A Tony Blair Institute representative said the firm "has had many calls with different groups on post-war reconstruction of Gaza but none have included the idea of forcible relocation of people from Gaza." (Reporting by Stefania Spezzati and Andrew MacAskill; Additional reporting by Aram Roston; Editing by Tommy Reggiori Wilkes and Timothy Heritage)
Reuters
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
What Republican, Democratic judges said about Trump's law firm orders
June 30 (Reuters) - Over the past two months, four separate federal judges in Washington have sided decisively with each of the law firms that sued the Trump administration to block White House executive orders against them. Below are highlights from the rulings, which said President Donald Trump illegally restricted the firms' business in retaliation for cases they took or attorneys they hired. The White House, which has not yet appealed the decisions, has called the orders a legitimate exercise of presidential authority. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, ruling for Susman Godfrey: --'The Order goes beyond violating the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The Order threatens the independence of the bar — a necessity for the rule of law.' --'Defendants do not point to any statutory authority that empowers the President to punish a law firm for its choice of clients, donations, or other speech, and the court is not aware of any law that would support such action.' --"Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full." U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, ruling for WilmerHale: --'The President, by issuing the Order, is wielding his authority to punish a law firm for engaging in litigation conduct the President personally disfavors.' --'The Order is plainly motivated by the President's desire to retaliate against WilmerHale for its protected activity.' --'The WilmerHale Order violates the separation of powers by attempting to usurp the Judiciary's authority to resolve cases and sanction abuses of the judicial process.' --'The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The founding fathers knew this!' U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, ruling for Jenner & Block: --'It casts a chill over the whole of the legal profession, leaving lawyers around the country weighing the necessity of vigorous representation against the peril of crossing the federal government. The order's chilling effect is uniquely harmful for its focus on pro bono work.' --'The serial executive orders targeting law firms have produced something of an organic experiment, control group and all, for how firms react to the orders and how they might escape them." U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, ruling for Perkins Coie: --"The importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system's fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era." --"In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase 'Let's kill all the lawyers,' EO 14230 takes the approach of 'Let's kill the lawyers I don't like,' sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else." --"If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written."
Miami Herald
28-06-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump Suffers Legal Blow: ‘Grave Constitutional Violations'
On Friday, a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order targeting legal firm Susman Godfrey, ruling it was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." This is the fourth defeat in court Trump has suffered since imposing punitive measures on a number of law firms that either were involved in legal cases against him or represented his political rivals. Newsweek contacted the White House and Susman Godfrey for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and telephone respectively. In March, Trump issued a slew of executive orders targeting law firms resulting in a number taking legal action, though others struck deals with the White House which saw them agree to do unpaid work on behalf of causes the president supports. Critics argued Trump's move was unconstitutional and an assault on free expression, whilst the White House said it was needed to combat what it termed "dishonest" activity. The executive orders Trump imposed on various law firms, including Susman Godfrey, featured a number of punitive measures such as blocking their employees access to government buildings, terminating government contracts and suspending security clearance. Friday saw District Judge Loren AliKhan conclude that in the case of Susman Godfrey, Trump's order was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." She said: "Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." Trump's executive order targeting Susman Godfrey was already the subject of a temporary restraining order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 15. Susman Godfrey is the fourth law firm targeted by Trump's executive orders that has successfully fought to get them blocked in court, following Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. The rulings were issued by judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. In a statement, Susman Godfrey said: "The Court's ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation. "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." In his ruling on WilmerHale's case, Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said: "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. "The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence." Friday's judgement means the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey will not go into effect. The Trump administration has not said whether it plans to appeal. Related Articles Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa RaceRepublican to Retire as Democrats Eye Potential House Seat: ReportsElon Musk Staffer 'Big Balls' Joining Social Security AdministrationHarvard Finds International Student Lifeline Amid Trump Visa Showdown 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
New York Times
16-06-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Trump's Strategy in Law Firm Cases: Lose, Don't Appeal, Yet Prevail
The Trump administration is ordinarily quick to appeal its losses. When courts in recent weeks blocked President Trump's tariff plans and his takeover of National Guard troops in California, government lawyers filed appeals within hours. The administration has also filed 19 emergency applications with the Supreme Court since the president took office. But administration lawyers have done nothing to challenge a series of stinging rulings rejecting Mr. Trump's efforts to punish prominent law firms for what he called 'conduct detrimental to critical American interests' by representing clients and causes not to his liking. The administration's unconventional litigation strategy is telling, said W. Bradley Wendel, a law professor at Cornell who is an authority on legal ethics. 'They knew that these were losing positions from the beginning and were not actually hoping to win in court, but rather to intimidate firms into settling, as many firms did,' he said. 'Now that they have racked up the four losses in district courts, it is not surprising that they are not appealing, because I don't think they ever thought these were serious positions.' Three rulings permanently blocked Mr. Trump's executive orders in cases brought by law firms that chose to fight: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. A judge has temporarily blocked a fourth executive order, against Susman Godfrey, and will almost certainly strike it down. But many more firms chose to capitulate to Mr. Trump's demands in the face of threats to lift security clearances, cancel contracts and bar entry to government buildings. Among the firms that promised to provide a cumulative total of many hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono representation to causes favored by the administration were Paul Weiss, Skadden and Latham & Watkins. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Washington Post
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Law firms benefit from fighting Trump attacks. Those who caved suffer.
U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon was so outraged by President Donald Trump's unconstitutional executive orders targeting law firms that he used 26 exclamation points in permanently blocking the version against WilmerHale from being enforced. 'The Order shouts through a bullhorn,' he wrote last month: 'If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!'
