Wilmer Cutler Pickering
==
see wilmer hale dorr blank 3 22
---
an 6 25
Federal judges — appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents — have delivered major setbacks to the legal push behind President Donald Trump’s efforts to penalize certain law firms, The Hill reportedSunday.
In recent rulings, three judges invalidated executive actions designed to restrict government work for prominent firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block.
"The early wins underscore the legal system’s ability to withstand the Trump administration’s pressure test, and have led some in the legal community to take shots at other elite firms that struck deals with Trump to avoid punishments," the report noted.
READ MORE:Outrage grows over a single paragraph buried deep in Republicans' 'Big Beautiful Bill'
Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale Law School professor, told The Hill: “This is a moment for courage, not capitulation."
“The firms that showed courage are being vindicated, and the ones who have capitulated have another chance to show courage,” he added.
Several major law firms have become targets of Trump’s backlash, largely due to their ties to figures and investigations he considers hostile.
Perkins Coie has been in Trump’s crosshairs for years, primarily because of its legal support for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and its connection to the opposition research that produced the widely discredited Steele dossier.
READ MORE:Signs the tide is turning on Trump
WilmerHale drew scrutiny from Trump for employing Robert Mueller both before and after he led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Similarly, Jenner & Block came under fire for its past association with Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor involved in Mueller’s team and a frequent Trump critic.
In a sharply worded decision issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon — appointed by President George W. Bush — ruled in favor of WilmerHale, denouncing Trump’s actions as an attack on the foundational principles of the American legal system.
Leon argued that targeting major law firms with executive orders undermines the independence of both the judiciary and the legal profession, which he described as essential pillars of the nation’s justice system.
Meanwhile, in a piece publishedlast week, Democracy Docket, a platform supporting voting rights, highlighted analysis by Stanford political science professor Adam Bonica which indicates that federal district courts have ruled against the Trump administration in 96% of cases in May.
"Bonica’s findings suggest that judges from both political leanings are consistently ruling against Trump, with 72% of Republican-appointed judges and 80% of Democratic-appointed judges issuing unfavorable decisions.Trump’s cross-ideological loss rate is likely due to several factors," the article said.
READ MORE:'Almost cartoonish': Expert says 'Trumpy style' of MAGA women about 'signaling allegiance'
---
cnbc
A federal judge on Tuesday angrily tore into President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting the top law firm WilmerHale and struck down the entire order as unconstitutional.
“The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this!” wrote Judge Richard Leon in the scathing, exclamation-point-filled opinion in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
To let Trump’s order stand, Leon wrote, “would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!”
The judge, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President George W. Bush, suffused his 73-page order with a tone of open fury rarely seen in judicial pronouncements.
“Please—that dog won’t hunt!” Leon wrote in response to arguments from the Trump administration that WilmerHale’s claims of harm resulting from the executive order were merely speculation.
“This argument is absurd!” the judge later wrote, balking at the administration’s attempt to dispute whether Trump’s order caused WilmerHale to lose clients.
Since becoming president a second time, Trump has issued a laundry list of presidential orders and memos targeting law firms that have either worked on cases brought against him or hired his political enemies.
Trump’s order targeting WilmerHale explicitly criticized the firm for hiring Robert Mueller, who served as Department of Justice special counsel and oversaw a probe of possible coordination between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.
As part of the order, Trump instructed the U.S. attorney general to suspend security clearances for the firm’s lawyers and he commanded federal agency heads to terminate WilmerHale’s government contracts. Trump’s order also barred WilmerHale employees from entering U.S. government buildings and prohibited federal agencies from hiring the firm’s lawyers.
The law firm sued in late March, calling the order an “unprecedented assault” on the foundations of the judicial system and seeking to have it invalidated.
″The Court’s decision to permanently block the unlawful executive order in its entirety strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients,” WilmerHale said in a statement after Leon’s ruling Tuesday afternoon. “We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients.”
The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on Leon’s opinion.
---
AN 5 25
The Big Law firms that capitulated to President Donald Trump’s unconstitutional demands thought they were buying peace with his administration, preserving their client relationships, and protecting their bottom lines.
Recent developments illustrate the growing magnitude of their mistake.
Fighters Are Winning
On May 2, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell became the first court to issue a final ruling that Trump’s executive orders targeting Big Law firms violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In a 102-page opinion, the court shredded Trump’s edict with a straightforward analysis that other courts are likely to follow:
“In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill allthe lawyers,’ [Trump’s Executive Order] takes the approach of “Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,” sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.
“Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution,…. Simply put, government officials ‘cannot . . . use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’
“That, however, is exactly what is happening here.”
For those keeping score, Trump’s Justice Department has now lost every courtroom fight on the subject. Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey obtained immediate temporary relief from his executive orders, as did Perkins Coie, which has now won a permanent injunction from Judge Howell.
Meanwhile, how are the firms that caved to Trump doing?
The Other Shoe Drops: #1
After providing Trump with a war chest totaling almost $1 billion in free legal services, the settling firms are now learning how he plans to use it. Previously, Trump had mused about using Big Law attorneys on coal leasing and tariff deals, but on April 28 things got real.
Trump issued an executive order titled, “STRENGTHENING AND UNLEASHING AMERICA’S LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PURSUE CRIMINALS AND PROTECT INNOCENT CITIZENS.”
The order emphasized the need to “protect and defend law enforcement officers wrongly accused and abused by State or local officials.” It directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to provide the legal resources necessary to defend those officers, including “private-sector pro bono assistance.”[emphasis supplied]
Stated simply, police officers accused of brutality and other misconduct will get Big Law attorneys to defend them – free of charge.
Meanwhile, traditional pro bonocauses, including defending immigrants’ rights, are suffering from the deterrent effect of Trump’s attack. Fearing his wrath, they are declining work that challenges his policies.
Settling firms were already getting blowback from their partners and associates as many have left their firms. Trump’s newly-added page to their pro bonocatalog won’t help recruiting or retention. And as with all things Trump, there’s no limiting principle. Appeasement never produces finality.
The Other Shoe Drops: #2
The firms’ stated reason for capitulating to Trump was concern that clients would leave any firm that was not in Trump’s good graces. That premise is not aging well either.
On April 11, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett agreed to provide $125 million in pro bonowork “and other free legal services” to Trump-designated causes.
On April 22, the firm informed the Delaware Chancery Court that it would no longer be representing Microsoft in a case related to its 2023 acquisition of Activision. The same day, Jenner & Block replaced Simpson Thacher as Microsoft’s counsel.
Losing a client to another firm is not uncommon, and none of the players has commented on Microsoft’s switch. But capitulation to Trump has not been a panacea for preserving client relationships. A firm that challenges an unconstitutional order threatening its existence is a firm that many clients want fighting for them.
The Other Shoe Drops: #3
On April 24, 16 House members sent letters to nine firms that settled with Trump. Asking about their motivations and urging them to disavow the deals, lawmakers suggested that the agreements may violate federal and state criminal and civil laws while creating “potentially irresolvable violations of applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.” Previously, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sent requests for information from several firms and White House counsel on April 6 and April 18.
The Other Show Drops: #4
Firms assumed that capitulation would occupy a single news cycle and then disappear. But their public relations nightmares aren’t going away. Apart from the widespread and ongoing condemnation of the legal community, the story continues to have legs as a fateful moment for the rule of law in the United States.
The May 4 edition of CBS’s 60 Minutes ran a damning segment on Big Law firms that settled with Trump. None was willing to appear and defend itself or its deal. The legal term for such continuing cowardice is res ipsa loquitur– the thing speaks for itself. In this case, the firms didn’t speak at all.
On May 9, an article that later appeared in the New York TimesSunday print edition ran with this headline and subhead:
*Can Elite Lawyers Be Persuaded to ‘Wake Up and Stand Up’?
When the law firm Paul Weiss cut a deal with the Trump administration, a new kind of activist emerged.
Some of the settling firms, including Kirkland & Ellis and at least one other, have an escape hatch: Their “handshake deals” with Trump are not in writing. They can do what Trump does when he no longer likes his own prior agreement: Walk away.
In fact, even firms with a written agreement can walk away too. Whatever their form, the deals are probably not enforceable. But that was never Trump’s main objective. It was always about intimidation and deterrence. When firms bent the knee to him, he won and scored an invaluable public relations victory.
And his accompanying billion-dollar windfall didn’t hurt.
NOW READ:The single stupidest statement about Trump ever made
---
---
an 4 25
In an open letter published Wednesday, amid the Trump administration's unprecedented scrutiny on Big Law, multiple legal groups are calling on elite American law firms to convene and coordinate a unified response to U.S. President Donald Trump's "unconstitutional actions" and "threats to the rule of law and system of justice."
The legal groups include the coalition Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), the coalition Lawyers Allied Under Rule of Law, and the Steady State—which, according to the executive director of LDAD, "formed in the first Trump term as a loose association that maintained a low internet profile because many members were in government," but has "become much more organized and active" in response to the president's Department of Government Efficiency.
The groups drew a distinction between the several elite law firms who in recent weeks have negotiated deals with the Trump administration either in response to punishments imposed via executive order or to avoid the prospect of an executive order, and law firms who have resisted the Trump administration's pressure.
The law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey have all filed suits challenging Trump's executive orders targeting them. All four have won initial relief in court.
According to the letter, more than 800 other firms, including 17 firms on the Am Law 200—a ranking of top law firms based on gross revenue—have joined amicus briefs in defense of the firms that have sued.
"Lawyers Defending American Democracy calls on the 170 undeclared Am Law 200 firms to avoid the path of those now notorious nine," the letter states.
"If you are one of these firms, you understand that the threatened executive edicts are not legal or enforceable. Rather, they are a tactic designed to enlist you in undermining the rule of law. Any concession by your prestigious firms only helps the administration intimidate the legal profession from challenging its actions," according to the legal groups.
The letter states that negotiating with the administration is futile in part because "there exists no reasonable terms for resolving this dispute."
The letter also points to the fact that all four courts that have heard the cases from firms challenging Trump "have held that the likelihood of these law firms succeeding on the merits is so great that they have taken the extraordinary step of issuing temporary restraining orders against the government’s enforcement." This is evidence, according to the letter, that negotiation is unnecessary.
"If you band together and agree to support one another, the White House strategy will collapse," the letter states. "These threats reveal the administration's own fear. They don't want you in court where they will lose. They are afraid to find out what happens if you and other firms stand together as a profession."
"We must fight because if lawyers don't stand up for the rule of law, who will? If we don't fight for the principles that we have devoted our professional lives to—and that make us a free society—those principles will be forever compromised," the letter concludes.
According to a statement from LDAD, the legal groups behind the letter collectively represent over 1,000 lawyers who who have worked as senior partners, judges, state attorneys general, senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice, as general counsel for major companies, and state bar presidents.
:{---
ggl 5 25
Top stories
The New York Times
Trump Loses Another Battle in His War Against Elite Law Firms
8 hours ago
CNBC
'Absurd!' Judge blasts Trump executive order targeting top law firm
2 days ago
AP News
Trump’s campaign against law firms dealt another setback as judge blocks executive order
1 day ago
Reason Magazine
A federal judge lists 8 ways that Trump violated the Constitution by punishing a disfavored law firm
1 day ago
CNN
Judge strikes down executive order targeting WilmerHale in latest blow to Trump’s retaliation against major law firms
1 day ago
More news
'Absurd!' Judge blasts Trump executive order targeting top ...
CNBC
https://www.cnbc.com › trump-leon-wilmerhale-mueller
2 days ago — Trump's order targeting WilmerHale explicitly criticized the firm for hiring Robert Mueller, who served as Department of Justice special counsel ...
Addressing Risks From WilmerHale
The White House (.gov)
https://www.whitehouse.gov › ... › Executive Orders
Mar 27, 2025 — Moreover, WilmerHale itself discriminates against its employees based on race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws, including ...
Judge tosses Trump order punishing the law firm WilmerHale
The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › ... › Courts & Law
2 days ago — Trump issued his order against WilmerHale in March, accusing the firm of “employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the ...
wilmer-hale-judge-leon-trump-order-illegal-opinion.pdf
Courthouse News Service
https://www.courthousenews.com › 2025/05 › wi...
Id. Here,. President Trump cites to WilmerHale “welcoming” Mueller and his colleagues to the firm despite their involvement in “one of the most ...
73 pages
Assessing Throughlines in the Trump Administration's AI ...
WilmerHale
https://www.wilmerhale.com › insights › blogs › 202504...
Apr 2, 2025 — The October Order contained a wide range of directives pertaining to AI safety and security, privacy, consumer protection, and competition.
Trump Administration Resource Center
WilmerHale
https://www.wilmerhale.com › insights › topic-centers › t...
Jan 15, 2025 — Explore comprehensive insights on Trump Administration policies from WilmerHale. Stay updated on DEI, immigration, trade, healthcare, ...
Two major law firms urge judges to permanently block ...
AP News
https://apnews.com › article › trump-law-firms-perkins-...
Apr 23, 2025 — Two major law firms have asked separate judges to permanently block President Donald Trump's executive orders that were designed to punish them
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Addresses Risks ...
The White House (.gov)
https://www.whitehouse.gov › News › Fact Sheets
Mar 27, 2025 — President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to suspend security clearances held by individuals at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale)
Trump persecution of WilmerHale ruled unconstitutional
Courthouse News Service
https://www.courthousenews.com › trump-persecution-...
2 days ago — Leon found Trump's order imposed “a kitchen sink of severe sanctions” on WilmerHale for engaging in protected speech, with the goal of causing ...
People also search for
an badash 2 23
The highly controversial and highly unpopular **U.S. Supreme Court** isn’t just facing a historic loss of confidence, it’s now facing yet another ethics scandal that is likely to lower even further public opinion of the far-right institution that in under two decades has seen its approval rating slashed.
Although it will not hear arguments, the issue before the Supreme Court and the American people’s view of it, is, should a justice’s spouse – in this case the spouse of Chief Justice John Roberts – be able to make millions of dollars recruiting attorneys who are placed into top law firms that argue cases before it?
That’s the latest allegation, and already a spokesperson for the Court has issued a statement denying any ethical violations.
The New York Times reports that “a former colleague of Mrs. Roberts has raised concerns that her recruiting work poses potential ethics issues for the chief justice. Seeking an inquiry, the ex-colleague has provided records to the Justice Department and Congress indicatingMrs. Roberts has been paid millions of dollars in commissions for placing lawyers at firms — some of which have business before the Supreme Court,according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.”
Jane Sullivan Roberts left a law firm where she was a partner after her spouse was confirmed as Chief Justice.
“Mrs. Roberts, according to a 2015 deposition,” The Times reports, “said that a significant portion of her practice was devoted to helping senior government lawyers land jobs at law firms and that the candidates’ names were almost never disclosed.”
Documents in that case “list six-figure fees credited to Mrs. Roberts for placing partners at law firms — including $690,000 in 2012 for one such match. The documents do not name clients, but Mr. Price recalled her recruitment of one prominent candidate, Ken Salazar, then interior secretary under President Barack Obama, to WilmerHale,a global firm that boasts of arguing more than 125 times before the Supreme Court.”
That case involves “a former colleague of Mrs. Roberts,” Kendal Price, a 66-year-old Boston lawyer, who “has raised concerns that her recruiting work poses potential ethics issues for the chief justice.”
“According to the letter,” sent by Price to DOJ and Congress, which the Times reports it obtained, “Mr. Price was fired in 2013 and sued the firm, as well as Mrs. Roberts and another executive, over his dismissal.”
Doug Lindner, Advocacy Director for Judiciary & Democracy for the League of Conservation Voters remarked: “Another day, another ethics concern about another life-tenured conservative justice on the most powerful court in the world, which has no binding ethics rules.”
Indeed, the lack of a Supreme Court code of ethics has been repeatedly condemned for years, including by some of the nation’s top critics.
On Sept. 1, 2022, The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin tweeted out her opinion piece: “Ginni Thomas pressed Wisconsin lawmakers to overturn Biden’s 2020 victory .. just another insurrectionist.”
Norman Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor for the Atlantic, responded:
“Another reminder of how unethical is Justice Clarence Thomas, while Chief Justice Roberts turns a blind eye and continues to resist a code of ethics for a Supreme Court now distrusted by a majority of Americans. This defines the Roberts Court.”
The following month Ornstein slammed the Roberts Court once again.
“It is a stain on the Supreme Court that Chief Justice Roberts refuses to support a Judicial Code of Ethics, and stands by silently while Clarence Thomas flouts ethical standards over and over and over,” Ornstein charged.
Less than one month later he again unleashed on Roberts.
“Roberts is culpable,” he tweeted. “He has resisted over and over applying the Judicial Code of Ethics to the Supreme Court. This is Alito’s court, and it is partisan and corrupt.”
Ornstein is far from the Court’s only critic.
“If Chief Justice Roberts really wanted to address Supreme Court ethics, he would have immediately worked to implement a Code of Conduct after Clarence Thomas failed to recuse from cases involving January 6th despite having a clear conflict of interest,” the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington tweeted a year ago in May. The following month CREW published an analysis titled: “Chief Justice John Roberts is wrong: the American judicial system is facing a major ethics crisis.”
Meanwhile, in late November Politico reported that Democrats in Congress were outraged at the Roberts Court.
“Two senior Democrats in Congress are demanding that Chief Justice John Roberts detail what, if anything, the Supreme Court has done to respond to recent allegations of a leak of the outcome of a major case the high court considered several years ago,” PoliticoJosh Bernstein reported, referring to the leak of the Dobbs decision that overturned the Roe v. Wade decision – itself a massive ethics crisis for the Court.
“Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) are also interested in examining claims about a concerted effort by religious conservatives to woo the justices through meals and social engagements. They wrote to Roberts on Sunday, making clear that if the court won’t investigate the alleged ethical breaches, lawmakers are likely to launch their own probe.”
Whitehouse and Johnson “also criticized the high court’s response to a letter they sent Roberts in September, seeking information about the court’s reaction to reports in POLITICO and Rolling Stone about a yearslong campaign to encourage favorable decisions from the justices by bolstering their religiosity.”
Nothing has changed.
When the Roberts Court earlier this month announced its lengthy investigation did not find the draft Dobbs decision leaker but also did not include the Justices themselves, Stokes Prof. of Law at NYU Law School Melissa Murray, an MSNBC host, tweeted, “This is a Roberts Court leitmotif–The Chief loves to handle things–even big things–in-house. Ethics issues? No need to get involved, Congress. We’ll sort it out ourselves. Leak needs investigating? No need to call in an actual investigative body, the Marshal will handle it.”
Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times investigative reporter Jodi Kantor, pointing to how the Justices were not thoroughly investigated during the leak probe, in earlier this month said: “Last week the court released statements that confirmed the gap between how the justices and everyone else were treated.”
“The whole situation amplifies a major question about the court: are these nine people, making decisions that affect all of us, accountable to anyone?”
Several other Wilmer lawyers are up for posts in the Trump administration: Dan Berkovitz, co-chair of the firm's futures and derivatives practice, was nominated for a seat on the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Jeffrey Kessler, a regulatory counsel at the firm, was picked for a compliance post at the U.S. Commerce Department. Gail Ennis, a now-retired securities litigation partner, was nominated to be the inspector general at the Social Security Administration. Nichols would join another Wilmer alum on Washington's federal trial court: Randolph Moss, a former chairman of the firm's regulatory and government affairs group, joined the bench in 2014. Trump has appointed three other judges to the D.C. federal trial court: Timothy Kelly, Trevor McFadden and Dabney Friedrich. What follows are some highlights and details from Nichols's Senate questionnaire and from his work at the Justice Department and Wilmer Hale.
Nichols clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas during the 1997-1998 term. At the high court, Nichols' fellow clerksincluded former Hughes Hubbard & Reed partner John Wood, who recently joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as chief legal officer and general counsel. Another co-clerk that term, Arthur Long, is a partner in the New York office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where he co-chairs the financial institutions practice. He married a fellow Thomas clerk from that term, Wendy Stone, a Republican who unsuccessfully challenged Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer in 2016.Earlier, Nichols clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Nichols is a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School.
The emails confirming the protest surveillance were released in an ongoing freedom of information battle that the American Immigration Council, or AIC — in collaboration with the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, the National Immigrant Justice Center, Kids in Need of Defense, Women’s Refugee Commission, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP — is waging to pry documents surrounding family separation from the government.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (WCPHD) was "formed in May 2004 through the merger of two of the nation's leading law firms, Hale and Dorr LLP and Wilmer Cutler Pickering LLP.
- 1 Overview
- 2 Principals
- 3 Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering
- 4 Contact details
- 5 Related SourceWatch Resources
- 6 External links
Overview
WCPHD is "nationally and internationally recognized for its preeminent practices in antitrust and competition; bankruptcy; civil and criminal trial and appellate litigation (including government litigation and strategy and international litigation); corporate (including public offerings, public company counseling, start-up companies, venture capital, mergers and acquisitions, and licensing); financial services; intellectual property counseling and litigation; international arbitration; life sciences; securities regulation, enforcement and litigation; tax; telecommunications; and trade."
"With a staunch commitment to public service, the firm is renowned as a national leader in pro bono representation. The firm has more than 1,000 lawyers and offices in Baltimore, Beijing, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, London, Munich, New York, Northern Virginia, Oxford, Waltham and Washington, D.C." [1]
Principals
Co-Managing Partners:
Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering
The former WCP "opened its doors" in Washington, D.C. with 19 lawyers in 1962 and grew to over 500 lawyers with offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, London, Brussels, and Berlin."
Note that the former www.wilmer.com redirects to the current URL.
Contact details
Main Office: (351-400 Attorneys)2445 M Street NWWashington, DC 20037-1420Phone: 202 663-6000Fax: 202 663-6363Website:www.wilmerhale.com
- Office Information for Baltimore, Beijing, Berlin, Boston, Brussels (2), London, Munich, New York City, Northern Virginia, Oxford, Palo Alto, Waltham (MA), Washington, DC (5)
- Searchable Directory of Biographies.
Related SourceWatch Resources
- Lloyd N. Cutler
- C. Boyden Gray
- John H. Pickering
- Sally Katzen - first female partner
External links
Profiles
- Fact Sheet: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Hoover's Online; accessed July 20, 2005.
- Firm Profile: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Law Periscope; accessed July 20, 2005.
- LawCommerce.com Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering Archives.
Articles & Commentary
- "Combination of Top Firms Forges Distinctive Set of Premier Practices," PRNewswire, June 1, 2004.
- "Former FCC General Counsel Joins Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr,"PRNewswire, February 7, 2005.
==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_Cutler_Pickering_Hale_and_Dorr
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (known as WilmerHale) is an American law firm with fifteen offices across the United States, Europe and Asia. It was created in 2004 through the merger of the Boston-based firm Hale and Dorr and the Washington-based firm Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, and employs more than 1,100 attorneys worldwide.[1][2] The firm is recognized as one of the top law firms in the United States.[3]
Contents
- 1 History
- 2 Reputation
- 3 Clients
- 4 *Pro bono*
- 5 Offices
- 6 Attorneys and lawyers
- 7 References
- 8 External links
...
Clients
Among the companies that have recently been represented by WilmerHale attorneys include: Apple, Akamai Technologies, Amdocs, Analog Devices, AT&T, Avid, Bayer, Becton Dickinson, Biogen Idec, BJ’s Wholesale Club, Boeing, Bose, Boston Scientific, Broadcom, Cephalon, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Chrysler LLC, Danaher, Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Telekom, Educational Testing Service, EMC, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, The Hartford Financial Group, Honda, HSBC Finance, John Hancock,JPMorgan Chase, Kodak, Lufthansa, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Monsanto, Morgan Stanley, Novartis, Oracle, Panera Bread, PerkinElmer, Pfizer, Philips, Procter & Gamble, Red Hat, Sepracor, Staples, Statoil, Sun Life Financial, Thermo Fisher Scientific, UBS, Varian Semiconductor, WebMD, Wyeth, and Yankee Candle.[citation needed]
A Civil Action
In the late 1980s, Hale and Dorr partner Jerome Facher successfully represented Beatrice Foods in a suit by eight families from Woburn, Massachusetts who claimed that Beatrice, along with W.R. Grace, had polluted the town's water supply, resulting in an elevated number of leukemia cases and immune-system disorders. The case was memorialized in the book A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr, and in a movie of the same name starring Robert Duvall as Facher and John Travolta as plaintiffs' lawyer Jan Schlichtmann.[8] Upon further discovery, the EPA took the case on and W.R. Grace was successfully indicted for making false statements. Both W. R. Grace and Beatrice Foods paid a total $64.9M to clean up the contaminated sites in Woburn, Massachusetts.
Enron and WorldCom reports
In the wake of news articles raising concerns about transactions between Enron and itsCFO, Andy Fastow, lawyers from Wilmer Cutler & Pickering represented a special investigative committeeof Enron's board of directors in an internal investigation into those transactions. The resulting report, known as the "Powers Report," laid out the facts that have been the predicate for much of the public discussion of Enron since that time.[9]
Similarly, after WorldCom's announcement that it would have to restate financial statements, the firm represented a special investigative committee of WorldCom's board of directors in performing an internal investigation into the accounting irregularities. The investigation resulted in a widely covered written report that detailed a variety of accounting issues as well as the role of management and the board of directors.[10]
Other notable and controversial clients
In 1986, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering represented corporate raider Ivan Boesky in high-profile Department of Justice and SEC proceedings, as well as multiple class actions based on his alleged participation in insider trading violations.
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering represented Swiss banks accused of profiting from the Holocaust in their settlement negotiations with plaintiffs. The firm also represented Siemens AG, Krupp AG, and other German companies accused of exploiting forced laborers during the Nazi era.[11]
Since 2005, WilmerHale has represented Senator William Frist in regard to an SECinsider trading investigation.[12]
Pro bono
Both Hale and Dorr and Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering have a long history of involvement inpro bono work. WilmerHale has ranked at or near the top of The American Lawyer's pro bono ranking since the merger. In recent years, the firm has been involved in several high-profile cases. Among other things, it has:
- Successfully contended that the Eighth Amendment forbids the death penalty for persons under the age of eighteen in the United States Supreme Court case ofRoper v. Simmons. This case was argued by former United States Solicitor GeneralSeth Waxman.[citation needed]
- Represented Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold and other sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known popularly as "McCain-Feingold") in defending the Act's constitutionality. Again, Seth Waxman argued the case in front of the Supreme Court, which upheld all of the core provisions of the Act.[citation needed]
- Represented the University of Michigan for six years, after its affirmative action policy was challenged as unconstitutional. The lawyers argued the cases in the Sixth Circuitand in the Supreme Court, which held, in Grutter v. Bollinger, that universities have a compelling interest in achieving the educational benefits of a racially diverse student body.[citation needed]
Guantanamo controversy
Main article: Guantanamo Bay attorneys
A team of WilmerHale attorneys currently represents the “Algerian Six”, a group of men who fell under suspicion of planning to attack the US embassy in Bosnia and who are now held in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp.[13]
In 2006, attorney Melissa Hoffer, then part of the team with WilmerHale, delivered a speech in Caen, France, critical of U.S. detainee policy.[14] Other WilmerHale lawyers participating in the case include Stephen Oleskey,[15] Rob Kirsch,[16] Mark C. Fleming, Lynne Campbell Soutter, Jeffrey Gleason, Lauren Brunswick, and Adam Gershenson.
In January 2007, Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, criticized WilmerHale and other major law firms for representing "the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001," and questioned whether such work was really being done pro bono or might actually receive funding from shadowy sources.[17]In a Wall Street Journal editorial criticizing Stimson, Harvard Law School professor (and former United States Solicitor General under President Reagan) Charles Fried wrote:
| “ | "It is no surprise that firms like Wilmer Hale (which represents both Big Pharma and Tobacco Free Kids), Covington & Burling (which represents both Big Tobacco and Guantanamo detainees), and the other firms on Mr. Stimson's hit list, are among the most sought-after by law school graduates, and retain the loyalty and enthusiasm of their partners. They offer their lawyers the profession at its best, and help assure that the rule of law is not just a slogan but a satisfying way of life."[18] | ” |
In December 2007, Seth Waxman made the oral argument to the Supreme Court inBoumediene v. Bush which upheld habeas corpus rights for detainees at Guantanamo Bay.[19]
==