Sidley Austin Brown and Wood

primary on our children trust

perdue pharma had 3 big law firms and BM

html  David M. Ebel

https://www.alternet.org/2022/08/jd-vance-2657891320/

an 8 22

no twt

Vance, the billionaire-backed U.S. Senate candidate in Ohio, has routinely positioned himself as an anti-opioid China-hawk, promising to rein in Big Pharma and bring jobs back to the U.S. But in recent weeks it has been revealed that Vance, a Trump-backed author, worked for a white shoe law firm that represented multiple Chinese companies and lobbied for Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. Vance then hired an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) resident who cited Purdue-funded studies to downplay the role overprescribing painkillers plays in the opioid crisis as the addiction specialist to Ohio's Appalachian region for his nonprofit, "Our Ohio Renewal."

The apparent contradiction, first reported by Politico, stems from a "vulnerability analysis" posted online by Protect Ohio Values (POV), the Super PAC through which Vance has raised millions of dollars for his Senate campaign. Because campaign finance law bars any candidates from communicating with their associated Super PACs, POV appears to have posted a trove of polling data, strategic documents, and opposition research on a low-profile Medium account for Vance to reference, detailing potential weak spots in his competitors' campaigns as well as his own.

Vance's vulnerability analysis reveals that the lawyer-turned-author, who founded a non-profit dedicated to curbing the opioid epidemic, had at one point worked for law firm Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, D.C. During Vance's time there, the firm's lobbying arm was working on behalf of Purdue Pharma, which pleaded guilty in 2020 to criminal charges and faced penalties of roughly $8.3 billion. During that same time, Sidley Austin also reportedly represented "a Chinese real estate company" and lobbied Alibaba Group,a massive Chinese e-commerce platform. But as a Senate candidate, Vance has repeatedly called for the U.S. to sever its economic ties with the country, calling globalization a "gravy train" for China.

"On one side you have people who want to go back to the America Last foreign policy, the weak on China trade policies," as Vance said in a recent Fox News interview. "And on the other side you have me, supported by President Trump, trying to bring back our manufacturing jobs from China."

The Associated Press (AP) then reported this week that Vance's charity suffered a major conflict of interest when it recruited an AEI resident who never disclosed Perdue's financial contributions to AEI while favorably citing Perdue-funded studies to argue that prescription painkillers played a significant role in the region's drastic uptick in opioid addiction. According to the AP, Dr. Sally Satel "occasionally shared drafts of the pieces with Purdue officials in advance." And as ProPublica reported in the past, AEI received financial support from Purdue totaling $800,000.

Vance's past work may prove a problem with other areas besides Big Pharma. He was with Sidley Austin while the firm filed an amicus brief in support of gay marriage back in 2015, while the Supreme Court was ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges. Since then, Vance has taken countless swipes at the LGBTQ+ community. AIn 2020, Vance excoriated the "conservative legal movement" after Supreme Court ruled that gay and trans workers cannot be fired for their gender identity or sexual orientation.

"The conservative legal movement has accomplished two things: libertarian political economy (enforced by judges) and betrayal of social conservatives and traditionalists," he wrote at the time in a since-deleted tweet.

Since the beginning of his campaign, numerous critics have also called out Vance's funding as problematic. Vance has repeatedly blasted Big Tech, claiming that the industry systematically censors conservative voices. But the Republican's chief benefactor is Peter Thiel, a prominent tech billionaire responsible for co-founding PayPal, Palantir Technologies, and Founders Fund, through which he was one of the first investors in Facebook.

rev dr

Rick Boucher[also a dick durbin] is an attorney and former 28 year Member of the US Congress. Previously, he served for 7 years as a member of the Virginia State Senate. He was a partner in the Washington office of the law firm Sidley Austin (2011-2020), where he founded and lead the firm's Government Strategies practice. He retired from the firm in December of 2020. Now as a sole practitioner he counsels clients on strategies for engaging the federal government.

==

https://publicintegrity.org/politics/how-a-sanctioned-russian-bank-wooed-washington/

...VTB said its work with lobbyists is “structured in a completely transparent way.” A spokeswoman for Sidley Austin said omitting the meetings was inadvertent and “promptly corrected when discovered.”

Sidley Austin’s advocacy team includes a former Democratic congressman from Virginia, Rick Boucher. Also on VTB’s payroll: lobbyist Mike Manatos of Manatos & Manatos, who raised tens of thousands of dollars for the presidential campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

VTB has so far paid Sidley Austin and lobbying firm Manatos & Manatos a combined $1.2 million since 2015 for lobbying on sanctions, according to disclosures filed with the Department of Justice. The U.S. Treasury Department nevertheless announced new sanctions against Kostin himself in April.

VTB’s effort — a reaction to economic sanctions imposed on the bank by U.S. officials — coincided with escalating scrutiny of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election. The election interference in part prompted some members of Congress to propose legislation last Halloween to overhaul FARA....

==

==

// personhood? see alaso mcconn covid liability immunity

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/corporate-lawyers-openly-discuss-suing-nations-over-profits-lost-to-covid-19-measures-ticking-time-bomb/

Corporate lawyers openly discuss suing nations over profits lost to COVID-19 measures: ‘Ticking time bomb’

no lnx

Jake Johnson / Common Dreams May 21, 2020

:{

}:

Prominent corporate law firms representing major businesses in the United States, Italy, Spain, and other nations are openly discussing the possibility of companies using a secretive and notorious legal process to sue countries over future profits lost due to government efforts to combat the coronavirus pandemic.

On Monday, the non-profit research group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) documented numerous examples of high-powered corporate law firms—including Ropes & Gray, Alston & Bird, and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—publicly licking their chops over the lucrative opportunity presented by the Covid-19 crisis and government attempts to fight it.

Ropes & Gray wrote in an alert on its website on April 28 that “for companies with foreign investments,” the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system enshrined by thousands of trade agreements across the world “could be a powerful tool to recover or prevent loss resulting from Covid-19 related government actions.”

“Governments have responded to Covid-19 with a panoply of measures, including travel restrictions, limitations on business operations, and tax benefits,” the alert reads. “Notwithstanding their legitimacy, these measures can negatively impact businesses by reducing profitability, delaying operations, or being excluded from government benefits.”

:{

}:

Lawyers from Sidley, a firm headquartered in Chicago, wrote on May 8 that “where a company prevails in its investment treaty claims, it may be able to recover all the losses that flowed from the government measures that damaged the company.”

CEO noted that the ISDS system hands “sweeping powers to foreign investors, including the peculiar privilege to sue states in an arbitration court system.”The ISDS chapter of the Trans Pacific Partnership was one of the most widely denounced components of the 12-nation trade deal that was ultimately never ratified by the U.S. Congress.

“In ISDS tribunals companies can claim dizzying sums in compensation for government actions that have allegedly damaged their investments, either directly through expropriation or indirectly through regulations of virtually any kind,” CEO wrote. The number of ISDS suits has skyrocketed in the last decade, and so has the amount of money involved.”

The research group highlighted several scenarios in which corporations could challenge countries over coronavirus-related government actions, including lowering drug prices, reducing rent and utility bills, temporarily nationalizing private hospitals, and providing access to clean water.

An Alston & Bird lawyer said during a recent webinar that “governments… forcing producers to sell drugs at significantly discounted prices and/ or taking the intellectual property for themselves and/or disseminating that intellectual property to third parties without permission”constitute “takings”that could be challenged under existing investment treaties.

“The lawyers’ enthusiasm is not based in fantasy,” CEO wrote. “In the past 25 years over 1,000 known investor-state lawsuits have been filed. Investors have won a significant amount of ISDS claims as arbitral tribunals ruled that it was illegal to interfere with prices of essential goods, restrict or tax the export of vital products, roll back incentives to investments—and the list goes on.”

“As states struggle with the pandemic and with rebuilding their economies,” the group warned, “ISDS cases could mean huge extra financial burden.”

CEO

@corporateeurope

In the midst of the #COVID19 crisis, corporations are preparing to sue states over pandemic measures.

Our latest report reveals how lawyers urge big business to defend its profits and challenge the emergency measures with #ISDS cases. https://corporateeurope.org/en/2020/05/cashing-pandemic-how-lawyers-are-preparing-sue-states-over-covid-19-response-measures …  #stopISDS

View image on Twitter

David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, wrote Wednesday that progressives have long viewed ISDS as a disastrous system that allows powerful corporations to “lock in a low level of regulation or extract cash if any country dares to try to protect their citizens.”

“It’s so unbelievably shocking to see corporate lawyers actively discussing having foreign investors use ISDS to challenge countries over their coronavirus lockdown measures, and try to extract ‘expected future profits’ from them,” Dayen wrote.

“There is no example yet of a foreign investor filing such a claim,” Dayen added. “This bears watching, or maybe a pre-emptive strike to defuse this ticking time bomb. Incidentally, the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment has proposed an ISDS moratorium during the pandemic.”

David Dayen

@ddayen

If this is at all true it means that corporations will sue in extrajudicial super-courts for the expected profits they had to forego when countries put lockdown measures in place.

Oh. My. God.https://corporateeurope.org/en/2020/05/cashing-pandemic-how-lawyers-are-preparing-sue-states-over-covid-19-response-measures …

Cashing in on the pandemic: how lawyers are preparing to sue states over COVID-19 response measures

As governments take action to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and prevent economic collapse big law firms urge corportions to challenge governments' emergency measures in order to defend its profits. In...

corporateeurope.org

The Transnational Institute (TNI), a think tank based in Amsterdam, is calling on governments to “take urgent action to make sure that transnational corporations and investment lawyers do not become beneficiaries of this pandemic, at the expense of people’s well-being and health.”

In an April 20 report, TNI urged nations to:

Suspend all trade and investment treaty negotiations;

Take all necessary steps to terminate (unilaterally or multilaterally) existing treaties;

Institute a comprehensive review (cost-benefit analysis) of their current and planned investment agreements;

Withdraw consent to ISDS, to limit immediate exposure to investor lawsuits;

Default on the payment of outstanding debts as a result of ISDS awards. Or, at least, discuss ISDS debt relief and/or debt restructuring with creditors.

“Just as the pandemic is revealing profound health inequities and the dangers of agro-industrial food systems, it is also showing the dangers of trade and investment systems that put corporate profits above health and life,” TNI researchers wrote. “There is no place for trade and investment agreements that allow investors to profit from suing countries in crisis or seeking to cash-in from scarce public resources.”

==

https://www.europeanpressprize.com/article/monsanto-papers/

This piece by Stéphane Horel and Stéphane Foucart at Le Monde won the European Press Prize in the category Investigative Reporting in 2018. To see who's been nominated for the 2019 edition, click here.

In order to save glyphosate, the Monsanto corporation has undertaken an effort to destroy the

United Nations’ cancer agency by any means possible. Le Monde started the Monsanto papers, resulting in a dozen investigative articles exploring the many strategies used by Monsanto to interfere with science, influence the regulatory process and orchestrate PR campaigns to defend their products.

These two articles uncover how Monsanto actively tried to undermine the credibility of the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

The Monsanto Papers, Part 1 

— Operation: Intoxication.

02/06/2017

“We have been attacked in the past, we have faced smear campaigns, but this time we are the target of an orchestrated campaign of an unseen scale and duration.”

Christopher Wild’s smile quickly faded. Through the window of the high rise where the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is headquartered, the rooftops of Lyon, France, spread out behind his tall figure.

Christopher Wild is the director of the agency so he weighed every word—speaking with a seriousness appropriate for the situation. For the past two years, a blazing onslaught has targeted the institution he is running: the credibility and integrity of IARC’s work are being challenged, its experts are being denigrated and harassed by lawyers, and its finances weakened.

Fornearly half a century IARC has been charged, under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO), to draw up an inventory of carcinogens. But now the venerable agency is beginning to waver under the assault. The hostilities were launched on a specific date: March 20, 2015. On that day, IARC announced the conclusions of its “Monograph 112“. The findings left the whole world stunned. Unlike the majority of regulatory agencies, IARC declared the most widely used pesticide on the planet to be genotoxic (it causes DNA damage), carcinogenic to animals, and a “probable carcinogen” for humans.

The pesticide is glyphosate, the main component of Roundup, the flagship product of one of the world’s most well-known companies: Monsanto. Glyphosate is also the Leviathan of the agrochemical industry. Used for more than 40 years, it is present in no less than 750 products marketed by about 100 companies in more than 130 countries.

Glyphosate, the bedrock of Monsanto

Between 1974, when it was placed on the market, and 2014, the use of glyphosate increased from 3,200 tons to 825,000 tons per year. A dramatic increase that is due to the massive adoption of seeds that are genetically modified to tolerate it – “Roundup Ready” seeds.

Of all the agrochemical companies that could be affected by measures to restrict or ban the product, there is one whose very survival is at stake. Monsanto, which developed glyphosate, has made the chemical the bedrock of its economic model. The company has built its fortune selling Roundup and the seeds that go with it.

So when IARC announced that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic,” the American firm reacted with unprecedented brutality. In a company statement, it vilified IARC’s work as “junk science”— a selective “cherry-picking” of data, based on an “agenda driven bias,” all leading to a decision made after only “hours of discussion at a one-week meeting”

Never before had a corporation so crudely challenged the integrity of an agency under the aegis of the United Nations. The battle was launched—the one taking place in the open at least.

A year’s work to evaluate the pesticide

Because in its own offices Monsanto was dancing to a completely different tune. The company knew full well that IARC’s evaluation of glyphosate was carried out after a year of work by a group of experts, who then met for several days in Lyon to deliberate. IARC procedures require that the industries affected by the product under review have the right to attend this final meeting.

For the evaluation of glyphosate, Monsanto had sent an “observer,” the epidemiologist Tom Sorahan, a professor at the University of Birmingham (UK), whom the company sometimes employs as a consultant. The report he sent to his bosses on March 14, 2015, assured them that everything was done according to the rules.

“I found the Chair, sub-chairs and invited experts to be very friendly and prepared to respond to all comments I made,” wrote Mr Sorahan in an email sent to a Monsanto executive. The email appears in the “Monsanto Papers” —a collection of the company’s internal documents that a U.S. court started to make public in early 2017 as part of ongoing lawsuits.

“The meeting followed the IARC guidelines,” the observer added. “Dr Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Programme, has an intimate knowledge of the IARC rules and insists these are followed.”

Counter-attack

The academic scientist, who has not responded to requests from Le Monde, seemed to be very embarrassed by the idea that his name might be associated with Monsanto’s response to the IARC decision: “I do not wish to be referenced in any document from your PA/PR people,” he wrote, though at the same time proposing that he would be “happy to assist in formulating statements that you may wish to make” in the inevitable counter-attack that the company was putting in place.

A few months later, the non-American scientists who had been members of the IARC panel on glyphosate all received the same letter. Sent by Monsanto’s law firm, Hollingsworth, the letter told them to hand over all the files related to their work on “Monograph 112.”

Drafts, comments, data tables … everything that had gone through the IARC computer system. “If you decline to provide the files,” the lawyers warned, “we request and instruct you to immediately take all reasonable steps in your power to preserve all such files intact pending formal discovery requests issued via a US Court.”

“I found your letter intimidating and noxious,” said one of the scientists in his reply dated November 4, 2016. “I find your approach reprehensive and lacking in common courtesy even by today’s standards.”

Pathologist Consolato Maria Sergi, a professor at the University of Alberta in Canada continued: “I consider your letter pernicious because it maliciously seeks to instill some anxiety and apprehension in an independent group of experts.”

Lettre de Hollingsworth à Consolato Maria Sergi by LeMonde.fr on Scribd

Intimidating maneuvers

U.S. members of the IARC working group are being subjected to even more “intimidating” measures. In the U.S., the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, allows every citizen—under certain conditions—to request access to documents produced by public bodies and their officials: memos, emails, internal reports, etc.

According to our information, since November 2015 the law firms Hollingsworth and Sidley Austin have filed five applications to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) alone where two of the group experts are employed.

Applications on other scientists have also been made to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA),Texas A&M University and Mississippi State University. Some of these institutions have even been subpoenaed by Monsanto lawyers as part of ongoing glyphosate litigations – and therefore obliged to hand over some of their internal documents.

Is the aim of these intimidating maneuvers to silence criticism? World-renowned scientists who are usually open to media requests did not respond to Le Monde’s requests—even for interviews off the record. Some did agree to speak but only from a private line outside office hours.

Members of the U.S. Congress do not need to use FOIA to be able to hold federal scientific institutions accountable. Republican Jason Chaffetz, former member of the House of Representatives and former chair of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, wrote to Francis Collins, the director of NIH, on September 26,

2016. IARC’s decisions have “generated much controversy and alarm,” he wrote. And despite its “record of controversy, retractions, and inconsistencies,” IARC receives “substantial taxpayer funding” from the NIH.

In fact, 1.2 million euros out of IARC’s 40 million euros annual budget comes from a NIH grant. For this reason Jason Chaffetz asked the NIH director for details and justifications of all NIH expenditure related to IARC.

Characters that are almost out of a John Le Carré novel

The same day, the Chaffetz letter was applauded by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). As the U.S. chemical industry’s powerful lobbying organization, of which Monsanto is a member, they “hope that it will shed light on the close and somewhat opaque relationship” between the IARC and American scientific institutions. The chemical lobby had found a valuable ally in Mr. Chaffetz. In March, the former congressman wrote to the head of another federal research organization – the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) – to ask her to account for the research that the institution has funded on the harmful effects of bisphenol A, a compound widely used in some plastics.

What better way to neutralize an institution than to cut off its funding? In the months following the publication of “Monograph 112,” CropLife International, the organization that defends the interests of pesticide and seed companies around the world, approached some representatives of the 25 member states of IARC’s governing council to complain about the quality of the agency’s work.

Known as “Participating States,” they contribute about 70 percent of IARC’s total budget. According to IARC, at least three of them—Canada, the Netherlands and Australia—were approached. None of them replied to Le Monde’s requests. Throughout 2016, characters who seemed to be almost out of a John Le Carré novel made their appearances in the glyphosate saga. In June, someone who presented himself as a journalist but did not announce or register himself as such attended the conference organized by IARC in Lyon for its fiftieth anniversary.

...

==

http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-climate-lawsuit-appeal-2311050109.html

Fossil Fuel Defendants Join Trump in Move to Appeal Kid's Groundbreaking Climate Lawsuit

Mar. 11, 2017 09:40PM EST

Our Childrens Trust

Lawyers representing fossil fuel defendants in a youth climate lawsuit filed a motion Friday with a U.S. District Court seeking an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on a Nov. 10, 2016 order in Juliana v. United States. As reported by The Washington Post, the Trump Administration filed a similar motion requesting appeal on Tuesday. Fossil fuel defendants support the Trump Administration's motion.

Fossil fuel defendants claim Judge Ann Aiken erred when ruling that "the political question doctrine is not a barrier to plaintiffs' claims." The fossil fuel defendants argue the executive and legislative branches of government, and not the judiciary, should resolve the issues presented by plaintiffs in this case.

Attorneys with Sidley Austin represent the fossil fuel defendants, who are members of trade associations API (formerly directed by now Secretary of State Rex Tillerson), AFPM and NAM. From their motion filed on Friday:

"If the case proceeds to expert discovery, that phase will certainly be complicated and protracted, given the complex scientific debate that swirls around the issues raised by the plaintiffs' lawsuit. The resources required to engage in fact and expert discovery will be enormous, and those resources will be preserved if the intervenor-defendants prevail on interlocutory appeal."

Judge Aiken, informed by Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin's recommendation, holds the power to decide whether or not to certify the questions for appeal sought with defendants' motions.

But Judge Aiken has already made her position clear on the political question issue. From her Nov. 10 order that the government and fossil fuel defendants are seeking to appeal, Judge Aiken wrote:

"However, the scope of the political question doctrine should not be overstated. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed, [t]here is hardly any political question in the United States that sooner or later does not turn into a judicial question." Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 440 (Liberty Fund 2012)."

In fact, more than 11 pages of Judge Aiken's order thoughtfully and judicially analyzed and concluded on the political question issue. Her order walked through all six "Baker factors" from the Supreme Court's 1962 opinion in Baker v. Carr, a case recently featured in a 2016 podcast produced as part of the RadioLab Series "More Perfect." Following her analysis, Judge Aiken included a section entitled "Summary: This Case Does Not Raise a Nonjusticiable Political Question." From that section, the order reads:

"There is no need to step outside the core role of the judiciary to decide this case. At its heart, this lawsuit asks this Court to determine whether defendants have violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights. That question is squarely within the purview of the judiciary.

"This case shares some key features with Baker itself. In Baker, a group of voters challenged a statute governing the apportionment of state legislative districts. 369 U.S. at 188-95. Sixty years of population growth without legislative reapportionment had led to legislative districts had led to some votes carrying much more weight than others. Id. at 192-93. Here, the majority of youth plaintiffs are minors who cannot vote and must depend on others to protect their political interests. Thus, as amicus the League of Women Voters persuasively argues, the youth plaintiffs' claims are similar to the Baker claims because they are 'rooted in a 'debasement of their votes' and an accompanying diminishment of their voice in representational government." Br. for the League of Women Voters in the United States et al. as Amici Curiae at 19-20 (doc 79-1).

"In Baker, the Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs' claims had political dimensions and ramifications - but nonetheless concluded none of the Baker factors was inextricable from the case. 369 U.S. at 209. Similarly as discussed in detail above, this case raises political questions yet is not barred by the political question doctrine."

"The political question argument is a last ditch effort to avoid judicial review," Julia Olson, plaintiffs' counsel and executive director of Our Children's Trust, said. "When our political branches deny our plaintiffs their fundamental rights, it is absolutely the court's job to step in. This is well-settled and this defense is dead."

Juliana v. United States was filed in 2015 by 21 young plaintiffs who argue that their constitutional and public trust rights are being violated by the government's creation of climate danger. Judge Ann Aiken's November order denied motions to dismiss brought by both the Obama administration and fossil fuel industry defendants.

Juliana v. United States is one of many related legal actions brought by youth in several states and countries, all supported by Our Children's Trust, seeking science-based action by governments to stabilize the climate system.

==

aug 2016

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/politics/prescription-drug-money-fuels-morrisey-campaign/article_c0fc197b-862e-5306-8724-61b9b7852ee8.html

Prescription drug money fuels Morrisey campaign

Eric Eyre David Gutman Aug 6, 2016  (0)

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey’s re-election campaign is benefiting from money — both directly and indirectly — from lawyers and companies that have profited from the state’s prescription drug epidemic.

Prescription drug wholesalers being sued by Morrisey’s office for their role in fueling the state’s ongoing opioid problem have indirectly funded a portion of Morrisey’s re-election efforts.

Since 2014, McKesson Corp. and Cardinal Health, both defendants in state lawsuits overseen by Morrisey, have donated a total of $50,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which has spent more money than any other organization in West Virginia to re-elect Morrisey.

What’s more, at least two lawyers representing drug distributors in the lawsuits have contributed directly to Morrisey’s campaign.

Morrisey also has taken campaign contributions from OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma.

Morrisey is the only candidate in West Virginia, at any level of office, from House of Delegates, to Congress, through the governor’s race, to receive money from Purdue Pharma’s political action committee, which gave him the maximum allowable $1,000 in his uncontested primary election.

He is the only West Virginia candidate to receive money ($1,000) from Mallinckrodt, an Irish pharmaceutical company that produces several opioid products.

On the campaign trail, Morrisey has repeatedly touted his office’s “aggressive” fight against prescription drug abuse, and he has introduced initiatives that he says will significantly curb the number of opioids in West Virginia.

Morrisey campaign spokeswoman Kayla Berube said Morrisey holds the office and his campaign to the “highest of ethical standards.”

“He has a policy that prohibits intentional solicitation and acceptance of contributions from companies the office is suing,” Berube said.

Del. Don Perdue said Morrisey, a former lobbyist for the prescription drug industry, has “put his office up for sale.”

“Any argument that suggests these type of contributions are innocuous or have no effect defies logic,” said Perdue, a Wayne County Democrat and retired pharmacist.“Coupled with his strong personal ties to the drug industry and the legal gymnastics he has performed to slow down the litigation regarding the distribution of narcotics, it defies belief.”

While Purdue Pharma isn’t a defendant in the state’s lawsuits against drug wholesalers, the complaints allege the distributors shipped an excessive number of oxycodone pills (often sold under Purdue’s OxyContin brand name) to rogue pharmacies in West Virginia. The companies distribute more than 40 million oxycodone pills to West Virginia every year.

:{

}:

Thirty-five lawyers — whose Washington, D.C.-based law firms either lobby for Purdue Pharma or represent the drug giant in OxyContin-related lawsuits across the nation — have given Morrisey’s re-election campaign a combined $23,550 in the primary election cycle alone.

Purdue Pharma, whose drug is held more responsible than any other for the nation’s opioid epidemic, gave $290,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association since 2014, IRS records show.

“We contribute to those who share our commitment in combating prescription drug abuse,” said Bob Josephson, communications director for Purdue Pharma.

During the same time period, Cardinal Health, the nation’s second largest prescription drug distributor, gave more than $34,000, and McKesson, the largest wholesaler, pitched in $16,000.

Morrisey inherited lawsuits against Cardinal Health and a dozen other distributors from his predecessor, Darrell McGraw. In January, Morrisey filed suit against McKesson after Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s aides prodded him to do so for more than a year.

RAGA also received donations totaling nearly $37,000 from two law firms — Foley & Lardner and Clark Hill PLC — that are representing other prescription drug distributors Morrisey’s office is suing.

The Republican Attorneys General Association, through an affiliated political action committee, has already spent nearly $640,000 in West Virginia this year to help re-elect Morrisey. That’s more than Morrisey and his Democratic opponent, Delegate Doug Reynolds, combined have spent on their campaigns so far.

:{

}:

That PAC, Mountaineers Are Always Free PAC, was founded in May and is funded exclusively by RAGA.

Scott Will, RAGA’s executive director and chairman of Mountaineers Are Always Free, was Morrisey’s campaign manager in 2012.

RAGA has also received major donations from such drug industry titans as Pfizer ($150,000), Eli Lilly ($76,000), GlaxoSmithKline ($50,000) and PhRMA ($50,000), the leading industry trade organization, representing nearly 60 pharmaceutical companies.

:{

}:

The donations from drug companies and their law firms are a veritable drop in the bucket for RAGA, which has raised more than $15 million this election cycle. The organization’s major donors include conservative heavyweights such as Koch Industries, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Sheldon Adelson.

“RAGA receives support from a wide variety of people and industries interested in supporting the rule of law,” Will said in an emailed statement.

McKesson, Cardinal Health and Purdue Pharma also have donated to the Democratic Attorneys General Association, but that group hasn’t spent any money in West Virginia. Reynolds has largely self-funded his campaign so far and has not received help from any outside groups or super PACs.

RAGA, which advertises on Morrisey’s behalf, is legally prohibited from coordinating with his campaign.

In April, Huntington lawyer Marc Williams gave $500 to Morrisey’s campaign — one of two lawyers to donate to the campaign who also represents a drug distributor that Morrisey’s office is suing.

:{

}:

“I don’t think there is any conflict,” Williams said. “All of the counsel that are representing the state in that, which includes staff attorneys and retained outside counsel, have done so vigorously and represented the state’s interest well in a way that would make any objective observer proud.”

Williams said he has also worked on other cases that Morrisey’s office is involved in — both with and against the attorney general — including litigation over the 2014 Elk River chemical spill, where he represents Eastman Chemical.

Williams, who’s defending drug wholesaler J.M. Smith, praised Morrisey, saying he had “significantly enhanced the quality of representation and lawyering in that office since he took over” in 2013.

The other drug company lawyer, Charles Bailey, did not respond to requests for comment. Bailey, who represents Quest Pharmaceuticals, gave Morrisey $1,000 in 2015.

Another lawyer who formerly represented a drug wholesaler being sued also donated to Morrisey’s campaign in May.

Two of Morrisey’s former employers — Washington, D.C., law firms King & Spalding and Sidley Austin— have given RAGA a combined $30,350.

:{

}:

King & Spalding is lead defense counsel for Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin-related lawsuits. Sidley Austin lobbies for Purdue Pharma on Capitol Hill.

While Morrisey worked for Sidley Austin, lobbyists for Purdue Pharma listed Morrisey as the firm’s contact, according to lobbying disclosure forms.

At King & Spalding, Morrisey himself lobbied for the Healthcare Distribution Management Association, a trade group that represents McKesson, Cardinal Health and other prescription drug wholesalers, generating $250,000 for the firm.

Morrisey’s wife, Denise Henry, lobbies for Cardinal Health in Washington.

:{

}:

Since last year, King & Spalding lawyers contributed $14,800 to Morrisey’s campaign, while Sidley Austin lawyers and lobbyists have added $8,750 to his coffers.

Lawyers from both firms, along with prescription drug wholesaler PACs and executives, also helped bankroll Morrisey’s 2012 campaign.

Cardinal Health executives donated $4,000 to Morrisey’s campaign in 2012, $3,000 of which came after McGraw’s office filed suit against the company. A Cardinal vice president also contributed $1,000 to Morrisey’s campaign in December 2012, a month after Morrisey defeated McGraw. Cardinal Health also contributed $2,500 to Morrisey’s inauguration ceremony

A McKesson vice president contributed to Morrisey’s campaign in 2012, and AmerisourceBergen’s PAC donated $2,000 to the campaign the same year.

In January, Morrisey recused himself from his office’s lawsuit against AmerisourceBergen and 10 other smaller distributors, following a state Lawyer Disciplinary Board investigation. The disciplinary board concluded that Morrisey did not violate any lawyer ethics rules, but the board suggested he step aside from the drug company lawsuit to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

That same month, Morrisey also recused himself from his office’s lawsuit against McKesson, after heading an investigation of the company for more than a year.

Morrisey previously stepped aside from the Cardinal Health lawsuit — a recusal he characterized as a “permanent screen” — in July 2013, seven months after taking office, according to the disciplinary board.

The investigative panel found the contributions from the drug wholesalers and their executives didn’t appear to “amount to extraordinary campaign support,” and it wasn’t unethical for Morrisey to accept the donations.

But the disciplinary board noted that attorneys general in other states restrict campaign contributions from companies their offices are investigating.

==

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supreme-court-nomination-frontrunner-2017-1

Trump announced Monday morning that he had settled on a nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court — and one formerly dark-horse candidate has emerged as the judge with quite possibly the inside track to score the nod.

Thomas Hardiman, a 51-year-old judge who sits on the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, has caught the attention of observers to fill the void left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia for several reasons.

With Democrats threatening to block Trump's Supreme Court pick, it's noteworthy that Hardiman was voted onto the appeals court in 2007 by a 95-0 tally. Both Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, voted to approve him.

Hardiman also has the backing of Trump's closest judicial source: his sister.

Maryanne Trump Barry, a fellow 3rd Circuit judge, holds a high opinion of Hardiman. As an adviser who spoke with the president told Politico, "Maryanne is high on Hardiman."

And those who know the conservative judge say there's another trait that could be attractive to Trump.

"I don't know that I can think of anybody that seemed as down-to-earth as he is," Carter Phillips, a Washington, DC, lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court more than any other attorney in private practice, told Business Insider.

Phillips said he has argued a pair of cases in front of Hardiman, been a part of a few panels with the Pittsburgh-based judge, and had a handful of Hardiman's former clerks work at his law firm, Sidley Austin...

==

obama inaug $

http://www.:{sourcewatch:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:.org/index.php?title=Sidley_Austin

Sidley Austin LLP (formerly Sidley Austin Brown & Wood) is one of the world's largest law firms with over 1,700 lawyers in 16 offices around the world. The firm was founded in 1866 inChicago, U.S. ^[1]

Sidley Austin is also a lobbying firm that has lobbied in 2007 for over 30 corporations and associations such as General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, and Monsanto. ^[2]

Work

According to its website, Sidley works in "corporate and securities, mergers and acquisitions, securitization, intellectual property, funds and other pooled investments, bankruptcy and corporate reorganization, bank and commercial lending, public finance, real estate, tax and employee benefits, as well as trusts and estates." Additional areas are "general and commercial litigation, securities and financial litigation, regulatory enforcement, antitrust, white collar criminal defense, food and drug, patent and other intellectual property litigation, product liability and mass tort litigation, international commercial arbitration and dispute resolution, and international trade law."[1]

Sidley Austin Settled Age Bias Suit

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of 32 former employees, pursued an age discrimination suit against Sidley Austin. Most of the workers were in their 50s and 60s and had been demoted in status to counsel. In 2007, without a "determination of merits", the law firm agreed to pay a settlement of US$27.5 million.[3]

Political contributions

Sidley Austin gave $115,221 to federal candidates in the 2006 election through itspolitical action committee - 30% to Democrats and 70% to Republicans. ^[4]

==

   ==

~CPP

http://littlesis.org/maps/872-lawyers-suing-the-epa-over-clean-power-plan

Lawyers from coal-dependent states, led by West Virginia, are challenging President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Joining their effort is an army of industry-funded law firms that specialize in fighting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Together, they will argue that the EPA does not have any authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to issue the carbon regulations; they will also contest the legality of the “fence line” used to set state emission targets. Yet, buried in coverage of the litigation is the fact that the coalition suing the EPA is connected to some of the largest electric utility companies in the country – and many have purposefully kept themselves at arms’ length so that their customers never know they are funding lawyers who are working to stop one of  President Obama’s main pillars to fight climate change. Policymakers, regulators, and customers should know what electricity companies are secretly working together with coal companies to sue the EPA.

Above is a network map built using the LittleSis free database. It details connections between powerful people and organizations; the data is derived from government filings, news articles, and other reputable sources. This map illustrates the links between the handful of lawyers involved in the litigation against the Clean Power Plan and the companies paying their firms.

The National Mining Association (NMA), shown in the middle of the LittleSis network map, filed a stay with the EPA to stop the plan from going into effect earlier this month. This is in addition to a stay filed on August 5 by the coal-dependent states that has recently resulted in the attorneys general filing an emergency petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asking for federal judges to postpone the rule’s deadlines.

NMA was represented by**Troutman Sanders** in *Michigan et al. vs. EPA*, which was the case decided in June regarding the mercury and air toxics standard (MATS). NMA is also a member in the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), run by attorneys at Hunton & Williams. Clicking on NMA in the network map will highlight the connections and reveal the manner in which the trade association is linked to the companies and/or lawyers.

After the Clean Power Plan was released, The New York Times reported that Peter Glaser, an attorney at Troutman Sanders, has been holding meetings with Roger Martella Jr. ofSidley Austin to devise the legal strategy to throw out EPA’s regulation via the courts. Additionally, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), another trade association that is also a member of the Utility Air Regulatory Group and includes Southern Company as a member, said, “It’s illegal and we will not stop opposing it until it is withdrawn completely.” ACCCE is shown above NMA in the network map and is linked to other companies besides Southern.

The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a group of power and coal companies run out ofBracewell & Giuliani that also pays Hunton & Williams, said the that final plan still intrudes into state affairs and that it contains issues that could expose it to significant legal challenges. 

And when the EPA was formally published in the Federal Register, Paul Monies of The Oklahoman reported Baker & Hostetler LLP is representing Oklahoma Attorney General Pruitt in the lawsuit. Attorney David Rivkin said, "They're really trying to hurt coal on every possible regulatory means."

Here are some of the companies that fund law firms known to be working against the Clean Power Plan:

Bracewell & Giuliani’s :{Electric Reliability Coordinating Council:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700"):}::

•   Ameren

•   Arch Coal

•   DTE Energy

•   Duke Energy

•   Energy Future Holdings

•   Southern Company

Hunton & Williams’ :{Utility Air Regulatory Group:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700"):}::

•   American Electric Power

•   Edison Electric Institute

•   Duke Energy

•   Energy Future Holdings

•   Southern Company

Troutman Sanders:

•   Alpha Natural Resources

•   Arch Coal

•   Cloud Peak Energy

•   Energy Future Holdings

•   National Mining Association

•   Peabody Energy

•   Southern Company

Sidley Austin:

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in :{American Electric Power v. Connecticut:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions under federal common law, because the Clean Air Act delegates the management of carbon dioxide emissions to the EPA. Peter Keisler, a partner at Sidley Austin, argued on behalf of the petitioners:

•   American Electric Power

•   Cinergy Company

•   Southern Company

•   Xcel Energy

Earlier this year, Keisler, along with Roger Martella Jr. also argued on behalf of the Pacific Legal Foundation in a case led by Murray Energy seeking to preemptively throw out theClean Power Plan. The original plaintiffs before the court were Murray Energy and West Virginia. Peabody Energy, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, Pacific Legal Foundation, National Mining Association, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, and 13 additional states joined the plaintiffs’ cause.  In June, the federal appeals court in Washington DC dismissed that lawsuit as premature.

This LittleSis network map will be updated as polluters fund more attorneys in the fight against the Clean Power Plan. Others with new information are encouraged to build off of this map and connect more companies to the law firms. Not only is it important for people to see these connections, but many will remember that in 2009, Duke Energy was pressured to leave ACCCE after it was caught playing both sides of the Waxman-Markey debate: it publically supported the bill but also was a paying member of ACCCE, which was working to kill the legislation. Duke Energy also quit the National Association of Manufacturers for similar reasons. If utility companies voice support for the Clean Power Plan, it’s crucial to put pressure on them to leave front groups or trade associations working to fight the EPA.

:{Pacific Legal Foundation Background

}:

Ronald Zumbrun and Ramond Momboise, former advisors to California Gov. Ronald Reagan, founded the Pacific Legal Foundation. The founding results from Lewis F. Powell’s secret memo to a friend at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System.” Powell wanted the business community to create non-for-profit law firms; thus, thePacific Legal Foundation was created. It’s website says it exists to fight “tyranny” engendered by “overzealous bureaucracies and government red tape” and that it is a foe of “government regulators and environmental extremists.” Powell would go on to become a Supreme Court justice.

Patric Morrisey Background

Patrick Morrisey is the Attorney General in West Virginia. Besides leading the states to sue the EPA earlier this year, he recently joined with 15 other states to ask the EPA for an immediate stay of its Clean Power Plan pending the outcome of an impending legal challenge to the rule. From 2004 to 2010, Morrisey was a partner at Sidley Austin LLP. In his campaign to become Attorney General American Electric Power, Alpha Natural Resources, Arch Coal, and Consol Energy, just to name a few, donated to his campaign. 

Baker & Hosteler Background

In Michigan v. EPA in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 5-4 vote struck down the EPA's carefully crafted rules to limit the emission of mercury and other toxic pollutants from oil and coal power plants, David B. Rivkin Jr. of Baker & Hostetler represented the Cato Institute, which in turn has received millions from energy interests including the David H. Koch Foundation and ExxonMobil. Rivkin worked in the Reagan Justice Department and was the associate general counsel at the Department of Energy under George H. W. Bush. More recently, he has been part of the legal effort to strike down Obamacare and also has defeated lawsuits aimed at holding former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally liable for alleged torture in Iraq.

Rivkin also argued the cause for petitioner State of Texas in Texas v. EPA, which was decided in July 2013. The U.S. Court of Appeals slapped down Texas’ attempt to block the EPA from controlling the state’s system for issuing permits to power plants.

^----^

^The ^Council ^on ^Environmental ^Quality ^(CEQ)

James^ ^L. ^Connaughton ^–^ ^James ^L. ^Connaughton ^served ^as ^President ^Bush’s ^chief

environmental ^advisor ^as ^chair ^of ^the ^CEQ ^from ^2001 ^to ^2009.5 ^He ^was ^an ^advocate ^of ^“new

environmentalism,”^ ^which ^replaced ^federal ^regulations ^with ^voluntary ^and ^incentive ^based

initiatives ^to ^encourage ^companies ^to ^curb ^pollution.6

^ Prior^ ^to ^joining ^the ^administration ^he ^was

partner ^and ^environmental ^counsel ^at ^the ^law ^firm ^of ^Sidley ^Austin ^Brown ^and ^Wood ^where ^he

fought ^to ^reduce ^environmental ^regulations ^for ^clients ^such ^as ^the ^Chemical ^Manufacturers

Association ^of ^America.7

^

Clients

Clients for Sidley's legal services include Fortune 500 corporations, as well as governments, banks, insurance and financial companies, professional firms, foundations, associations, and individuals.[1]

Lobbying

A few of the clients on whose behalf Sidley Austin has engaged in lobbying in 2007 include:[2]

• ARAMARK Corp
• Bayer
• **Caterpillar** Inc
• Celgene Corp
• Honeywell
• MasterCard
• United Parcel Service
• U.S. :{Chamber of Commerce:(style="background-color:#ff9900;"):}:

American Electric Power also spent $580,000 on Sidley Austin LLP in 2008 and a further $10,000 to date in 2009.^[5] The registered lobbyist was Andrew Shoyer.

Contact details

Chicago Office:

One South Dearborn

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Phone: (312) 853-7000

Fax: (312) 853-7036

Email: webmaster AT sidley.com

Web:http://www.sidley.com

New York Office:

787 Seventh Avenue

New York, New York 10019

Phone: (212) 839-5300

Fax: (212) 839-5599

Offices also in Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Beijing, Brussels, Frankfurt, Geneva, Hong Kong, London, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, and Tokyo.

Related SourceWatch articles

• Law firms
• James D. Zirin

References

2. ↑1.0 ^{1.1 1.2} About page, Sidley Austin, accessed January 2008.
3. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1} 2007 lobbying, Open Secrets, accessed January 2008.
4. ↑ Anthony Lin, "Sidley Austin Settles Age Bias Suit; No Determination of Merits", New York Law Journal/Law.com, October 8, 2007.
5. ↑ 2006 PAC Summary Data, Open Secrets, accessed January 2008.
6. ↑ "American Electric Power", Center for Public Integrity, accessed July 2009.

Categories: International | Law firms | Lobbying firms | United States

CREW report:

connaghton

Roger R. Martella, Jr. was general counsel for the EPA from 2007 [134 to

September 2008. 135

After leaving the administration in 2008, Mr. Martella joined the environmental practice group at

Sidley Austin LLP, as a partner.136 Mr. Martella is currently a registered lobbyist137 and has

lobbied on the behalf of the National Alliance of Forest Owners,138 a business alliance focused

on the needs of private forest owners and managers,139 and the Alliance of Food Associations,140

a “business alliance dedicated to protecting the food sector and its consumers.”141

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidley_Austin

Sidley Austin LLP, formerly known as Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, is the sixth-largest U.S.-based corporate law firm with approximately 1700 lawyers,^[2] annual revenues of more than one billion dollars, and offices in 19 cities worldwide, with the most recent addition of Boston, MA in 2013. It is a full-service law firm, with broad experience in transaction and litigation matters. Its original predecessor firm was founded in 1866 and had former first lady Mary Todd Lincoln, then the widow of President Abraham Lincoln, among its earliest clients. The firm was formed as the result of the merger of two firms: the Chicago-based Sidley & Austin, founded in 1866, and the New York-based Brown & Wood, founded in 1914. The merger was completed in May 2001. The firm's headquarters is at One South Dearborn in the Chicago Loop, Chicago.^[4]

In each year since the survey's inception, Sidley has received more First-Tier National Rankings than any other U.S. law firm in the Best Law Firms Survey by U.S. News & World Report.^[5] The 2012 US News Survey also named Sidley as the "Law Firm of the Year" in Securities/Capital Markets Law and Commercial Litigation. As of 2011, it was the 12th largest law firm in the world (and 8th in the US) by revenue.^[6]

History

Origins in Chicago

The firm that was to become Sidley Austin was formed in Chicago in 1866 by Norman Williams and John Leverett Thompson as the partnership of Williams & Thompson. One of the nascent firm's first clients was the :{Pullman Company:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:, the manufacturer of specialty sleeping railway cars. Other early clients included Western Union Telegraph Company, which moved its Midwest headquarters from Cleveland to Chicago in 1869. After the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, the firm represented numerous insurance companies including Equitable Life Assurance Society. In the late 19th century, Williams & Thompson counseled several utility and railroad companies expanding in the West, Sidley joined the firm after having earned an LLB from Union College of Law and a further M.A. from Harvard Law School. By 1913, the firm's name was changed to Holt, Cutting & Sidley, although Sidley would be the guiding personality for the Chicago firm through the 20th century. Three years later—the firm then 50 years old—had four partners, four clerks (associates) and ten staff employees with gross income of around $100,000 (roughly $1.9 million in 2008 dollars).

Buffeted by the Great Depression, the firm experienced a dramatic fall in revenues until the New Deal on the 1930s reinvigorated the capital markets. The firm represented Halsey, Stuart & Co., a Chicago-based underwriter in one of the first transactions under the Securities Act of 1933. In 1944, the name was changed to Sidley, Austin, Burgess & Harper and shortened to Sidley & Austin in 1967.

Towards a national firm

After the Second World War, Sidley & Austin began expanding beyond its Chicago roots as many of its clients entered new markets. In 1963, its Washington, D.C. branch was established which would soon become an important player in that city's legal market through its representation of the American Medical Association, American Bar Association and the International Minerals & Chemical Corporation. The firm developed strengths in antitrust and the representation of clients in front of the Federal Trade Commission.

Sidley & Austin was among many law firms stung by the**Savings & Loan Crisis**and was forced to pay $7.5 million to settle**legal malpractice**claims stemming from its representation of the**Lincoln Savings and Loan Association**. Such legal work was profiled in the book by Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith, No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America.

Expansion and consolidation

Sidley & Austin expanded tremendously in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1972, the firm merged with the 50 lawyers of Chicago firm Leibman, Williams, Bennett, Baird & Minow. Offices were established in London, Los Angeles, Singapore and New York in short order.

In 2001, the firm merged with Brown & Wood, a New York-based law firm established in 1914 with 400 attorneys additional domestic offices in Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Los Angeles and overseas branches in London, Beijing and Hong Kong (where it practiced English law in addition to U.S. law). Brown & Wood was known for its securities, structured finance and securitization practices. The firm's well-regarded publication, Accessing the U.S. Capital Markets: An Introduction to United States Securities Law, continues to be updated annually today. Brown & Wood had offices in the World Trade Center. The firm was known as Sidley Austin Brown & Wood until the name was rebranded as Sidley Austin in 2006.

Appellate Practice Group

In 1985, the late partner, Rex E. Lee, a former U.S. Solicitor General, formed Sidley Austin's national Appellate Practice Group to represent clients in all appellate courts including the United States Supreme Court, the federal courts of appeals, and state appellate and supreme courts. The group is currently led by Carter Phillps, who is the chair of the firm's executive committee.^[7]

The Appellate Group has argued several landmark cases before the Supreme Court including U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (constitutionality of state-imposed term limits on members of Congress), Missouri v. Jenkins (proper role of federal courts in imposing desegregation remedies), and United States v. Lopez (Commerce Clause challenge to a federal statute prohibiting the possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school).^[8][9] Directly or indirectly, Sidley Austin plays a role in 40 percent of the cases the Supreme Court hears every term. Over the last 25 years, its lawyers have argued 96 high court cases.^[10]

Rankings and recognition

The firm frequently appears at the top of various industry rankings. In 2005, the BTI Consulting Group named Sidley to its Client Service Hall of Fame—one of only two law firms to rank in BTI's Client Service Top 10 for five consecutive years—and Sidley was named No. 1 Power Elite Firm for 2005. The firm also showed up in 14 categories on The American Lawyer's Corporate Scorecard, landing in the No. 1 spot for its roles as issuer's counsel in equities offered by U.S. corporations, issuers' and underwriters' counsel for investment grade debt, and underwriters' counsel for REIT debt. Other recent honors include the 2005 Catalyst Award, conferred in recognition of the firm's impressive initiatives to retain and promote women attorneys, and its second consecutive year as No. 1 in the rankings by Thomson Financial for top issuer counsel and manager counsel for U.S. debt and equity-related activity.^[11]

The firm is particularly known for its securities practice^[12] and its international trade practice,^[13] both of which have consistently ranked first in the respective specialty rankings of Chambers and Partners. The trade group currently represents the Airbus/European Communities side in the ongoing WTO dispute with Boeing/US. The group was recently named Global WTO Law Firm of the Year ^[14] and ranks first, before Wilmer Hale and Steptoe & Johnson, in the European Legal 500 ranking.^[15] Its appellate and US Supreme Court practice is also particularly well-known and has been featured in USA Today, BusinessWeek, the American Lawyer, the Legal Times, and the National Law Journal.^[16]

In 2008 Sidley Austin was awarded Deal of the Year - Debt Market Deal of the Year at the 2008 ALB Hong Kong Law Awards.^[17] In 2011 Sidley Austin was named Competition and Regulatory Team of the year at the Lawyer awards in London ref www.thelawyer.com/1008278.article

Sidley Austin during 9/11/01

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 personally affected the employees of Sidley Austin. Prior to the merger creating Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, which took place just four months before the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, the head office of Brown & Wood was in the World Trade Center, while Sidley & Austin was located in offices on Third Avenue. Out of 600 employees who worked in the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks, one perished, a switch board operator named Rosemary Smith.^{[18] [19]}

Sidley Austin reopened its New York office on Monday, September 17, 2001 in the old Sidley & Austin office on Third Avenue that it had planned on closing on September 16. Instead, it leased four additional floors in that location, in a deal completed less than three hours after the collapse of the World Trade Center. Sidley Austin later opened its permanent new office in the Equitable Center building on Seventh Avenue in July 2002.^[18]

Name changes

In the 1920s, the firm was named Cutting, Moore & Sidley. Following a number of changes, it was known as Sidley & Austin for many years until it merged with the New York capital markets firm Brown & Wood in the 1990s. Its name was changed to Sidley Austin LLP on January 1, 2006.

Notable alumni

• James L. Connaughton Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) under President George W. Bush was a partner in Sidley Austin's Environmental Practice Group, covering a wide range of environmental policy issues.
• Christopher **DeMuth**, former president of the American Enterprise Institute, worked at the firm in the 1970s.
• Bernardine Dohrn, the former Weatherman leader.
• Alan Gura, litigator, represented Dick Heller in the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.
• Mike Lee, son of Rex E. Lee and current United States Senator from Utah.
• Rex E. Lee, former Solicitor General of the United States.^[20]
• Chris Lu, Cabinet Secretary and assistant to the President of the United States
• Newton Minow, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission under former U.S. President John F. Kennedy, was a partner in the Chicago office from 1965–1991 and continues to serve as senior counsel to the firm.
• U.S. President Barack Obama was a summer associate in the Chicago office, but never joined the firm as a full-time associate. He met his wife, Michelle Obama (who was an associate at Sidley Austin at the time) during his time at the firm.^[21]
• David Otunga, graduate of Harvard Law School and presently a professional wrestler working with World Wrestling Entertainment.^[22]
• Daniel M. Price was appointed Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs by former U.S. President George W. Bush. In this role, Mr. Price served as the principal advisor to the President on international economic issues and was responsible for coordinating U.S. Administration policy on international trade and investment, foreign assistance to developing countries, and the international aspects of energy security and climate change. In 2009, he returned as a senior partner for global issues to the firm's Washington, D.C. office.^[23]
• David S. Tatel, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, began his legal career at Sidley Austin.
• John D. Zeglis, the former Chief Executive Officer of AT&T Wireless, was an associate (1973–1978) and partner (1978–1984) in the Chicago office, where he spent a significant amount of time helping AT&T navigate through the Federal Communications Commission's orders to breakup the company, before leaving to join AT&T as a corporate vice president.
• David A. Canales, judge of the 73rd Judicial District Court in Bexar County, Texas, began his legal career at Sidley Austin.

References

1. ^ *Chambers and Partners*
2. ^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidley_Austin#cite_ref-bestlawfirms.usnews.com_2-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidley_Austin#cite_ref-bestlawfirms.usnews.com_2-1) *USNews/Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms"*
3. ^ "FIRM PROFILES - Sidley Austin". Retrieved 2012-04-27.
4. ^ "Chicago." Sidley Austin. Retrieved on December 17, 2009.
5. ^ http://www.sidley.com/bestlawfirms2013/
6. ^ *The 2011 Global 100: Most Revenue, The* American Lawyer'
7. ^ [1]
8. ^ Sidley Austin | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
9. ^ http://www.sidley.com/appellate/
10. ^ *2 Jan 2012 The American Lawyer*
11. ^ Sidley Austin LLP Employment: Vault Sidley Employment Snapshot
12. ^ Chambers and Partners: Search Chambers Global Guide
13. ^ Chambers and Partners: Chambers Global Guide Editorial
14. ^ Sidley Austin LLP's International Trade and Dispute Resolution Group Honored by Chambers and Partners
15. ^ The Legal 500 US recommends
16. ^ Sidley Austin LLP - Our Practice
17. ^ www.legalbusinessonline.com.au
18. ^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidley_Austin#cite_ref-autogenerated1_18-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidley_Austin#cite_ref-autogenerated1_18-1) In Re 9/11: Law Firm Moves On, Still Recovering
19. ^ Rosemary Smith, 61, planned to open candy business
20. ^ Supreme Court Justices Pay Tribute to the Late Rex E. Lee
21. ^ Obama '85 masters balancing act from The Daily Princetonian
22. ^ Pang, David (2011-03-22). "David the Goliath". Chicago Tribune. p. 1. Retrieved 2011-03-23.
23. ^ Senior White House International Economic Advisor Rejoins Sidley Austin LLP | Business Wire

External links

• Official website
• See this firm's profile on Martindale.com

raga pruit gmu summit

Roger R. Martella, Jr.:{

}:Partner:{

}:Sidley Austin LLP:{

}:1501 K Street, N.W.:{

}:Washington, DC 20005:{

}:Phone: 202.736.8097:{

}:rmartella@sidley.com:{

}::{

}:Roger Martella is a partner in the Environmental Practice Groupat Sidley Austin LLP. He recently rejoined:{

}:Sidley Austin LLP after serving as the General Counsel of the United States Environmental Protection:{

}:Agency, concluding 10 years of litigating and handling complex environmental and natural resource matters:{

}:at the Department of Justice and EPA. Mr. Martella's practice focuses on three primary areas: advising:{

}:companies on strategic approaches to addressclimate change, promote sustainability, and utilize clean:{

}:energy; environmental and natural resource litigation and mediation; advising multinational companies on:{

}:compliance with environmental laws in the United States, China, the European Union, and other nations.:{

}::{

}:

As General Counsel of the EPA, Mr. Martella served as EPA's chief legal advisor supervising an office of:{

}:350 attorneys and staff in Washington and 10 regional offices. At EPA, Mr. Martella served as Agency:{

}:counsel on six Supreme Court decisions, includingMassachusetts v. EPA (climate change); Defenders of:{

}:Wildlife v. EPA (finding no Endangered Species Act duty to consult when approving state water program);:{

}:EPA v. Rapanos and Maine v. S.D. Warren (landmark decisions addressing federal jurisdiction over waters:{

}:of the United States); Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy (addressing Clean Air Act enforcement:{

}:against powerplants); and U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp. (the Court's most recent decision regarding:{

}:CERCLA).

:{

}:Mr. Martella graduated from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was Editor in Chief of the Vanderbilt Law:{

}:Review, andCornell University, where he studied environmental science.Following law school, he clerked:{

}:for the Hon. David M. Ebel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals