webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Hunton & Williams

 Lewis Powell's firm

see Hunton Andrews Kurth  elbert lin, nancy beck chem

6 red,  8 green, 320 17 tags, including its own

see mass v epa

inside the wire swamp

trump epa pruitt

see uber tag/pioneer (white shoe firm?)

evil, brought back acid rain and ---?

mp

Powell’s Corporate Rights Doctrine

To understand Powell’s worldview on this issue, it’s worth revisiting a moment from late 1972, just weeks before Powell took his seat on the Supreme Court. At a private dinner held in his honor by the Forum Club in Richmond, Virginia, Powell was celebrated by a group of businessmen from State Planters Bank/UVB—long standing clients of his law firm, Hunton & Williams. As they toasted Powell and gave speeches in his honor, the evening was mostly jovial and celebratory. But Powell’s own remarks, captured in an audio recording, took on a more thoughtful tone.35

Throughout a lawyer’s career, Powell explained to his peers, they often represent numerous individuals and, at times, corporations, even if they may not fully sympathize with them. Sometimes, they advocate for business interests whose public value they might even question. “Our system provides for and indeed depends upon the right of every individual—and every corporate enterprise—to be represented by counsel whose duty it is to do the best he can to see that justice is done for that individual, or that entity.”

It’s worth pausing on this statement, a rare moment of introspection in an otherwise raucous evening. Powell’s remarks revealed the heart of his worldview: a belief that corporations and individuals were equally entitled to legal rights and protections. For Powell, there was no meaningful distinction between the two under the law. This perspective would prove pivotal in shaping his approach to corporate personhood and the role of businesses in society during his time on the Supreme Court.

OMFG

https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/that-1970s-scourge-acid-rain-is-back/

1970s scourge acid rain is back

Sarah Okeson / DC Report

Starting in the 1970s acid rain turned hundreds of lakes and streams in Adirondack Park in upstate New York so acidic that fish could not survive. Acid rain can be…

no lnx

That 1970s scourge acid rain is back

Written by Sarah Okeson / DC ReportOctober 26, 2019

Starting in the 1970s acid rain turned hundreds of lakes and streams in Adirondack Park in upstate New York so acidic that fish could not survive. Acid rain can be so toxic that it etches paint off cars.

The good news: some naturally reproducing trout were recently found in one body of water in the Adirondacks. Lake Colden had been without such naturally grown fish for 32 years. This revival comes after decades of government work to reduce the toxic air emissions that cause acid rain.

The bad news: Team Trump seems determined to create a comeback for acid rain. That would mean 500 other Adirondack ponds and lakes would continue without naturally breeding fish. Worse, some of the sprawling park’s 2,300 other bodies of water might also become too toxic for other wildlife such as crayfish, salamanders and frogs. And because acid rain leaches aluminum in the soil it also kills trees.

For people in the Northeast, it would also mean more asthma and heart disease as people breathe in air laced with greater amounts of sulfur dioxide, a toxic gas that causes acid rain.

The Trump EPA wants to squash Obama era rules that would force owners of electric power plants to clean up their toxic wastes.

To understand how Team Trump helps polluters and hurts everyone else, consider the coal-burning Martin Lake Power Plant in east Texas. It spews more sulfur dioxide than any other power plant in America. Last year it spit out 56,198 tons of sulfur dioxide, a 54% increase over 2017.

Acid rain, then and now.(From Environmental Defense Fund)]

Now the Trump EPA wants to squash Obama era rules that would force owners of this and other power plants to clean up their toxic wastes. Owners who escape these clean-up costs reap bigger profits. The rest of us pay the price: more sickness, shorter lives for some and hundreds of lakes with no fish surrounded by dying forests.

To help polluters escape those costs the Trump administration puts executives, lawyers and lobbyists for polluting companies in charge of various units of the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory bodies. Instead of enforcement of clean air laws, Team Trump runs a protection racket for polluters.

Plant Owners Identified

The Texas power plant is owned by Luminant Generation Co., part of Vistra Energy. One of Vistra’s lobbying firms once employed a lawyer who was hired to head the Trump EPA air office. Vistra is one of nine politically connected polluters being scrutinized by Congressional investigators. In 2018 alone it gave more than $101,000 to members of Congress at a three-to-one ratio favoring Republicans.

The lawyer was Bill Wehrum, who oversaw the Trump EPA’s air policy office until he resigned in June during a federal ethics investigation.Previously Wehrum was a partner at Hunton & Williams where he made $2.1 million. That law firm is now known as Hunton Andrews Kurth. A Congressional report dubbed the law firm “industry’s secret pipeline to EPA.”

Vistra Energy paid $140,000 in lobbying fees last year to Hunton Andrews Kurth.

Wehrum was accused of repeatedly violating his ethics pledge and legal duty to refrain from EPA matters involving his former clients. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, known as CREW, in May filed a detailed 14-page complaint against Wehrum with the EPA’s acting inspector general.

Other big sulfur dioxide polluters include DTE Energy Co., represented by Hunton Andrews Kurth in a long battle with the EPA over pollution from its coal-fired power plant in Monroe, Mich. David Harlow, attorney for the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, previously represented DTE for Hunton Andrews Kurth.

Lobbyists As Regulators

Soon after Harlow and Wehrum joined the EPA, the agency changed its position on a core issue in DTE’s case, adopting the company’s view.

A slightly different pro-polluter tactic was adopted for the power plant in east Texas. With former lobbyists for polluters in charge, the EPA made a mistake during the Obama years when it declared that parts of two counties near the Martin Lake plant exceeded the standard for sulfur dioxide emissions.

Trump’s EPA now wants to say the two-county area is “unclassifiable.” That would allow the plant to continue spewing tons of toxic air.

Because of actions assisting polluters, environmentalists fear acid rain is back.

While rain typically is slightly acidic with a pH reading of close to 6, acid rain is sometimes 3.2. That may not seem like much because pH is a scale. But acid rain can be more than 200 times more acidic than pollution-free rainfall.

Acid Rain Effects

EPA infographic]

Today 500 of 2,800 lakes and ponds in Adirondack State Park cannot support the plants and aquatic life that once existed in them.

Worse, acid rain can cause people to develop asthma as they breathe in even small concentrations of sulfur dioxide and the tiny particles it can form in the air. And it’s deadly for trees, trout and turtles.

“The numbers are going in the wrong direction,” said William Janeway, executive director of the Adirondack Council, about rising acidity in Northeast rainfall.

Adirondack, a state park, covers more than six million acres, making it bigger than the combined acreage of Yosemite, Yellowstone, Glacier, Grand Canyon and the Great Smokies National Parks.

When power plants in the heartland burn coal laced with sulfur the toxic waste goes up smokestacks. Prevailing winds that tend to blow eastward then carry pollution from these coal-burning power plants to the Northeast where much of it falls in rain that kills. Team Trump not only thinks that is fine, it wants more acid rain.

https://www.energyandpolicy.org/uwag-and-uswag-the-secretive-utility-groups-that-target-epa-rules/

may 2019

matt kasper

The Utility Air Regulatory Group announced on Friday that its remaining members had decided to disband the embattled project after more than 40 years. UARG had been an unincorporated group of utilities represented by lawyers at Hunton Andrews Kurth that fought against clean air standards.

But while the utilities may have dissolved UARG, the same corporations still have other “U Groups” that exist to attack EPA’s enforcement of the nation’s environmental laws. Just as utilities used UARG to target the Clean Air Act, they have the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) and the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) to attack EPA’s enforcement of the Clean Water Act and other laws that utilities have long perceived as thorns in their sides.

USWAG is represented by lawyers at Venable LLP. Attorneys fromHuntonAndrews Kurth, the same firm that housed UARG, represent the members of UWAG. Both U-groups are set up similarly to UARG: unincorporated, voluntary, ad-hoc coalitions that do not disclose individual utility members. USWAG has been a party in 88 lawsuits since the early 1990s while UWAG has been a party in 99 cases since 2000, according to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records.

Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Utility Water Act Group targeting Obama-era rules; also subsidized by utility customers

UARG’s utility members faced intense scrutiny in recent months since Politico obtained and published confidential documents that outlined goals for a meeting of UARG’s policy committee to attack Obama-era clean air and public health rules.

The spotlight brightened when leading Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent letters to several member-utility CEOs asking for information about EPA air official Bill Wehrum’s relationship with UARG and its member companies. Wehrum was an attorney at Hunton and represented UARG. Congress is investigating how he andanother former Hunton lawyer now at the EPA, David Harlow, have helped reverse the agency’s position in a major enforcement action to favor a client of their former law firm – DTE Energy.

The Congressional probe into UARG requested that the utilities state whether they had forced their customers to fund their annual contributions to the collective legal effort. Journalists and consumer advocates also pressed individual utilities to answer the question posed from the members of Congress.Several utilities, including American Electric Power, Arizona Public Service, and Tucson Electric Power, admitted that they force their customers to fund UARG expenses and therefore the legal challenges to the Clean Air Act. Others, such as Ameren, DTE Energy, Dominion, and Duke Energy did not provide details about the source of UARG funding.

Rate case filings reveal that many utilities similarly force their customers to fund their attacks on EPA’s ability to enforce the Clean Water Act via USWAG and UWAG. In 2017, the Minnesota Office of the Attorney General argued that customers of Minnesota Power shouldn’t foot the utility’s membership bill for both USWAG and UWAG. Missouri Public Service Commission Staff explained that Ameren shouldn’t bill its customers $96,010 for UWAG annual dues and $47,163 for USWAG. And in November of 2018, the Kentucky Office of the Attorney General attempted to prevent Louisville Gas & Electric and Kentucky Utilities customers from paying the $68,175 for USWAG annual dues and $109,501 for UWAG.

In a2016 Arizona Public Service rate case, the Residential Utility Consumer Office (RUCO) described the U-groups as “purely voluntary, many of which are political in nature, and may not be necessary for the provision of utility services.”

Earlier this month, UWAG attorneys were in court to join the defense of the Trump administration’s two-year delay of Obama’s Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) rule. Two years ago, Hunton attorneys representing UWAG petitioned the Trump EPA to reconsider the ELG rule. Under President Obama, the EPA finalized an update to the rule as it hadn’t been updated since the early 1980s. The rule exists to limit the wastewater that power plants can discharge in waterways. That wastewater includes arsenic, lead, mercury, selenium, chromium, and cadmium.

USWAG attorneys, meanwhile, have targeted a coal ash rule,which the Obama Administration proposed in 2010 following the largest toxic waste spill in U.S. history at a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in Kingston. One billion gallons of coal ash sludge destroyed 300 acres and dozens of homes. The rule established a set of requirements for the safe disposal of coal ash from coal-fired power plants. Similar to the ELG rule, USWAG was quick to petition the Trump EPA to reconsider parts of the coal ash rule. In September 2017, then-EPA administrator Scott Pruitt announced that it will review parts of the rule that USWAG addressed in their petition.

Ten years after the Kingston spill that triggered the rule which USWAG has fought to undermine, 400 workers who cleaned up the spill have been sickened. Another 40 died, according to a tally maintained by the Knoxville News Sentinel.

==

https://www.edf.org/media/industry-lawyer-william-wehrum-confirmed-lead-epa-office-air-and-radiation

November 9, 2017) The Senate today confirmed industry attorney William Wehrum to serve as the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation – the person responsible for carrying out our nation’s clean air laws and protecting the health of American communities and families from harmful air pollution.

“Wehrum’s long and troubling record of attacking clean air safeguards calls into question his commitment to protecting American communities from dangerous air pollution and the urgent threat of climate change,” said EDF Director of Regulatory Policy and Senior Attorney :{:{Tomás Carbonell:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px"):}::(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;text-decoration-line:underline"):}:. “Wehrum has sued EPA to tear down clear air and climate protections at least 31 times in the last decade. And Wehrum’s record as both a private attorney and an official in President George W. Bush’s EPA demonstrates a repeated tendency to undermine vital protections for public health, clean air, and climate security.” 

Since 2007, Wehrum represented many members of the pollution-heavy oil and coal industries that EPA is statutorily required to regulate while working as a lobbyist and attorney at the Washington office of Hunton & Williams. In those 31 lawsuits, he represented clients including the American Petroleum Institute, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, and Utility Air Regulatory Group.

...

==

http://www.waronwethepeople.com/hunton-williams/

hmn

http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/hunton_williams_wikileaks_chamber/

many links

huntonwms817 capt

TUESDAY, FEB 15, 2011 12:53 PM PST

The powerful law firm at the center of the WikiLeaks plot

Hunton & Williams represents big energy companies like Koch Industries -- and also schemed against WikiLeaks

JUSTIN ELLIOTT

The powerful law firm at the center of the WikiLeaks plot

L-R: Robert T. Quackenboss, John W. Woods, Richard L. Wyatt Jr.

One of the big outstanding questions in the story of the plot to undermine WikiLeaks and Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, as well as a separate plan to discredit critics of the Chamber of Commerce, is the nature of the role played by the large international law firm Hunton & Williams.

Hunton, which brags it employs 1,000 lawyers in 18 offices on three continents, has worked for both the Chamber and Bank of America. The company is nervous because WikiLeaks is reportedly planning to release internal bank documents, and Bank of America apparently connected with Hunton to help respond to the crisis.

Hunton attorneys in turn had a series of e-mail communications — since hacked by WikiLeaks supporters and published online — with a trio of technology firms that proposed various schemes to attack WikiLeaks, Greenwald and critics of the Chamber. (One typical idea was to provide labor activists with false documents in order to discredit them.)

Unlike the Chamber and Bank of America, which have issued statements denying any responsibility for the attack plans, Hunton has been conspicuously silent. The firm did not respond to requests for comment from Salon last week. And the three specific attorneys at the firm who were involved in the episode have not responded to my requests for comment today. So now is a good time to look at the firm and the rarefied space it occupies in the legal world.

What makes Hunton’s involvement in the anti-WikiLeaks scheming so striking is that the firm represents some of the biggest names in corporate America. Hunton’s website touts its representation of Wells Fargo, Altria (aka Phillip Morris), the telecom Cingular, and defense contractor General Dynamics, among many others.

Hunton also has a big lobbying business in Washington. Its clients include Koch Industries, the private energy giant whose owners fund a range of right-wing and libertarian causes. (See the 2010 lobbying records for Hunton’s work for Koch here; it involved fighting climate change legislation.) Other clients include Americans for Affordable Climate Policy, which is funded by the coal industry, the Gas Processors Association, the nuclear power company Entergy, U.S. Sugar Corp., and so on.

Just how well connected is Hunton? According to one of the hacked e-mails from December, Hunton was recommended to Bank of America’s general counsel by none other than the U.S. Department of Justice. I have an inquiry in with the DOJ about this and will update if I hear back. As an employee of Palantir, one of the three tech firms involved in hatching the anti-WikiLeaks plan, put it:

DOJ called the GC of BofA and told them to hire Hunton and Williams, specifically to hire Richard Wyatt who I’m beginning to think is the emperor. They want to present to the bank a team capable of doing a comprehensive investigation into the data leak.

The man mentioned in the e-mail, Richard Wyatt, is the co-chief of Hunton’s litigation group. As ThinkProgress pointed out, Wyatt is the Chamber of Commerce’s attorney in its lawsuit against the Yes Men, who infuriated the business group by posing as Chamber officials in a 2009 prank.

The Hunton attorney who appears most frequently in the trove of e-mails is John W. Woods, who, according to his Hunton bio, “regularly counsels clients on … electronic surveillance” and “has a particular focus in advising corporations in the legal response to network security intrusions and data breaches.”

Woods corresponded with HBGary executive Aaron Barr about a proposal to attack Chamber critics. In one exchange, after Barr had produced some information about the family of another Hunton partner to prove his social media research prowess, Woods responded:

Aaron,

Thanks.  I am not sure I will share what you sent last night – he might freak out.  I will advise him that he may want to look at his facebook material.  If you really want to impress Richard [Wyatt], I would look at the following web-site and tell him something about the guys behind it:

http://velvetrevolution.us/stop_chamber/

Barr responded with some links to social media pages of an official at the anti-Chamber group, noting that the official and his family “go to a Jewish Church in in DC, the Temple Micah.”

The third Hunton attorney who appears in the e-mails is Robert “Bob” Quackenboss, a trial lawyer who specializes in helping corporations fight labor. He has worked on “public communications response to union-coordinated attack campaigns,” counseled “employers on practical global labor relations strategies, collective bargaining and management of union elections,” and even arranged for “physical security” for corporations targeted by unions. Quackenboss was said to be the “key client contact” with the Chamber as Hunton developed plans and talked about fees with the three tech firms.

The key outstanding questions are: Will Hunton continue to decline comment on this episode? And will the Chamber and Bank of America continue to retain Hunton? We’ll keep you posted.

Justin Elliott is a reporter for ProPublica.

==

raga gmu anti fed conf:

Roderick B. Hastie:{

}:(rhastie@hunton.com):{

}::{

}:

To: Karl R. Moor (kmoor@southernco.com):{

}::{

}:Cc: sumitche@southernco.com; Richard Faulk; Jessica A Clark; Roderick B. Hastie:{

}:(rhastie@hunton.com):{

}::{

}:Subject: ANY CHANCE WE CAN GET TOGETHER IN WASHINGTON NEXT New Initiative:{

}:for Energy and the Environment e? George Mason Law 8L Economics Center:{

}::{

}:Attachments: Mason LEC FY2013 Annual Report 8L Energy Request to Moor of Southern:{

}::{

}:8-20?2013pdf:{

}::{

}:Dear Karl,:{

}::{

}:I hope you are doing well. Rick Faulk and i would appreciate the opportunity to visit with you about our initiative for:{

}:Energy and the Environment.

...

:{

}:Henry N. Butler:{

}::{

}:George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law and:{

}:Executive Director, Law Economics Center

---

From: Hastie, Roderick :{

}:Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 7:00 PM:{

}::{

}:To: Henry Butler:{

}::{

}:Cc: John Barnes:{

}::{

}:Subject: RE: Constitutional White Paper ConFidential:{

}::{

}:Confidential:{

}::{

}:Henry::{

}::{

}:I just got off the phone with General Fox. He has agreed to be your luncheon speaker on April:{

}::{

}:7. The topic will cover the issue that executive branch agencies can only exercise the authority:{

}:delegated to them by the Congress. Thus, the President’s Climate Action Plan created no new legal:{

}:rights or obligations. He will speak with John to further refine the speech. They will need to know the:{

}:details of how long he has

==

CPP

Laurence Tribe, constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School and of-counsel at the firm Massey & Gail LLP, recentlytestified in front of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce against the proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) carbon rule.

Currently working as legal counsel for coal industry giant Peabody Energy and helping the company write comments, Tribe submitted a 57-page legal memo to accompany hisfive-minute testimony (starting at 22:43). In December 2014, Tribe submitted 35 pages worth of comments to the EPA on its proposed rule.

Joining Tribe were both :{New York University School of Law professor Richard :(style="letter-spacing:0.03em"):}:Revesz and Hunton & Williams attorneyAllison Wood, who testified for and against the Clean Power Plan, respectively. But Tribe served as the star witness and fielded most of the questions from the Committee during the question-and-answer session.

Fittingly given his distinguished legal background, Tribe argued against the Clean Power Plan on constiutional law grounds.

“Burning the Constiution should not become part of our national energy policy,” Tribe wrote in the early pages of the legal memo he submitted to the Committee. “At its core, the issue the Clean Power Plan presents is whether EPA is bound by the rule of law and must operate within the framework established by the United States Constitution.”

He also proposed a solution — favored by his client Peabody — in a section titled, “There is a Better Way.”

“The United States could…support carbon capture and storage technologies,” Tribe wrote, not mentioning Peabody's advocacy for so-called “clean coal.” 

“An 'all of the above' energy policy can support all forms of domestic energy production that will minimize carbon emissions, protect consumers and American jobs, and ensure that the U.S. remains independent from unreliable foreign sources of energy.”

The Rebuttal

Advocates for the Obama carbon rule, such as the Sierra Club, rebutted Tribe.

“Harvard University may pay Laurence Tribe to teach law school classes, but when it comes to Tribe’s positions on the Clean Power Plan, it’s the coal industry signing the checks,” David DiMartino, advisor to the Climate Action Campaign — which advocates for the Clean Power Plan — and employee of Blue Engine Media, said in an email statement provided to DeSmog.

“Make no mistake: the polluter industry’s attempt to buy a high-profile law professor, just as they’ve contributed hundreds of millions to buy their agenda in Congress, won’t fool the overwhelming majority of Americans who want Congress to take action on climate change.”

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), credited by The New York Times as a key behind-the-scenes author of the Clean Power Plan, has also taken umbrage with Tribe's legal posturing.

“Peabody/Tribe claim that the Clean Power Plan won’t make any difference to climate change. That’s false,”David Doniger,director of NRDC's climate and clean air program, told DeSmogBlog via email. “Everyone knows that curbing climate change requires action by all of the world’s major contributors, including the U.S. The question is how can the U.S. best exert leverage to make this happen.”

In December, Doniger wrote a blog post critiquing Tribe's legal argument contained in the comments he submitted to the EPA.

Tribe, Wood Industry Ties

Tribe currently represents or has recently represented many corporate clients, including fossil fuel industry interests, throughout his storied legal career.

Beyond Peabody, Tribe currently represents the Bill Koch-funded Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound; 7-Eleven, Inc., QuikTrip Corp., and Kum & Go, L.C; along with the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute and many others in a class action lawsuit.

In the past, Tribe has also represented the likes of General Electric and Consumer Energy Alliance, an industry front group. An article by the Daily Climate's Marianne Lavelle points out some of Tribe's other corporate legal ties.

Allison Wood, the Hunton & Williams attorney testifying against the Clean Power Plan in concert with Tribe, also has represented (or currently represents) many industry actors. But she did not disclose any of them in her truth in testimony form submitted to the Committee, simply listing herself as a partner at the firm on the form and on her testimony.

Wood's clients have included American Electric Power, Southern Company, a utility industry front group called the Utility Air Regulatory Group, another utility industry front group called the Clean Air Markets Group, Edison Electric, as well asExxonMobil and Murphy Oil.

On her biography page for Hunton & Williams, Wood openly states that she served of counsel for industry clients, calling them “representative” of who she tends to work with.

“Her representative clients include companies and trade associations in the electric generation industry, petroleum industry, manufacturing industries, and transportation and land development industries,” reads the biography.

Neither Tribe nor Wood responded to requests for comment sent via email by DeSmog.

==

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

==

He created a wiki page, called it :{ProjectPM:(style="color:#000000;"):}: [5], and invited other investigative journalists to join in. Under Brown’s leadership, the initiative began to slowly untangle a web of connections between the US government, corporations, lobbyists and a shadowy group of private military and information security consultants.

One connection was between Bank of America and the Chamber of Commerce.WikiLeaks had claimed to possess a large cache of documents belonging to Bank of America. Concerned about this, Bank of America approached the United States Department of Justice. The DOJ directed it to the law and lobbying firm :{Hunton and Williams:(style="color:#000000;"):}: [6], which does legal work for Wells Fargo and General Dynamics and also lobbies for Koch Industries, Americans for Affordable Climate Policy, Gas Processors Association, Entergy among many other firms. The DoJ recommended that Bank of America hire Hunton and Williams, explicitly suggesting :{Richard Wyatt:(style="color:#000000;"):}:[7] as the person to work with. Wyatt, famously, was the lead attorney in the Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit against the Yes Men.

==

wikifluff, busted for it, see talk

from talk

The American Lawyer`s September Issue Profiles 2009 Lifetime Achievement Award Winners, September 8, 2009

Hunton & Williams Wins TRO for BofA in Colonial Bank Dispute, August 14, 2009

Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Appoints Robert J. Grey, Jr. as Interim Executive Director, August 28, 2009

Counterpunch, 1 May 2009, Corporate Think Tanks Muddy the Waters: Life, Death and Water Policy - Hunton & Williams and the Water Policy Institute

Gazprom turns to Hunton UK for TruRead investment, March 31, 2008

Hunton & Williams Advises Gazprom on Purchase, July 5, 2006

Africa Special Report: The art of conversation, April 6, 2009

Special Report: Energy, September 1, 2008

US quartet scoops airline mega-merger, April 28, 2008

Hunton & Williams: The London eye, April 3, 2008

First Amendment Lawyer Says Drug Companies Also Have Speech Rights, August 27, 2009

==

MAY 1-3, 2009

Corporate Think Tanks Muddy the Waters

Life, Death and Water Policy

by DIANE FARSETTA

In May 2008, the major law firm Hunton & Williams launched the Water Policy Institute (WPI), a think tank-esque, industry-supported consortium formed "to address water supply, quality and use issues," according to its website.

After the initial flurry of press releases, WPI appeared to languish. Then, ten months after its formation, WPI issued its first white paper. "Water Wars: Conflicts Over Shared Waters" focuses on two river basins in the Southeastern United States. The paper urges the states involved — Georgia, Florida and Alabama — to put aside litigation and work with federal mediators to reach an agreement on water allocation. It also supports further study of seasonal water use, ecological issues and efficiency measures.

The white paper’s conclusions seem reasonable, even obvious. So much so that it’s unclear why Hunton & Williams felt the need to recruit major public relations and corporate powerhouses when forming WPI — and what they, and the law firm, get out of the effort.

What is clear is that WPI, Hunton & Williams and their corporate allies have a long history of siding with (or being) polluters and attempting to undermine water quality safeguards. It seems reasonable, therefore, to worry that whatever WPI is up to, it’s likely to do more harm than good.

WPI’s usual suspects

The Water Policy Institute’s chair is former New Jersey governor and Environmental Protection Agency head Christine Todd Whitman. After leaving the EPA, Whitman founded her own public relations firm. The Whitman Strategy Group’s clients include FMC Corporation, a chemical and pesticide manufacturer; the oil company Chevron’s Environmental Management Company; and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an industry lobby group. Since 2006, Whitman has co-chaired the NEI-funded and Hill & Knowlton-managed Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a pro-nuclear front group.

"I have, for many years now, believed that water is the greatest environmental challenge facing the world in the 21st century," Whitman stated, in a speech at WPI’s inaugural meeting. Since first being elected to public office 25 years ago, she said, "I have been wrestling with water issues." WPI "will help policymakers in every sector better understand — and more effectively communicate and advance — the need for action," she added.

There are also financial incentives for Whitman’s involvement with WPI. Whitman "is now helping to bring clients to the law firm of Hunton & Williams as chairwoman of its new Water Policy Institute," reported Congressional Quarterly in June 2008. "Whitman’s firm will get an undisclosed fee for its work."

In addition to Whitman’s political star power, WPI presumably benefits from the connections and resources of its founding corporate members: BP, GE Water and the Central Arizona Project. As a multinational oil, gas and fuels company, BP’s interests in water issues are significant. For example, the company is invested in Alberta’s tar sands, where oil development requires — and pollutes — large volumes of water. Last year, BP was party to a $423 million settlement compensating U.S. public water systems for contamination from the gas additive MTBE.

GE Water describes itself as "a leading global supplier of water treatment, wastewater treatment and process systems solutions." In an August 2006 press release, the company enthused, "Globally, the water market is $365 billion and offers a high growth potential." Its products range from water treatment chemicals, filters and membranes; to industrial water management systems; to "mobile water" emergency back-ups. GE Water boasts "the world’s largest base of desalination systems," which use an energy-intensive process to produce fresh water from seawater or salty water. GE Water is also involved with Canada’s tar sands, as part of a $15 million effort "to improve water usage" during oil extraction.

The Central Arizona Project is a "336-mile long system of aqueducts, tunnels, pumping plants and pipelines" that directs Colorado Riverwater to three Arizona counties. The "quasi-governmental entity" that runs the project has hired the Hunton & Williams firm to weigh in on several water-related legal cases. Due to growing population, drought and climate change, the Central Arizona Project is likely to face increased competition for water resources. It’s also nervous about possible carbon tax or cap-and-trade policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it relies on the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station for its substantial power needs.

Hunton for Robb

The Water Policy Institute’s home, Hunton & Williams, isn’t the most environmentally-friendly law firm. In a landmark 2007 case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the firm argued that the EPA shouldn’t be allowed to regulate carbon dioxide. By the time the court ruled against them, Hunton & Williams "had built up a team of energy lobbyists who could … work to minimize the potential damage to their clients through legislation," reported The Hill.

Hunton & Williams’ lobbying clients include the oil giant ConocoPhillips, the electric industry’s Edison Electric Institute, infamous polluter Koch Industries and the powerful National Association of Manufacturers lobby group. Also on the list is "Americans for Affordable Climate Policy," a front group formed by coal interests to ensure that any cap-and-trade system gives free emissions credits to industry. Hunton & Williams’ non-lobbying clients include Altria (formerly known as Philip Morris), military contractor General Dynamics, drugmaker Pfizer and Texas energy company Luminant (formerly known as TXU).

On water issues, Hunton & Williams lobbies for the Waters Advocacy Coalition, another industry front group whose members include the National Mining Association, the anti-regulatory and industry-funded Western Business Roundtable, the pesticide industry group CropLife America and the American Forest & Paper Association, which represents the "forest products industry."

WPI’s director is Kathy Robb, a Hunton & Williams partner focused on resources, regulatory and environmental law. In a 2005 filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, Robb argued that hydroelectric dam operators shouldn’t be regulated under the Clean Water Act. In 2005 and 2006, Robb filed briefs on behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, which operates the Central Arizona Project. The briefs supported a canal lining project that environmentalists and local groups feared would dry up wetlands and harm rural communities. Robb’s clients include "developers, electric utilities, investors, chemical manufacturers, and paper mills," according to Hunton & Williams’ website.

Robb has said that WPI is interested in issues of water "scarcity and pricing and … how you can encourage people to conserve," "recycling and reclamation," "the interconnection between energy and water," and "the intersection increasingly of water quality and water quantity issues." How do those laudable goals square with Robb’s legal work to restrict the application of the Clean Water Act, with the interests of WPI’s corporate members, or with Hunton & Williams’ clients?

I called Robb’s office to request an interview. Her assistant quickly identified a time, several days later, when I could speak with her. Then, just before the interview was supposed to take place, the assistant called back to cancel it. I repeatedly contacted the office to reschedule. At one point, a nervous-sounding woman asked me where the interview would appear and what questions I would ask Robb. More than two weeks, several phone calls and emails later, it seems safe to conclude that Kathy Robb doesn’t want to talk with me.

Life, death and water policy

Kathy Robb’s silence doesn’t bode well for WPI. Serious policy groups realize that, in order to have any credibility, they must either scrupulously avoid or fully disclose potential conflicts of interest. If WPI has any such policies, they’re not public. WPI’s website doesn’t even include a list of its members.

In 2003, former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali stated, "Water will be more important than oil this century." Today, an estimated one billion people don’t have access to clean drinking water. In 2025, the UN predicts that 1.8 billion people will live in areas with "absolute water scarcity." According to a June 2008 technical paper for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there is "very high confidence" that "adverse effects of climate change on freshwater systems [will] aggravate the impacts of other stresses, such as population growth, changing economic activity, land-use change and urbanisation."

These are serious, complex and urgent issues. The last thing we need is another corporate front group muddying the waters.

DIANE FARSETTA is the Center for Media and Democracy’s senior researcher. She can be reached at: diane@prwatch.org

==

Founded in 1901, Hunton & Williams LLP is a US law firm that employs more than 800 lawyers. The firm was founded in Richmond, Virginia and has 18 other offices throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia.

Contents

  [hide] 

History

The firm was founded in 1901 in Richmond, Virginia by Henry W. Anderson, Eppa Hunton Jr., Beverley Munford, and Randolph Williams as Munford, Hunton, Williams & Anderson. It focused primarily on litigation, business and finance law.

The firm has changed names over the years; its seventh name, in 1976, was Hunton & Williams; it became Hunton & Williams LLP in 2003. The firm's most notable member, a name partner from 1954 until 1972, was Lewis F. Powell, Jr., who became a member of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971.

The firm's initial hire of a woman was Elizabeth Tompkins, the first woman graduate of the University of Virginia Law School, who worked as a summer clerk at Hunton & Williams in 1921 and 1922. In 1943, during the Second World War, two women lawyers were hired to work at Hunton & Williams: Sarah Geer Dale and Nan Ross McConnell. Dale's first case involved a labor-law issue for Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock. She left the firm in 1945 to get married and retired from the practice of law. McConnell stayed on until 1948, when she married.

Current operations

Consistent with a firm that claims a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice as an alumnus, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., Hunton & Williams was the first law firm in the United States to open an office solely for the practice of law pro bono.

The firm has a Centre for Information Policy Leadership, which focuses on privacy and data protection work.

The managing partner, Walfrido J. "Wally" Martinez, has held that position since March 2006.

Awards for labor outsourcing and offshoring

In addition, the firm has over 40 lawyers regularly allocated to working for the outsourcing industry, utilizing resources from the network of 800 other lawyers in the firm and prides themselves as having "over the past two decades, our attorneys have executed hundreds of outsourcing transactions worldwide valued at billions of dollars."[1] In acknowledgement of the law firms efforts, Hunton & Williams was listed by the International Association of Outsourcing Professionals (IAOP) as one of the "2012 World's Best Outsourcing Advisors", who "navigate" and arrange the organization of those businesses overseas for clients.[1]

In addition, the practice was ranked the #1 and #3 Outsourcing and Offshoring Legal Advisor in Brown & Wilson's Black Book of Outsourcing for the years 2008 and 2009.

References

  1. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunton_%26_Williams#cite_ref-out_1-1) Practices:Global Outsourcing, Global Outsourcing, Hunton & Williams, retrieved February 11, 2013

External links

john w woods jumps to intel pvt co?)

==

see mojo 

...

mojo strange case

The data dump from the HBGary hack was so vast that no one person could sort through it alone. So Brown decided to crowdsource the effort. He created a wiki page, called it ProjectPM [5], and invited other investigative journalists to join in. Under Brown’s leadership, the initiative began to slowly untangle a web of connections between the US government, corporations, lobbyists and a shadowy group of private military and information security consultants.

One connection was between Bank of America and the Chamber of Commerce. WikiLeaks had claimed to possess a large cache of documents belonging to Bank of America. Concerned about this, Bank of America approached the United States Department of Justice. The DOJ directed it to the law and lobbying firm Hunton and Williams [6], which does legal work for Wells Fargo and General Dynamics and also lobbies for Koch Industries, Americans for Affordable Climate Policy, Gas Processors Association, Entergy among many other firms. The DoJ recommended that Bank of America hire Hunton and Williams, explicitly suggesting Richard Wyatt[7] as the person to work with. Wyatt, famously, was the lead attorney in the Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit against the Yes Men.

In November 2010, Hunton and Williams organized a number of private intelligence, technology development and security contractors—HBGary, plus Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies and, according to Brown, a secretive corporation with the ominous name Endgame Systems—to form “Team Themis”—‘themis’ being a Greek word meaning “divine law.” Its main objective was to discredit critics of the Chamber of Commerce, like Chamber Watch [8], using such tactics as creating a “false document, perhaps highlighting periodical financial information,” giving it to a progressive group opposing the Chamber, and then subsequently exposing the document as a fake to “prove that US Chamber Watch cannot be trusted with information and/or tell the truth.” In addition, the group proposed creating a “fake insider persona” to infiltrate Chamber Watch. They would “create two fake insider personas, using one as leverage to discredit the other while confirming the legitimacy of the second.” The leaked e-mails showed that similar disinformation campaigns were being planned against WikiLeaks and Glenn Greenwald.

It was clear to Brown that these were actions of questionable legality, but beyond that, government contractors were attempting to undermine Americans’ free speech—with the apparent blessing of the DOJ. A group of Democratic congressmen asked for an investigation [9] into this arrangement, to no avail.

Read more: The Strange Case of Barrett Brown http://www.thenation.com/print/article/174851/strange-case-barrett-brown#ixzz2Y7fLyn6F 

Follow us: @thenation on Twitter | TheNationMagazine on Facebook

...

Some journalists are now understandably afraid to go near the Stratfor files. The broader implications of this go beyond Brown; one might think that what we are looking at is Cointelpro 2.0—an outsourced surveillance state—but in fact it’s worse. One can’t help but infer that the US Department of Justice has become just another security contractor, working alongside the HBGarys and Stratfors on behalf of corporate bidders, with no sense at all for the justness of their actions; they are working to protect corporations and private security contractors and give them license to engage in disinformation campaigns against ordinary citizens and their advocacy groups. The mere fact that the FBI’s senior cybersecurity advisor has recently moved to Hunton and Williams shows just how incestuous this relationship has become. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is also using its power and force to trample on the rights of citizens like Barrett Brown who are trying to shed light on these nefarious relationships. In order to neutralize those who question or investigate the system, laws are being reinterpreted or extended or otherwise misappropriated in ways that are laughable—or would be if the consequences weren’t so dire.

lee fang: Koch recentlyretained Orion Strategies, a PR firm run by Weekly Standard writers like Michael Goldfarb, Wilson Miller Communications, and PR consultant Ron Bonjean, as well as government affairs firms like Cove Strategies, Hunton & Williams, ADS Ventures, the Palmetto Group, and Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti. In addition to their communication consultants, Koch is being aided by the right-wing media investments they have made over the years.

--- 

http://www:{.sourcewatch.:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:org/index.php?title=Hunton_%26_Williams

Hunton & Williams is an international law firm with 19 offices "throughout the US, Europe and Asia," according to its website. [1]

"The firm garnered attention" in 2007, "when its lawyers argued that the Clean Air Act does not give EPA the right to regulate carbon dioxide in the controversial Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA," noted Greenwire. [2]

Contents[hide]

Chamber of Commerce spying proposal

Hunton & Williams received a proposal from three data security contractors for U.S. federal defense and intelligence agencies to monitor and manipulate the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's left-leaning critics, according to the Los Angeles Times, which obtained e-mail correspondence pertaining to the case. Employees of the data security contractors presented Hunton and Williams with short dossiers on a few anti-Chamber activists that included photographs, references to their families and charts of their relationships with other liberal and labor leaders. Hunton and Williams is the law firm that represents the Chamber. Hunton also represents Bank of America, and solicited a separate proposal from the same security firms to help the bank deal with a threat by WikiLeaks, to release sensitive information. The Chamber denied paying the contractors for the information, and Hunton refused to comment. Another target revealed in the emails was the Service Employees International Union.[3]

art:

...

A review of the correspondence, dating from late October through last week, suggested that the surveillance and intelligence gathering had begun only on a superficial basis in anticipation of a coming meeting with chamber officials.

The proposals were received by Hunton & Williams, a law firm that represents the chamber.

The firm, which also represents Bank of America, solicited a separate proposal from the security firms to help the bank deal with a threat by WikiLeaks, the international hacker organization, to release some of the bank's internal data.

Chamber officials as well as a spokesman for Bank of America said they knew nothing of the surveillance proposals until the e-mails were released Friday by Anonymous, a group that is sympathetic to WikiLeaks.

"No money, for any purpose, was paid to any of those three private security firms by the chamber, or by anyone on behalf of the chamber, including Hunton & Williams," the chamber said in a statement.

Hunton & Williams did not respond to requests for comment.

But in some of the e-mails, employees of the security firms and lawyers at Hunton & Williams refer to contacts they had made with the chamber about the proposed intelligence gathering.

The revelations in the e-mails triggered anxiety among some of those who were targeted.

"We are appalled at the allegations that have come to light in these e-mails," said Inga Skippings, communications director of the Service Employees International Union, some of whose allies were the subject of the intelligence gathering project. "The chamber should immediately come clean about its involvement with Hunton & Williams and the private security firms that allegedly planned these underhanded tactics."

ThinkProgress, an arm of the liberal Center for American Progress and a consistent critic of the chamber, first reported on the e-mails on its blog last week.

In a statement, the chamber accused its critics of "perpetrating a smear campaign by trying to create the illusion of a connection" between it and the security firms.[st'd formula: deny everything and make counter-accusations]

Officials for two of the security firms, Palantir Technologies and Berico Technologies, confirmed the authenticity of the e-mails sent by their employees but said top executives had no previous knowledge of them.

A spokeswoman for the third company, HBGary Federal, said executives could not address the details of the proposed work for Hunton & Williams, citing anondisclosure agreementcovering all parties.

Copies of the e-mails were provided to the Los Angeles Times by the labor and activist groups.

The correspondence shows that starting last fall, Hutton & Williams lawyers discussed with the security companies a project to be pitched to the chamber.

The three security firms, all of which are government contractors with secret clearances, proposed coming together as "Team Themis," apparently named after a Greek goddess of law and order, to monitor and possibly disrupt chamber opponents.

"Who better to develop a corporate information reconnaissance capability than companies that have been market leaders within the [Defense Department] and Intelligence Community," the companies wrote in a pitch to Hunton & Williams.

At one point, those working on the project estimated it could be worth $2 million.

A Team Themis report e-mailed to two Hunton & Williams attorneys in December by a Berico Technologies analyst suggested planting a "false document" in hopes it would be publicly released by anti-chamber groups. The plan also called for creating "two fake insider personas" inside the activist organizations that could then be used to discredit the groups.

Other sample reports included mock dossiers of activists, some with false information about their marital state and address but with actual photographs of them.

There is no evidence that the firms carried out those plans or used secret data to compile their dossiers.

Palo Alto-based Palantir Technologies and Arlington, Va.-based Berico Technologies have moved swiftly to distance themselves from the tactics described in the e-mails, severing their relationship with Sacramento-based HBGary Federal and saying that company proposed the aggressive tactics.

Alex Karp, chief executive of Palantir Technologies, a data integration software company, said in a statement Monday that it "never has and never will condone the sort of activities recommended by HBGary."

The company said it had placed on leave Matthew Steckman, a 26-year-old engineer who was the point person on the project, and apologized to those listed as targets in the campaign.

Guy Filippelli, chief executive of Berico Technologies, said he believed that his company was assisting development of a proposal to help the Chamber of Commerce and its members use public information to identify security and information threats.] http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/15/nation/la-na-chamber-20110215/2

Anti-environmental lobbying

"In Massachusetts v. EPA, Hunton argued that Congress did not intend to give the EPA powers to regulate carbon dioxide when it wrote the Clean Air Act," reported The Hill. While the Supreme Court disagreed, "by the time the court announced its ruling, the firm had built up a team of energy lobbyists who could field questions from clients and congressional staff about the decision’s implications -- and work to minimize the potential damage to their clients through legislation." [4]

In its other lobbying work, "Hunton lawyers argued on behalf of Conoco [in 2006] that the company should be eligible for a $1-a-gallon tax credit for producing renewable diesel by adding animal fats to its traditional refining process. The IRS agreed. The firm's lobbyists are now working to protect that credit against efforts in Congress to limit its application to biodiesel plants, which use a different process." [4]

The firm has also represented the West Virginia Coal Association in its fight to continue mountaintop removal mining, Georgia Power in its effort to fend off a race discrimination suit brought by former employees, and the Tennessee Valley Authority in its battle to avoid installing pollution controls at its coal-fired power plants.[5]

Hunton & William is also a major lobbying force, with lobbying income of more than $2.8 million in 2010. Among its biggest lobbying clients are energy firms: Energy Future Holdings (formerly TXU Corp.), Southern Company, Gas Processors Association, FirstEnergy, and Koch Industries. Also among the firm's lobbying clients are Duke Energy and Progress Energy, and Americans for Affordable Climate Policy, a front group formed by Duke Energy and other coal utilities.[5]

Water Policy Institute

In June 2008, Hunton & Williams established the Water Policy Institute (WPI), a think tank "bringing together industry leaders ... to address water supply, quality and use issues." [6]

WPI is chaired by former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief turned PR consultant Christine Todd Whitman, with Hunton & Williams partner Kathy Robb as its director. Its founding corporate members included BP, Central Arizona Project and GE Water. [6]

"Climate change is likely to be a major topic" of the Water Policy Institute, according to a profile in the Clean Water Report. "Other topics will include the intersection of water quality and quantity; desalination; new technology; agriculture; allocation of water; and infrastructure." [7]

Tobacco ties

Hunton & Williams was counsel for Philip Morris. (PMI's Introduction to Privilege Log and Glossary of Names, Estate of Burl Butler v. PMI, et al, April 19, 1996). They are a law firm in Richmond, Virginia (USA) and were a major law firm used by Philip Morris Cos. Inc., circa 1993.(NJL 5/9/94) Attorneys T. Justin Moore III, Robert E.R. Huntley, were on the board of directors of Philip Morris Cos. Inc., circa 1993.(NJL 5/9/94)

Linked to Search for Common Ground.

HBGary, Bank of America, and the Chamber of Commerce controversy

In 2010, Aaron Barr, CEO of the technology security company HBGary Federal, alleged that he could exploit social media to gather information about hackers like those who supported WikiLeaks. In early 2011, Barr claimed to have used his techniques to infiltrate the Wikileaks supporter Anonymous, partly by using IRC, Facebook, Twitter, and social networking sites. His e-mails depict his intention to release information on the identities of Anonymous members and to sell it to possible clients.[8] In early February of 2011, the activist group Anonymous hacked the firm's website, copied tens of thousands of documents from HBGary, posted tens of thousands of company emails online, and usurped Barr's Twitter account.[9]

Some of the documents taken by Anonymous showHBGary Federal was working on behalf of Bank of Americato respond to Wikileaks' planned release of the bank's internal documents.[10] The plan included "disrupting" reporter Glenn Greenwald in his support of Wikileaks. Emails detail a supposed business proposal by HBGary to assist Bank of America's law firm, Hunton & Williams, in a "dirty tricks campaign" that included proposals to fabricate "false documents"[11]: "Potential proactive tactics against WikiLeaks include feeding the fuel between the feuding groups, disinformation, creating messages around actions to sabotage or discredit the opposing organization, and submitting fake documents to WikiLeaks and then calling out the error."[12]

According to other e-mails, the **Chamber of Commerce** hired the lobbying firm Hunton & Williams, and attorneys for the law firm then solicited a set of private security firms — HB Gary Federal, Palantir, and Berico Technologies (collectively called Team Themis) — to develop a sabotage campaign against progressive groups and labor unions, including the group ThinkProgress, the labor coalition Change to Win, the labor union SEIU, U.S. Chamber Watch, and StopTheChamber.com. Later emails revealed that the private spy company investigated the families and children of the Chamber’s political opponents. The apparent spearhead of this project was Aaron Barr, who circulated numerous emails and documents detailing information about political opponents’ children, spouses, and personal lives.[13]

Lobbying clients

The firm's lobbying practice brought in $5,260,000 in 2007 and $2,365,000 in the first three quarters of 2008, according to the Lobbyists.info database. Lobbying clients, as of February 2009, include: [14]

Other 2008 lobbying clients listed in the OpenSecrets.org database are: [15]

Clients

The firm's website says its clients range "from start-up companies to multinational corporations. We serve clients in virtually every industry throughout the world." A "representative" list of Hunton & Williams clients includes: [16]

Contact details

Hunton & Williams LLP

1900 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

Phone: 202-955-1500

Fax: 202-778-2201

Web: http://www.hunton.com/

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. ↑ "Offices," Hunton & Williams website, accessed February 2009.
  2. ↑ Katherine Boyle, "WATER: Former EPA administrator to head policy institute," Greenwire, June 4, 2008.
  3. ↑ Tom Hamburger and Matea Gold, Washington Bureau Government contractors targeted Chamber of Commerce's critics, Los Angeles Times, February 15, 2011
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Jim Snyder, "Hunton & Williams fires up lobbying practice," The Hill, July 18, 2007.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Sue Sturgis, "Well-connected law firm involved in dirty-trick plot against activists, journalists" Facing South, Feb. 16, 2011.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Press release, "Water Industry Leaders Launch Water Policy Institute to Address Current Challenges: Christine Todd Whitman to serve as chair; Hunton & Williams lawyer as director," Hunton & Williams, June 4, 2008.
  7. ↑ "New water institute seeks to convene diverse voices," Clean Water Report, June 18, 2008.
  8. ↑ How one man tracked down Anonymous - and paid a heavy price By Nate Anderson, updated 2-10-2011, Ars Technica, retr 2011-02-11
  9. ↑ Bright, Peter (2011-02-15). Anonymous speaks: the inside story of the HBGary hack. Law & Disorder: Tech Law and Policy in the Digital Age. Ars Technica. Retrieved on 18 February 2011.
  10. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `` tag; no text was provided for refs named james_wray_and_ulf_stabe
  11. ↑ Leyden, John (2011-02-17). Anonymous security firm hack used every trick in book. Enterprise Security. The Register. Retrieved on 18 February 2011.
  12. ↑ Firm targeting WikiLeaks cuts ties with HBGary - apologizes to reporter Steve Ragan, Tech Herald, 2 11 2011, retr 2011 02 11
  13. ↑ Joseph Romm, "Bombshell: Chamber of Commerce lobbyists solicited firm to investigate opponents’ families, children" ThinkProgress, Feb. 13, 2011.
  14. ↑ "Hunton & Williams LLP," Lobbyists.info (sub req'd), accessed February 2009.
  15. ↑ "Lobbying spending 2008: Hunton & Williams," OpenSecrets.org, accessed February 2009.
  16. ↑ "Our clients," Hunton & Williams website, accessed February 2009.

External resources

External articles

This article may include information from Tobacco Documents Online.

pr from thier corp site:

NEW YORK — January 28, 2011 —Hunton & Williams LLP has been named among Law360's Environmental Groups of The Year, for "playing a role in the matters that made headlines and changed the legal landscape in the past year." According to Law360, Hunton & Williams’ environmental practice, with nearly 80 lawyers, achieved major successes in greenhouse gas public nuisance and clean water act litigation as well as obtaining and defending significant coal generation permits.

Law360's Environmental Groups of 2010 are Hunton & Williams LLP, Jones Day, King & Spalding LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and Sidley Austin LLP.

"We're deeply familiar with state and local programs, courts and regulatory agencies around the country," said F. William Brownell, head of Hunton & Williams' environmental group. "That distinguishes us and also translates to outstanding client service. I am very proud of our team and the results we have achieved for our clients."

Among the successes cited by Law360 was Hunton & Williams' major triumph in late July, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned a ruling that would have required the Tennessee Valley Authority to spend more than $1 billion to install emissions controls at four coal-fired power plants in Alabama and Tennessee. In that widely watched case, the appellate court rejected North Carolina's public nuisance claims against the utility, pointing out that the plants had the necessary state permits and abided by the Clean Air Act.

Formed in 1970, soon after passage of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act, the Hunton & Williams environmental team has helped clients navigate every major federal environmental statute, and those of most states and many international jurisdictions. The team advises a range of industries on innovative responses to environmental compliance, represents companies in litigation and administrative permitting and regulatory proceedings, and ensures that clients have a voice in shaping policy.

About Hunton & Williams LLPHunton & Williams LLP provides legal services to corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals, among an array of other entities. Since 1901, Hunton & Williams has grown to more than 900 lawyers serving clients in 100 countries from 18 offices around the world. While our practice has a strong industry focus on energy, financial services and life sciences, the range of our experience extends to more than 100 practice areas, including bankruptcy and creditors rights, commercial litigation, corporate transactions and securities law, intellectual property, international and government relations, regulatory law, products liability, and privacy and information management.

Revolving door

Hunton & Williams LLP — 7 Clients

Two formerRepublican counsel to the House Energy and Commercecommittee are weighing in on its current climate legislation at Hunton & Williams.Mark Menezes and Joseph C. Stanko are among the climate lobbyists working on behalf of electric power clients including First Energy, as well as the Gas Processors Association, manufacturer Koch Industries, and railroad company CSX. Hunton & Williams represented utilities on the losing side in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the court determined that the agency could regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. However, that issue is now very much in play for the firm’s climate lobbying clients on Capitol Hill, as the proposed Waxman-Markey legislation would take away EPA’s power — putting into place the cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gases instead.

GP 2010

age 30

It is worth noting that Koch also hires outside lawyers to lobbyon its behalf, in some cases the

same firms that lobby for other groups of which Koch is a member. For example:

• Siff and Lake, $190,000 (2009), $220,000 (2008), $200,000 (2007), which also lobbies for

Western Fuels Association.

• Mehlman/Vogel, $200,000 (2009), $120,000 (2008), $20,000 (2007) which also lobbies for

API (2009, 2008), Business Roundtable (2009, 2008), EEI (2009, 2008) and Energy Future

Holdings (2009).

• Pyle and Associates, $40,000 (2007), which also lobbied for the National Petrochemical and

Refiners Association279, of which Koch is a member.

• The Rhoads Group, $100,000 (2007) which also lobbies for the National Petrochemical and

Refiners Association280 of which Koch is a member.

• Hunton and Williams, $60,000 (2009), $150,000 (2008), $80,000 (2007), which also lobbied

for National Association of Manufacturers (2009, 2008) and Americans for Affordable Climate

Policy (2009), Edison Electric Institute (2009, 2008, 2007), Gas Processing Association (2009,

2008) and the Foundation for Environment and Economic Progress (2009, 2008, 2007))

• Capitol Tax Partners, $30,000 (2009), $240,000 (2008), $220,000 (2007), which who also

F. William Brownell

Bill is Chairman of the firm's Executive Committee. His practice focuses on environmental litigation, regulation and counseling, including climate change regulation and litigation, clean air regulation, environmental licensing and auditing, and waste management and clean water issues. Bill represents clients in both the United States and Europe. In the United States, his practice involves proceedings before federal and state agencies, courts and Congress; in Europe, it involves advice on European Community law.

Bill is a member of the American Bar Association and is AV® Peer Review Rated in Martindale-Hubbell. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits.

Relevant Experience

Elizabeth L. Horner 

lobbies for Edison Electric Institute

uarg:

The Hunton & Williams LLP practice under the Clean Air Act and other air quality laws is one of the most extensive in the nation. The firm's environmental team began its air quality regulatory practice shortly after enactment of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The practice expanded as we assisted clients during the legislative development and implementation of the 1977 and 1990 amendments to the Act.

For more than three decades, the firm's environmental lawyers have provided clients a full range of services under all of the Act's major programs, including representation in rulemakings and administrative proceedings, new and existing source permitting, appellate litigation, enforcement defense, and business transactions. In the United States, our air regulatory practice includes representation at the federal, state, and local levels. Our International and European Environmental Law Practice also addresses air regulatory issues arising outside the United States. Working with our Government Relations team, we advocate our clients' interests before the executive and legislative branches of government and regulatory agencies around the world.

The firm's clients on Clean Air Act and other air quality matters include most major industrial groups that are affected by air quality regulations, including electric utility companies (both as individuals and through trade associations), chemical manufacturers, pulp and paper companies, oil and gas companies, aluminum manufacturing, petroleum pipeline entities, coal companies, waste disposal concerns, road builders, liquefied gas storage and distribution companies, pharmaceutical companies, and various other manufacturers. We also represent groups of clients (including the Utility Air Regulatory Group) collectively in rulemakings and litigation under the Act on matters involving a wide range of public policy, regulatory, and administrative law issues.

Regulatory Practice

Hunton & Williams' environmental lawyers participate in all types of administrative proceedings and rulemakings arising under clean air laws. Our national experience includes representation in numerous Clean Air Act rulemakings, including those addressing development, review, and implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); control of new sources under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), New Source Review (NSR), and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs; visibility impairment and Regional Haze; control of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) through technology-based MACT standards; regulation of motor vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, and fuel additives; development and implementation of market-based emission allowance trading programs, such as the Acid Rain Program and Federal NOx Budget Trading Program; transportation conformity and general conformity determinations; requirements for state and federal Title V Operating Permit Programs; and issues related to Tribal implementation of Clean Air Act programs. In rulemakings, our lawyers work both to make the rules the most reasonable possible and to create a complete record in the event of judicial review.

In addition to national rulemakings, our air regulatory lawyers also have experience:

Our lawyers also represent clients on source- or company-specific issues related to development and implementation of rules, including:

Compliance Counseling and Auditing

Once rules are in place, Hunton & Williams' air lawyers help clients to understand and comply with applicable requirements. Building on experience gained through participation in rulemakings and defending enforcement actions, we also have experience:

New and Existing Source Permitting

Some companies mistakenly view permitting as primarily presenting technical issues. Hunton & Williams' air lawyers regularly represent clients on a variety of legal issues associated with new and existing source permitting to avoid unnecessary requirements and to advocate permits terms that are clear, accurate, and reasonable. Specifically, we have experience:

Appellate Litigation

Challenges in the federal courts to EPA actions under the Act are frequent and raise issues important to companies' compliance obligations as well as to the development of the law. Hunton & Williams' air lawyers represent clients in many of these judicial proceedings, sometimes challenging EPA, sometimes supporting EPA against challenges from environmental groups, state governments, or others. 

Our lawyers have successfully represented clients in United States Court of Appeals challenges to both legislative and interpretive rules and have served as lead counsel in numerous multiparty challenges. Our list of representative cases is extensive, including many landmark cases involving Clean Air Act implementation and administrative law principles.  

Although we have litigated many cases, not all of the appeals we file for our clients require judicial decisions.  In many instances, our lawyers have been successful in negotiating settlements under which EPA has voluntarily revised regulations or policy or issued helpful interpretations or guidance.

Enforcement

Hunton & Williams' air lawyers defend clients in enforcement actions brought by federal, state, and local agencies as well as in citizen suits. Our Clean Air Act defense experience includes:

Business Transactions

Air regulatory issues may also arise in the context of business transactions. Moreover, with the increased use of market-based systems for controlling pollution, air regulatory issues may even trigger such transactions. Hunton & Williams transactional air lawyers have:

Hunton & Williams has one of the largest groups of lawyers in a single law firm representing clients on air quality matters. The examples above illustrate the breadth and variety of our air regulatory practice in dealing with national, local, and facility-specific issues. Our ability to combine knowledge, experience, and perspective regarding all aspects of air quality regulation, ranging from local to international levels, provides us with a truly unique air regulatory practice.

Attachments