Perkins Coie

---

3 13? 25 judge swatted down BS?

MARC Elias GEO CONWAY YOUTUBE; CONNOLY & WMS STAND UP

---

an 5 26

President Donald Trump lost his appealof a personal lawsuit he launched against former Secretary Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, the Democratic National Committee, the law firm Perkins Coie, LLC and others he blames for the Russia investigation.

Politico's Kyle Cheney reported on Tuesday that the 11th Circuit declined to rehear Trump's case, leaving his only option an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump and lawyer Alina Habba in 2023 were sanctioned $1 million for the "frivolous" lawsuit. Florida has rules that allow defendants to ask that a court decide whether a lawsuit is "bogus," the Associated Press reported.

At the time, U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote in the ruling that Trump has a "pattern of abuse of the courts" for filing such lawsuits specifically for political purposes. He said that the move "undermines the rule of law" and "amounts to obstruction of justice."

"Here, we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose," he wrote.

Chief Judge William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, along with Trump appointee Judge Andrew L. Brasher and Joe Biden appointee Judge Embry Kidd, denied Trump's demand to rehear the case.

They added the detail, "... no judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc," which means none of the judges had any interest in weighing in on rehearing the matter. On the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, six of the 12 judges were appointed by Trump.

Lawyer Marc Elias commented on BlueSky, "I was a defendant in Trump’s frivolous lawsuit. I did not settle. I did not compromise. I did not stop speaking out. We fought and won."

---

an nyt 11 25

Dozens of former US Department of Justice attorneys have now gone on record to describe the unprecedented corruption of federal law enforcement taking place during President Donald Trump’s second term.

In a lengthy story published on Sunday by theNew York Times, the former DOJ attorneys described rampant politicization of prosecutions, directives to dig up evidence on Trump’s political foes, and orders to drop investigations into potential terrorist plots and white-collar crimes.

Several attorneys told the paper that the corruption of the DOJ began on Trump’s very first day in office when he issued a blanket pardon to everyone who had been convicted of rioting at the US Capitol building on his behalf on January 6, 2021, in a last-ditch effort to prevent the certification of former President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

Gregory Rosen, who oversaw the unit at the DOJ that prosecuted January 6 rioters, told the Times that he felt “numb” seeing the pardons of the rioters, but he nonetheless facilitated the pardons because he understood they were within the president’s constitutional powers.

Mike Romano, a prosecutor who worked on January 6 cases, said that he had to resign as soon as he saw the broad scope of the pardons, which included rioters who were guilty of assaulting police officers.

“It’s incredibly demoralizing to see something you worked on for four years wiped away by a lie—I mean the idea that prosecution of the rioters was a grave national injustice,” he said. “We had strong evidence against every person we prosecuted.”

The mass pardon of the Capitol rioters was only the beginning, as prosecutors said that this politicization soon swept over the entire department.

In early March, for instance, Trump signed an executive order targeting law firms that had in the past represented prominent Democrats. Among other things, the order demanded federal agencies cancel government contracts with the firms and strip the firms’ employees of their security clearances.

The orders also accused some of the firms in engaging in supposed racial discrimination for maintaining policies related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Dena Robinson, a former attorney at the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, told the Times that the DEI investigation into law firm Perkins Coie was a particularly extreme example of the department’s politicization under Trump.

“The idea of the investigation was that Perkins Coie supposedly engaged in illegal discrimination against white men,” she explained. “But Perkins Coie is an extremely white firm—only 3% of the partners are Black. When my colleague pointed that out, the leadership didn’t care. They’d already reached their conclusion.”

Robinson said that this attitude was emblematic of how Trump appointees conducted investigations: They begin with desired conclusions and systematically ignore evidence that undermines them.

“I wouldn’t even call it the Justice Department anymore,” she said. “It’s become Trump’s personal law firm. I think Americans should be enraged.”

Another aspect of the DOJ under Trump that has drawn scrutiny has been his use of pardons for political allies, including his decision last month to pardon Changpeng Zhao, the founder of cryptocurrency exchange Binance, who pleaded guilty to money-laundering charges in 2023, and who had helped boost the value of the Trump family’s own cryptocurrency venture.

A new investigation from ProPublica found that Trump’s use of the pardon hasn’t just been relegated to prosecutions that took place during Democratic administrations.

The ProPublica report found Trump had wiped out convictions in “at least a dozen criminal cases that originated during his first term,” many of which involved politicians convicted of taking bribes or engaging in kickback schemes.

Frank O. Bowman III, a professor emeritus of law at the University of Missouri, told Pro Publica that the Trump pardons taken together are part of what he described as “the systematic destruction of the Justice Department as an objective agency that seeks to uphold the law and fight crime.”

In addition to this, Joseph Tirrell, former director of the Departmental Ethics Office, told the Times that the Trump DOJ has been hacking away at rules that bar law-enforcement officials from accepting gifts.

In one instance, Tirrell said he tried to intervene to stop DOJ employees from accepting cigars given by mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor and a soccer ball from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

“I felt like I really had to go to the mattress to convince the AG’s office: You can pay for the item or you can return the item or you can throw the item away,” he said. “There’s no other way to do this.”

Shortly after this, Tirrell said he got a call from the FBI general counsel inquiring “about changing exceptions to the gift rules because his boss, [FBI Director] Kash Patel, felt like he should be able to accept more expensive gifts.”

Tirrell said that he then reminded the counsel that “his client was not Mr. Patel, but the United States.”

Patel in recent weeks has come under scrutiny for some of the perks he’s taken during his time as FBI director, including using the FBI’s private jet to fly to a wrestling event where his girlfriend, country music singer Alexis Wilkins, was performing the national anthem.

MS NOW reported on Monday that Patel has also given Wilkins “a security detail made up of elite FBI agents usually assigned to a SWAT team in the FBI field office in Nashville,” an unprecedented arrangement for the girlfriend of the FBI director.

Christopher O’Leary, a former senior FBI agent and MS NOW law enforcement contributor, said that there is “no legitimate justification” for granting Wilkins this level of security.

“This is a clear abuse of position and misuse of government resources,” he said. “She is not his spouse, does not live in the same house or even the same city.”

---}:

---

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.

Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale Law School professor, told The Hill: “This is a moment for courage, not capitulation."

IFrame Content

“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.

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.

---

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.

IFrame Content

“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.

IFrame Content

"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.

---

mediaite 3 25

President Donald Trump took a victory lap on Thursday and announced that a major law firm he targeted via executive order had capitulated to his demands.

Last week, Trump signed an EO singling out Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, a Manhattan-based firm with notable Democratic clients.

“In 2021, a Paul Weiss partner and former leading prosecutor in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General,” the order stated before going on to accuse it of discrimination based on race and gender.

Trump also cited the firm’s re-hiring of Mark Pomerantz, who left Paul, Weiss to assist in the Manhattan district attorney’s criminal investigation into Trump in 2022. Pomerantz left that job and rejoined Paul, Weiss after D.A.Alvin Bragg declined to bring charges against Trump. Bragg eventually prosecuted Trump and secured convictions on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

The president’s order rescinded any contracts the firm may have with the federal government and it prevents Paul, Weiss lawyers from entering government buildings, which is problematic if the firm needs to review sensitive materials on government property. The order was similar to another Trump issued regarding Perkins Coie, another major firm.

On Wednesday, it was reported that Paul, Weiss had lost at least one client over the executive order.

In a lengthy post on Truth Social on Thursday, Trump issued a statement announcing that Paul, Weiss had affirmed its commitment to fairness and nonpartisanship, and said it would reject DEI policies, subject to an audit “mutually agreed upon within 14 days.”

Most notably, in exchange for withdrawing the order, the firm agreed to do free work for the Trump administration to the tune of $40 million.

“Paul, Weiss will dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services over the course of President Trump’s term to support the Administration’s initiatives, including: assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the Justice System, the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects,” the statement read.

Perkins Coie, another firm targeted by Trump in a separate order, responded to it by suing the Trump administration.

“Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the president perceives as adverse to the views of his administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients,” the suit stated. “Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied.”

---

thehill

Trump administration Friday demanded a federal judge step aside from overseeing Perkins Coie’s challenge to President Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm.

The new filing claims U.S. District Judge Beryl Howellhas repeatedly demonstrated “partiality” against and “animus” toward Trump, taking aim at both her decisions in the lawsuit and previous major cases she oversaw.

“Reasonable observers may view this Court as incapable of fairly adjudicating these claims against the Commander-In-Chief,” Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson wrote in the motion.

It marks the second time the Justice Department has called for a judge’s removal from a pending lawsuit against the administration, which comes as Trump himself steps up his chastising of judges who rule against him. Earlier this week, the administration called for the removal of the judge overseeing a high-profile deportation flight case.

Howell was randomly assigned to oversee Perkins Coie’s lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order restricting firm attorneys’ security clearances and access to federal facilities. Trump has long clashed with the firm over its work advising Hillary Clintonduring her 2016 presidential campaign and connections to the discredited Steele dossier that contained unflattering allegations about Trump and his connections to Russia.

The case remains in early stages, but the judge has already temporarily blocked part of Trump’s order.

Nominated to the federal bench by then-President Obamain 2010, Howell longhasdrawn Republicans’ ire.

She previously served as chief judge of Washington’s federal district court and oversaw several sealed disputes concerning the criminal investigations into Trump. Howell’s decisions included invoking the “crime-fraud” exception to provide special counsel Jack Smith with documents from one of Trump’s attorneys and holding X, then known as Twitter, in contempt for not handing over Trump’s private messages.

“This Court’s pattern of hostility toward President Trump is not limited to his supporters. It also utilized the judicial power against President Trump himself,” Lawson wrote.

The Justice Department’s new motion also takes aim at a gala speech Howell gave in 2023 while accepting an award, when the judge did not name Trump but indicated she agreed that the country was “at a crossroads teetering on the brink of authoritarianism.”

“We are having a very surprising and downright troubling moment in this country when the very importance of facts is dismissed or ignored,” Howell said.

---

mma

Steve Bannon: “There's major law firms in Washington, D.C.” and “what we are trying to do is put you out of business and bankrupt you”

03/13/25

---

evil but

Perkins Coie is a Seattle-based law firm of more than 1,000 lawyers, roughly 40 of which work for its political law practice that serves Democratic and left-of-center political candidates and non-profit clients. Perkins Coie received at least $26 million for legal fees and related expenses during the 2016 election cycle for representing the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Hillary for America committee, the Obama for America committee, and dozens of other Democratic and Democratic-aligned political campaign committees and advocacy organizations.

In 2018, billionaire left-wing donor George Soros gave $5 million to Perkins Coie so the political law practice could file lawsuits to eliminate mandatory voter identification requirements and other state regulations left-of-center activists argue depress turnout among left-leaning constituencies.¹

Marc Elias, the former chair of the political law practice, was a central figure in the controversy regarding the creation, veracity, and subsequent handling of a document that alleges the existence of conspiracies between the Russian government and persons associated with the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. During April of 2016 Elias paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS to investigate then-presidential candidate Donald Trump on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. These payments led to the creation of a dossier which claimed the existence of a conspiracy between the Russian government and persons associated with the Trump campaign to illegally interfere in the Presidential election.²

The political law group has also represented Facebook before the Federal Election Commission in the social media giant’s effort to obtain an exemption for paid political campaign advertisements shown on its platform from a requirement to disclose the source of payment.³

History

Perkins Coie is a law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington, with more than 1,000 lawyers in 19 offices spread across the United States, China, and Taiwan. Founded in 1912, it received an important early boost in business when William Boeing, founder of what is today known as the Boeing Company, selected Perkins Coie to represent his growing aircraft construction enterprise. Boeing is still a client, as are Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other major corporations. The firm’s total annual revenue is nearly $800 million. Attorney John Devaney became the firm-wide managing partner (de facto CEO) on January 1, 2015.⁴

Political Law Practice

The Perkins Coie political law practice was begun in 1980 by attorney Robert Bauer, and the firm now claims it is the “dominant practice in the field” and largest in the nation, with 40 lawyers.⁵ Perkins Coie represents left-of-center political clients, and is the primary counsel for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and many other large Democratic or left-leaning political organizations. The political law group has also represented a large collection of Democratic presidential candidates, governors, and members of Congress; FEC records show $26,062,007 total disbursements for legal fees and related expenses during the 2016 election cycle (January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2016) to Perkins Coie from all political sources.⁶

Political law group founder Robert Bauer was the chair of political law until late 2009, when he was named the White House Counsel for President Barack Obama, a position he held through July 2011. As part of his leadership at the political law group he was the general counsel for both of the Obama for America presidential campaigns (2008 and 2012), and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). He returned to Perkins Coie in late 2011, following his work as White House Counsel, and left full time work at the firm in May of 2018 to teach law at New York University.⁵

Marc Elias was named chair of the political law practice in November 2009, following the announcement that Bauer was leaving to become White House Counsel. He served in the position until August 2021, when he, along with ten partners and three counsels, left Perkins Coie to establish the Elias Law Group, a new law firm based in D.C which focused on, “electing Democrats, supporting voting rights, and helping progressives make change.” ^7 ^9

George Soros Lawsuits

Billionaire left-wing donor George Soros gave $5 million to Perkins Coie sometime before 2016. The political law group chair at the time, Marc Elias, allegedly used it to challenge what left-wing activists claimed to be restrictions that deterred Democrats and left-wing constituencies from voting. Some of the laws the Soros funding has been used to challenge include photo identification requirements at polling places, limitations on early voting, and the handling of—and access to—absentee ballots. Cases have been opened in Arizona, Ohio, Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kansas and North Dakota.¹

Russia Dossier Work

Working on behalf of the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in April 2016, Marc Elias hired investigative firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The firm hired Christopher Steele, a former British spy with extensive experience in Russia. Steele produced a series of memos, collectively and popularly referred to as a “dossier,” alleging numerous conspiracies involving collusion between persons associated with the Russian government’s campaign to interfere in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign, claiming malfeasance by Donald Trump himself, and alleging the existence of blackmail information Russian intelligence might have over Trump.²

The Clinton campaign declined to use the dossier during the election. The most sensational allegations, particularly those implicating President Trump personally, had not been verified as of late 2017 and – according to a Washington Postanalysis – “may never be [verifiable].”²

Several participants from the Democratic side and Steele have asserted the Clinton team was not aware of the work Steele and Fusion GPS were doing for them, and that Steele did not know who was paying for the research. The only exception appeared to be Marc Elias, who was made aware of the progress of the work he was paying for on behalf of his clients. Perkins Coie, on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, ended the project around the time of the election.¹⁰

In interviews with Congressional Intelligence Committee investigators shortly after the dossier became public, but before its funding source was publicly demonstrated, both Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and former Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz denied any connection between the dossier and the DNC or the Clinton campaign. Sources told CNN that Elias was seated with Podesta during the interview listening to Podesta’s testimony in his role as Clinton campaign counsel and not as a witness himself.¹¹

The dossier became a political and legal lightning rod because Steele turned it over to the FBI during the waning days of the election. Agents supplied the document to a federal judge as some of the supporting evidence to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against a former Trump campaign advisor.¹²

The left-leaning Campaign Legal Center filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against the Clinton campaign and the DNC in October of 2017, accusing both of failing to file accurate campaign finance reports because—according to the complaint—the payments were concealed as legal representation from Perkins Coie, rather than as opposition research from Fusion GPS.¹³ Former FEC chairman Brad Smith (R), commenting about the complaint in May 2018 to the left-of-center Center for Public Integrity, said he would be “a bit nervous” if he were in Perkins Coie’s position.¹⁴

Facebook Advertisement Disclosure

Also see Facebook (For-Profit)

Political advertising regarding federal elections and candidates that is purchased for appearance on radio, television and print generally must adhere to Federal Election Commission rules requiring clear disclosure of the committee or donor paying for the advertisements. During 2011, Google and Facebook hired then-Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias to help them obtain an exemption from this requirement for political advertising on their platforms. Elias argued the restrictions were not practical for his clients, with FEC commissioners ultimately voting 4-2 in favor of the exemption for Google and deadlocking 3-3 on the request regarding Facebook.³

Facebook continued to operate as if exempt from disclosure rules. During the 2016 U.S. general election, $100,000 worth of Russian-backed and undisclosed advertisements intended to influence voters were purchased on Facebook with another $4,700 spent by Russian sources on Google political advertisements. In October 2017, following the controversy that ensued regarding Russian interference in the 2016 elections, both Republican and Democratic Senators advocated for legislation to require Facebook and Google to adhere to the same disclosure rules as other media. ^3

Redistricting Challenges

In 2018, the firm challenged Republican-drawn redistricting maps in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida.¹⁵

2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate Recount

Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias represented candidate Al Franken (D) in a recount of the 2008 U.S. Senate election in Minnesota. Initial counts shortly after polling had closed showed Franken trailing incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Norm Coleman by 215 votes out of 2.9 million cast, triggering a mandatory recount. The recount resulted in Franken winning by just 312 votes.

The Perkins Coie firm charged $3.6 million for its work on the recount, prompting Franken to assert he’d paid for the “Franken Wing of the Perkins Coie law office.”¹⁶

Notable Clients

In addition to the Democratic National Committee and a number of Democratic presidential campaigns, Perkins Coie has represented a number of liberal and Democratic-aligned political committees and nonprofit groups.

Political Candidates

As of 2018, the two most recent Democratic nominees for President of the United States were clients of Perkins Coie. FEC records show $1,095,837 total disbursements for legal fees and related expenses during 2016 election cycle from Obama for America—President Barack Obama’s campaign committee—to Perkins Coie,¹⁷ while FEC records show $5,631,421 total disbursements for legal fees and related expenses during 2016 election cycle from the Hillary for America committee.¹⁸

Political Action Committees

Perkins Coie is the firm of choice for Democratic Party-affiliated committees and for Super PACs aligned with the Democratic Party leadership in Congress and the states. FEC records show $7,268,492 total disbursements for legal fees and related expenses during the 2016 election cycle from DNC Services Corp.—an operating name for the Democratic National Committee (DNC)—and Democratic National Convention Committee to Perkins Coie.¹⁹ The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) made $1,410,136 in total disbursements for legal fees and related expenses,²⁰ and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) reported $1,512,484 in total disbursements for the 2016 election cycle to the firm. ^21

Major Democratic-aligned super PACs also retain Perkins Coie. In the 2016 cycle, the firm received $442,811 total disbursements for legal fees and related expenses from House Majority PAC, ^22 $474,980 from Senate Majority PAC, ^6 and $1,428,655 from Priorities USA (PAC). ^23

Perkins Coie also represents General Majority PAC, a Democratic state-level candidate super PAC.²⁴

The firm also represented American Bridge 21st Century, a David Brock-founded super PAC involved in opposition research and “tracking” Republican candidates,²⁵ and Correct the Record, a now defunct, Brock-linked super PAC which supported Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.²⁶

The firm has represented numerous other left-leaning PACs including Alliance for A Better Minnesota PAC,²⁷ Put Alaska First PAC,²⁸ and Win Minnesota PAC.²⁹

Other Left-Wing Groups

Other notable Perkins Coie political clients include the liberal get-out-the-vote group America Votes Action Fund, ^30 the labor union activist group Americans United for Change (AUFC), ^24 the gun-control organization Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS), ^24 pro-abortion candidate recruitment group Emily’s List, ^31 Obamacare advocacy group Enroll America, ^24 Brock-founded media critic group Media Matters for America, ^24 pro-abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America, ^24 the Tom Steyer-funded environmentalist advocacy group NextGen Climate Action Committee, ^32 Obama legacy advocacy group Organizing for Action (OFA), ^33 radical feminist group UltraViolet,²⁴ and liberal get-out-the-vote-group Voto Latino. ^34

Political Law Group Personnel

The political law group at Perkins Coie has approximately 40 lawyers. Those with significant current or past work in Democratic politics or with left-leaning advocacy organizations are profiled below.

Marc Elias

Also see Marc Elias

Following Robert Bauer’s appointment as White House counsel for President Obama, Marc E. Elias succeed him in November 2009 as chair of the political law group at Perkins Coie.³⁵ He was the general counsel for both the Hillary Clinton 2016 and John Kerry 2004 presidential campaigns. The firm’s major Democratic and high profile left-leaning institutional clients are his major area of responsibility, including the Democratic Governors Association, Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), House Majority PAC, Senate Majority PAC, Priorities USA (PAC), and EMILY’s List. He was also listed on the board of directors for Democratic-aligned Super PAC Priorities USA.³⁶ In August 2021, Elias, along with ten partners and three counsels, left Perkins Coie to establish the Elias Law Group, a new law firm based in D.C which focused on, “electing Democrats, supporting voting rights, and helping progressives make change.” ^7 ^9

Rebecca Gordon

A partner in the firm, the firm’s biography states Rebecca Gordon “counsels corporations, trade associations, lobbying firms and other entities on the entire spectrum of legal issues that impact their ability to interact with and impact federal and state governments.”

She was deputy general counsel at Obama for America (2007-08), counsel to the presidential nominee at Kerry-Edwards 2004, and is counsel for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). She also represented EMILY’s List in litigation involving the Federal Elections Commission.³⁷

Graham Wilson

Graham Wilson is a partner in Perkins Coie. His biography states that he “counsels clients on federal and state campaign finance law, voting rights, Congressional and Executive Branch ethics regulations.” He is a counsel for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), America Votes, and the America Votes Action Fund. He has also represented EMILY’s List in litigation involving the Federal Elections Commission. ^38

Ezra Reese

Ezra Reese is a former partner with the firm, joining as an associate in 2003 and later became a partner in 2013. ^39 While at the firm, he had a focus on “nonprofit tax law and political law, with an emphasis on nonprofit organizations that wish to engage in lobbying or electoral activity.” His client work included work for America Votes, Americans United for Change (AUFC), NARAL Pro-Choice America, Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS), Senate Majority PAC, House Majority PAC, Media Matters for America, American Bridge 21st Century, Enroll America, General Majority PAC, Correct the Record, NextGen Climate Action Committee, NextGen Climate Action, UltraViolet, Voto Latino, the Democratic Leadership Council, and EMILY’s List. ^40 In August 2021, Reese was one of ten partners and three counsels to leave Perkins Coie with Marc Elias to establish the Elias Law Group, a new law firm based in D.C which focused on, “electing Democrats, supporting voting rights, and helping progressives make change.” ^39 ^7

Jonathan Berkon

A partner in the firm, Jonathan Berkon’s biography states he “focuses his practice on the laws governing state and local elections, ballot initiatives and issue advocacy, helping clients achieve their political and policy objectives in jurisdictions across the country.” Also, his “arrival at Perkins Coie coincided with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United, and he has been at the forefront in shaping his clients’ response.” One particular focus of his practice is to advise as counsel to organizations seeking to elect Democratic governors.⁴¹

Elisabeth Frost

Elisabeth Frost is a partner in Perkins Coie. Her biography states that she “has extensive experience representing voters, campaigns, political committees and others with an interest in the political process in actions in state and federal courts.”⁴²

Kate Keane

A partner in the firm, the firm’s biography states that Kate Keane “is a go-to legal authority on ethics-related issues and the interplay of regulations on political activity that govern officials, political parties, companies and other participants in the political system.” She serves as counsel for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and individual committees for candidates running for Congress.⁴³

Katherine Labeau

Katherine Labeau is associate counsel for Perkins Coie. Her biography states that she “advises tax-exempt organizations on a spectrum of tax, corporate and campaign finance matters.” Her previous employment included stints in the Office of Management and Budget (2011-13) during the Obama Administration and as a legislative fellow for U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D–Ohio) during 2013. Her client work includes work for Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS), Media Matters for America, American Bridge 21st Century, NextGen Climate Action Committee, NextGen Climate Action, UltraViolet, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). ^44

Brian Svoboda

A partner in the firm, Brian Svoboda’s biography states that he “helps clients to organize and achieve their political objectives, and defends them when their activities have drawn unwanted controversy” and “advises on all aspects of ethics and campaign finance laws.” The experience listed for him shows representation of several clients regarding investigations by Congressional ethics committees and matters regarding the Federal Elections Commission.⁴⁵

Karl Sandstrom

Karl Sandstrom is listed as “senior counsel” for Perkins Coie. His biography states that he “represents clients before federal and state courts, administrative agencies and legislative bodies in matters arising in ethics and lobbying, campaign finance, communication, corporate governance, civil service, and tax law.”⁴⁶

Tyler Hagenbuch

Tyler Hagenbuch is a political law attorney with the firm. The firm’s biography states he “helps clients understand the web of federal, state and local laws in the areas of campaign finance, lobbying disclosure, government ethics and pay-to-play rules.” He assisted Perkins Coie advising the 2016 Clinton campaign and also worked on both Obama presidential campaigns.⁴⁷

Kevin Hamilton

Kevin Hamilton is a partner with the firm, and his primary focus is labor and employment law. He also has significant experience litigating election recounts for Democratic candidates represented by the firm.⁴⁸

Bruce Spiva

Bruce Spiva is a partner with the firm, and has worked on Congressional redistricting and voting eligibility cases.⁴⁹

References

---

MONTANA 2012 BULLOCK BRIEF FOR UNITED STATES

REPRESENTATIVES ROBERT BRADY, CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, ZOE LOFGREN AND CHARLES GONZALEZ AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS James A. Ahlers Jerica L. Peters PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 N. Central Avenue Suite 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 351-8000 jahlers@perkinscoie.com jpeters@perkinscoie.com John M. Devaney Counsel of Record Karl J. Sandstrom Brian G. Svoboda Elisabeth C. Frost PERKINS COIE LLP 700 Thirteenth Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 654-6200 jdevaney@perkinscoie.com ksandstrom@perkinscoie.com bsvoboda@perkinscoie.com efrost@perkinscoie.com Counsel for Amici Curiae

...Taibbi includes a helpful synopsis of the Russiagate timeline:

By June and July of 2016, bits of the dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which had been funded by the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie (which in turn hired the opposition research firm Fusion GPS),were already in the ether.

The Steele report occupies the same role in #Russiagate the tales spun by Ahmed Chalabi occupied in the WMD screwup. Once again, a narrative became turbo-charged when Officials With Motives pulled the press corps by its nose to a swamp of unconfirmable private assertions.

The opposition “research” that Clinton bought then needed a “hook” to be leaked for public consumption:

Comey was right. We couldn’t have reported this story without a “hook.” Therefore the reports surrounding Steele technically weren’t about the allegations themselves, but rather the journey of those allegations, from one set of official hands to another. Handing the report to Trump created a perfect pretext.

---

judd yahoomail 4 23

amazon is a massive player in online retail. Most of the products sold on Amazon.com, however, are not sold by Amazon. Rather, they are sold by third-party retailers using Amazon's technology. In 2021, according to Amazon, its "U.S. selling partners sold more than 3.9 billion products – an average of 7,500 every minute – in Amazon’s store." These "partners" account for 60% of all sales on Amazon.com. The fees that Amazon charges to third-party retailers make up a significant, and growing, percentage of its overall revenue. The more products Amazon lists in its store — and the fewer humans it employs to review these listings — the more money it makes.

A series of lawsuits filed against Amazon allege that the online retailer facilitated the sale of "veritable suicide kits" to vulnerable teens and young adults. The lawsuits involve the sale of highly concentrated Sodium Nitrite, a lethal industrial chemical, on Amazon's marketplace. According to the plaintiffs, beginning in 2018, Amazon "received notifications from parents of children who died from various brands of Sodium Nitrite" but continued to offer it for sale.

The most recent lawsuit was filed two weeks ago, on March 30, by the families of two teens — 19-year-old Demetrios Viglis (DJ) of Virginia and 18-year-old Ava Passannanti of Arizona. Both teens purchased Sodium Nitrite from Amazon.com in 2020. The "teens never met or knew the other existed, but the two are bound in how identical their deaths were and the role that Amazon played to enable the untimely ends of their lives." They both "purchased Sodium Nitrite for $19.99 plus shipping costs."

The lawsuit alleges that "Amazon bundles Sodium Nitrite with other offerings to create suicide kits." Specifically, Amazon's recommendation engine suggested purchasing Sodium Nitrite with "Tagamet, an acid reduction medicine that online suicide forums recommend to prevent lifesaving vomiting" and the "'Amazon Edition' of Dr. Philip Nitschke's suicide instruction book, The Peaceful Pill Handbook." The book "details instructions for how to use Sodium Nitrite to die." It also "touts how cheap and speedy Sodium Nitrite purchase and delivery is for suicidal readers who purchase it on Amazon, even providing an Amazon link."

[pix]

Further, Amazon users who "typed in 'sodium nitrite' saw 'sodium nitrite suicide' as the fifth suggested prompt to complete their search." A user searching for "sodium nitrate salt" was prompted with "sodium nitrate suicide" before they could complete the query.

[screenshot #5]

Amazon also allegedly took steps to conceal the dangers of Sodium Nitrite. The lawsuit claims "upon learning that families were leaving one-star reviews for Sodium Nitrite relating to the deadliness of the product and its use for suicide, instead of removing the product, Amazon removed comments containing the word 'suicide.'"

Carrie Goldberg is the lead attorney representing the families of DJ, Ava, and four others who died after ordering Sodium Nitrite from Amazon. Goldberg tells Popular Information that she is aware of more than 50 people who have died from Sodium Nitrite obtained from Amazon.

Amazon's defense

The case on behalf of DJ and Ava was just filed recently, and Amazon has not yet responded. But Amazon has responded to a separate case filed by Goldberg in December on behalf of the families of 17-year-old Ethan McCarthy and 16-year-old Kristine Jónsson. Ethan and Kristine died after ordering the same brand of Sodium Nitrite from Amazon as DJ and Ava.

In a motion to dismiss the case, Amazon places the blame squarely on the shoulders of the deceased teens. The company argues that the law does "not impose liability for the sale of a nondefective product to legally competent persons who intentionally misuse that product to commit suicide." Amazon stresses that "Kristine and Ethan formulated plans to commit suicide wholly independent of Amazon."

Highly concentrated Sodium Nitrite has no legitimate consumer use. (In diluted form, Sodium Nitrite can be used to preserve meat.) But Amazon argued that the product "was not unreasonable unsafe," even though it has killed multiple people. Amazon also claims that "the sodium nitrite at issue here was not defective."

In a motion to dismiss a third lawsuit involving sales of Sodium Nitrite, Amazon defends offering customers complementary products that could use with Sodium Nitrite to commit suicide. These "widgets," Amazon says, "simply reflect browsing patterns of other users rather than recommendations by Amazon."

Amazon, represented by the powerful law firm Perkins Coie, also offers an avalanche of technical defenses, including that the claims are precluded by Washington State's product liability law.

Amazon's letter to Congress

In contrast to Amazon, "eBay and Etsy, discontinued Sodium Nitrite sales in 2019 or 2020." In November 2022, Amazon said it was limiting sales of highly-concentrated Sodium Nitrite to business customers, but it is unclear if this is a permanent policy change.

In a February 2022 letter to Congressperson Lori Trahan (D-MA), Amazon Vice President Brian Huseman defended Amazon's decision to offer Sodium Nitrite for sale to the general public. Huseman wrote that "Amazon is unaware of any legal restrictions in the United States on the sale of sodium nitrite, and we have not received any state or federal regulatory takedown requests for these products." According to Huseman, "Amazon makes a wide selection of products available to our customers because we trust that they will use those products as intended by the manufacturers." Huseman claimed that Amazon evaluates "any serious injury or death, regardless of the potential cause, and take[s] appropriate action." At the time, Huseman asserted that Amazon "has not found any teen accounts associated with the purchase of industrial sodium nitrite products."

Huseman's letter ignored dozens of specific questions posed by Trahan, including how much Sodium Nitrite Amazon has sold, how many people have died purchasing Sodium Nitrite from Amazon, and Amazon's policy when it learns a product it sells was used in a customer suicide.

---

unclear

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/10/25/dnc-clinton-campaign-pay-trump-russia-steele-dossier/

A DeSmogBlog investigation reveals that Robert Bauer, former White House Counsel and President Barack Obama’s personal attorney, works at the corporate law firm Perkins Coie LLP, which does legal work forTransCanada’s South Central LNG Project, formerly known as Alaska Gas Pipeline Project.

Furthermore, Dan Sullivan, current Commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources, and former Alaska Attorney General and former Assistant Secretary of State in the Bush Administration, is a former Perkins attorney. now SEN 1% koch $

http://www.perkinscoie.com/files/upload/PB_2010Report.pdf

http://www.domini.com/sites/default/files/_files/montana_motion_to_appear.pdf

For the following reasons, Domini Social Investments LLC, Trillium Asset

Management Corporation, Newground Social Investment, Interfaith Center on

Corporate Responsibility, Harrington Investments, Inc., The Sustainability Group

of Loring, Wolcott & Coolidge, Calvert Asset Management Co., The Christopher

Reynolds Foundation, Inc., and Walden Asset Management, a Division of Boston

Trust & Investment Management Company (collectively, “amici”), respectfully

move the Court to grant leave to file the enclosed brief of Amici Curiae.

I. STATEMENTS OF INTEREST

Domini Social Investments LLC is an investment adviser that manages a

global family of broadly diversified mutual funds subject to a comprehensive set of

social, environmental and governance standards. Domini has neither the ability

nor the mandate from its investors to represent their political interests. Although

Domini engages companies in which it invests on environmental, economic and

societal issues that impact the long-term value of it investments, it is beyond its

capacity and its shareholders’ expectation to engage companies on electoral

choices.

Trillium Asset Management Corporation is an investment adviser concerned

that corporate political activity inherently creates political and legal risks for

investments. Trillium firmly believes that the companies in which it invests cannot

and should not attempt to engage in electoral politics on behalf of its shareholders.

... p2

Trillium’s investors would reject the idea that a publicly traded corporation can

fairly represent their interests in election contests the results of which may have a

profound impact on many aspects of those shareholders and other stakeholders’

personal and private lives.

Newground Social Investment is an investment advisor that promotes

transparency and accountability in corporate political spending. After Citizens

United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), Newground is

deeply concerned that increased corporate political spending, with declining

transparency, puts long-term shareholder value at risk.

Representing over 300 institutions, including religious orders, pension

funds, investment advisers, foundations and health-care systems, the Interfaith

Center on Corporate Responsibility is a coalition of active investors with an

enduring record of corporate engagement that has demonstrated influence on

policies promoting justice and sustainability in the world. The Interfaith Center

knows that its coalition partners lack the legal and technical capacity to use

existing procedures of corporate governance to influence which candidates a

corporation decides to support or oppose.

Harrington Investments, Inc. is an independent investment advisor that

specializes in socially responsible investing. Harrington’s clients are specifically

concerned with corporate transparency but, more importantly, they are concerned ...

Perkins Coie "is a leading international law firm offering a full spectrum of legal services. With more than 650 lawyers in 15 offices across the United States and in China, the firm serves great companies ranging in size from start-ups to FORTUNE 100. Many of the firm's clients are leaders in traditional industries and emerging technology markets." ^[1]

[hide]

People

Accessed December 2007: ^[2]

*Management Committee:

*Executive Committee: Management Committee plus:

Contact

Web: http://www.perkinscoie.com

Resources and articles

Related Sourcewatch

References

Jump up↑ Overview, Perkins Coie, accessed December 11, 2007.
Jump up↑ Management, Perkins Coie, accessed December 11, 2007.

===

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2011 MT 328

WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC.,

a corporation registered in the State of Montana,

and CHAMPION PAINTING, INC., a Montana

corporation, MONTANA SHOOTING SPORTS

ASSOCIATION, INC., a Montana corporation,

Plaintiffs, Appellees and

Cross-Appellants,

ATTORNEY GENERAL of the State of Montana,

and COMMISSIONER OF THE COMMISSION

FOR POLITICAL PRACTICES,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,

In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. BDV 10-238

Honorable Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellants:

Steve Bullock (argued), Montana Attorney General; Anthony Johnstone,

Solicitor, James P. Molloy, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

For Appellees:

Margot E. Barg (argued); Wittich Law Firm, P.C., Bozeman, Montana

For Amici Curiae:

Amy Poehling Eddy; Bottomly, Eddy & Sandler, Kalispell, Montana

(for former Montana Supreme Court Justices William E. Hunt, Sr., W.

William Leaphart, James M. Regnier, Terry N. Trieweiler and John

Warner)

December 30 2011

Lawrence A. Anderson, Attorney at Law, Great Falls, Montana

(for MTLA, Montana Conservation Voters, Montanans for Corporate

Accountability, and Montana League of Rural Voters)

Elizabeth L. Griffing, Attorney at Law; Erin Kraft, Clinic Student,

University of Montana, Missoula, Montana

(for ACLU of Montana Foundation)

Jonathan Motl; Morrison Motl & Sherwood, Helena, Montana

Jeffrey D. Clements, Clements Law Office, LLC, Concord, Massachusetts

(for Free Speech for People; American Sustainable Business Council;

Novak and Novack, Inc., d/b/a Mike’s Thriftway; Home Resource, Inc.,

and The American Independent Business Alliance)

Mark Mackin, Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana

(for Montana Public Interest Research Group and Peoples Power League)

Karl J. Englund, Karl J. Englund, P.C., Missoula, Montana;

Karl J. Sandstrom, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, D.C.

Michael T. Liburdi, James A. Ahlers, Jerica L. Peters, Perkins Coie LLP,

Phoenix, Arizona

(for Domini Social Investments LLC; Trillium Asset Management

Corporation; Newground Social Investment; Interfaith Center On

Corporate Responsibility; Harrington Investments, Inc.; The Sustainability

Group of Loring, Wolcott & Coolidge; Calvert Asset Management

Company, Inc.; The Christopher Reynolds Foundation, Inc.; and Walden

Asset Management, a Division of Boston Trust & Investment

Management Company)

Lee Bruner, Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana

Allen Dickerson, Attorney at Law, Alexandria, Virginia

(for Center for Competitive Politics

"hit"?

...

American Bridge is not the only organization with a hard-copy policy, nor is it the only one that charges for paper copies of documents we’d prefer to receive in PDF form. It’s just the only one to charge us this much money for this much paper with this much drama.

First, the money: The Perkins Coie counsel informed us that the hard copies of the documents would cost CRP $428.60, plus an estimated $20 for postage. Collecting our jaws from the floor, we politely asked if there was a decimal error in the price cited. IRS regulations permit groups to charge a “reasonable fee for any reproduction and mailing costs.” But we’ve never been hit with a fee of more than about $20.

We’ve also never received a document this long. The previous record holder, American Justice Partnership, had 1024 application materials that topped out at about 225 pages.

When Reese confirmed that all decimals had indeed been correctly placed, we informed them that we would be coming to their office in person to collect the documents, as permitted by IRS regulations. At least we wouldn’t have to pay to ship reams of paper from their D.C. office to our D.C. office just blocks away.

Perkins Coie is the law firm of choice for other liberal dark money groups as well. The wandering social welfare group Patriot Majority – currently the second highest spendingdark money group in the 2014 election cycle — is also represented by the Seattle-based law firm. One of our interns learned last fall how helpful the firm can be in providing documents it is required to make available upon request (Hint: Not really helpful at all). Getting documents from the firm is like pulling teeth — especially if those teeth are on the 6th floor and security won’t let you up.

bs?

company Perspectives:

If managing a law firm, as the old saying goes, is like herding cats, imagine what it's like to manage Perkins Coie--a firm of almost 500 attorneys in 14 offices worldwide with a Beijing office soon to come. Observers of the legal scene say Robert E. Giles is a master at the task, keeping most of those independent cats from straying. In the process, he's been successful in helping guide Perkins Coie through the thickets of a changing legal scene, one that has become a competitive pressure cooker.

Key Dates:

1912:Perkins Coie's predecessor, Donworth & Todd, is formed.1916:Donworth & Todd secures William E. Boeing as a client.1986:Robert Giles is appointed managing partner.1998:A merger with Hosie, Wes, Sacks & Brelsford LLP gives Perkins Coie a physical presence in Silicon Valley.

Company History:

Perkins Coie LLP is a law partnership whose clients are among the largest corporations in the world. Through 14 offices primarily located in the western United States, Perkins Coie's more than 500 lawyers serve clients such as The Boeing Co., AT&T Wireless, and Nintendo of America. The law firm is based in Seattle and operates internationally through offices in Taipei, Taiwan, London, England, and in Hong Kong.

Origins

The largest law firm in the Pacific Northwest at the beginning of the 21st century was founded not long after the beginning of the 20th century. It was a law partnership founded with a handshake. In 1912, Perkins Coie's two original partners first discussed forming their own firm while taking a walk along the streets of Seattle. The instigator of the discussion was George Donworth, Federal Judge of the Western District of Washington. To his side was Elmer Todd, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington.

Both men wanted to return to private practice, and Todd appeared to be the first of the two to follow through with his desire. Todd had received a partnership offer from William H. Bogle, who led a well-known Seattle law firm, but during his walk with Judge Donworth an alternative career choice arose. Donworth revealed his intention to resign as a judge and invited Todd to join him in forming a law partnership. The two men shook hands, and on May 1, 1912 opened their business. The new law firm of Donworth & Todd--known as "the Donworth firm" during its formative years--began without any prospects. The law firm had no stenographer, no associates, and no clients.}:

:{Throughout Perkins Coie's :{history}:, the law firm was known for its business ties with some of the largest coporations in the world, a legacy established by the fledgling Donworth firm. The leap from having no clients to forging relationships with companies set to become corporate giants was aided greatly by Donworth & Todd's landlord. The firm rented three offices in the Hoge Building, owned by James D. Hoge, who introduced the law firm to several of its long-term, mainstay clients.

Hoge's contributions as a networker began not long after the Donworth firm landed its first client. Several weeks after opening their doors, the two partners were hired by the Seattle and Lake Washington Water Way Co., a company originally formed to dig a canal through one of the major hills in Seattle. The firm's second client was provided by Hoge, who served as president of Union Savings and Trust Co.--a banking entity that evolved into Seattle First National Bank, or Seafirst--and hired Donworth & Todd as the chief counsel for his bank, providing a substantial and long-term source of revenue for the young firm.}:

Hoge's greatest gift to the fortunes of the Donworth firm arrived in 1914, when he introduced the partners to another Hoge Building tenant. Donworth & Todd's neighbor owned interests in real estate, timber, and a small airplane company located at the south end of Lake Union, several blocks away from downtown Seattle. The Hoge Building tenant was William E. Boeing. In 1916, Donworth, who controlled most partnership matters, drew up the articles of incorporation for Boeing's company, the Boeing Airplane and Transport Corporation. As the company matured into the multi-billion-dollar aerospace giant The Boeing Co., the Donworth firm, and later Perkins Coie, assisted in and benefited from the explosive growth recorded by its client, serving as its principal outside counsel.

Donworth & Todd's two-year anniversary also coincided with several other significant developments. The law firm hired its first associate in 1916, a lawyer name Nelson T. Hartson. That same year, Donworth & Todd gained another valuable client, providing ample work for Hartson and the firm's second associate, Donworth's son, Charles T. Donworth. The Donworth firm was hired to manage the personal legal business of Colonel Alden Blethen and his family, the owners and publishers ofThe Seattle Times. The Blethens remained important clients until 1942, when Elmer Todd retired from the firm to become publisher of the newspaper.

During the law firm's formative years, a host of other companies--particularly lumber and pulp concerns--counted on the Donworth firm for their legal work. Among the list of early clients were Rainer Pulp and Paper, Grays Harbor Pulp and Paper, and Washington Pulp and Paper. Additional clients were gained in 1919 when Donworth & Todd merged with another law firm, Higgins and Hughes. Important clients obtained through the merger included the largest meat-packer in the western United States, Frye & Co., and pulp and paper manufacturer Zellerbach. The arrival of Higgins (Hughes was killed in World War I) necessitated the first of more than a dozen name changes for the Donworth firm, an ever-changing nomenclature determined by the departure and arrival of name partners. Following the 1919 merger, the firm became known as Donworth, Todd and Higgins.

The 1930s were years of symbolic change and gratifying stability for the law firm. Unlike the vast majority of companies of all types, the Seattle-based partnership escaped the ravages of the Great Depression, thriving while other commercial concerns floundered. Impressively, the law firm registered its success without its chief architect. In 1930, Donworth left the firm at age of 69, departing with his son to form another law firm, Donworth and Donworth. His departure created the need for a new name, Todd, Holman and Sprague, which paid homage to Hollister T. Sprague, who joined the firm in 1921, and a trial lawyer named Frank E. Holman, who was hired in 1928. In the severely harsh economic climate pervading the 1930s, Todd, Holman and Sprague expanded, more than doubling its personnel. The law firm added several important clients, including Puget Sound Power and Light Company, and managed to retain every one of its major clients.

As the law firm's client roster expanded during the ensuing years, a number of name changes eventually gave way to the modern version of its name. DeForrest Perkins joined as an associate in 1931. J. Paul Coie joined the firm in 1942. Perkins and Coie eventually became the principal name partners, giving the law firm the name of Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen and Williams by 1969. In 1985, the law firm followed the trend toward abbreviation that swept throughout the legal profession and changed its name to Perkins Coie. By the time of the name change, both Perkins and Coie had retired.

After a half-century of serving clients in the corporate world, the partnership had earned the esteem of the legal profession in the Pacific Northwest, holding sway as one of the most prominent law firms in the region. The partnership's 50th anniversary party, celebrated under the name Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen & Williams, was attended by the 34 attorneys under its employ. Perkins Coie's prominence in the region's legal community stemmed not only from the size of the firm, but also from the company it kept. Since Judge Donworth's early association with Boeing, the predecessors to Seafirst, and the Blethen family, the firm had developed a reputation as the legal counsel to the region's biggest names in business.

By 1962, a half-century of growth had deepened the partnership's imprint on the regional legal and corporate community. The firm was known for serving just a few clients, but the size of it clients compensated for the relatively short list of its accounts. During this period, the partnership served as counsel for Boeing, Puget Power, Rayonier, and Pacific National Bank, among others, enjoying long-standing relationships that upheld the firm as a venerable member of the legal community. Further, Elmer Todd's decision to leave the firm to steward the fortunes ofThe Seattle Timeshad developed into a pattern. Numerous partners left the firm to head the businesses they had once provided legal counsel to, adding to the recognition of the firm. William Allen, a name partner during the early 1940s, left the firm to serve as chairman and president of Boeing. James Prince and Lowell Mickelwait later joined Boeing as vice-presidents. A string of executive appointments followed, including John Ellis to Puget Power, Richard Albrecht, Doug Beighle, and Ted Collins to Boeing, and Christopher Bayley to Burlington Northern.

A Legal Giant in the 1980s

The modern era of the firm's history began roughly at the same time Perkins Coie became the official name of the firm in 1985. The following year, Robert Giles was appointed managing partner of Perkins Coie, beginning a period of control over the firm that would continue into the 21st century. When Giles took the reins of command, the firm's revenues--measured by the dollar amount of its billings--stood at $41 million, a figure generated by the 189 attorneys working within the firm. Perkins Coie's 75th anniversary, celebrated two years after Giles appointment as managing partner, already revealed the hallmark of what would become Giles' legacy: growth. There were 267 attorneys on hand to mark the occasion, 109 of whom were partners. Based on the number of Perkins Coie attorneys, a support staff of 484 employees, and the billings they generated, Perkins Coie ranked as the largest law firm in the Pacific Northwest.

At roughly the same time that Perkins Coie celebrated its 75th anniversary, the partnership merged with another law firm based in Los Angeles. The deal made Perkins Coie the only law firm with substantial offices up and down the West Coast, from Alaska to California. The merger also set the tone for the 1990s, as the Giles-led firm fanned out and expanded geographically, giving it a sizeable profile in fast-growth regions both domestically and on the international front. In 1992, for instance, the partnership opened an office in Taipei, Taiwan, becoming the first Pacific Northwest law firm to open an office in an Asian country. Staffed with seven attorneys, who dealt with litigation, corporate matters, and licensing and acquisition activity, the Taipei office was the first of three foreign offices opened during the early 1990s. In 1993, when billings topped $100 million for the first time, Perkins Coie opened an office in Hong Kong. The following year, the partnership opened an office in London. The attorneys working these offices represented clients involved in the building of power plants and other infrastructure projects in countries such as Laos, Nepal, and China.

Perkins Coie: 1990s and Beyond

Billings from foreign operations provided essentially the only source of revenue growth during the first half of the 1990s, as Perkins Coie's domestic business stagnated. In an era of corporate streamlining, the partnership was forced to alter the way it conducted its business. The firm's clients wanted efficiency and cost-savings, causing Perkins Coie's billings and salaries to plateau. The hourly rates charged by associates and partners hardly increased during the first half of the decade. In 1990, associates billed out at between $85 an hour and $170 an hour. In 1996, associates billed out at between $90 an hour and $175 an hour. During the same time span, partners' hourly rates remained flat, ranging from $160 to $275 in 1990 and from $175 to $275 in 1996.

In response to the changing dynamics of the legal profession, Giles implemented several changes. Perkins Coie began offering incentive arrangements as an alternative to hourly billing, linking its fees to the result obtained for the client. The partnership also invested heavily in technology throughout the decade in an attempt to better communicate with clients and to deliver the firm's services more efficiently.

By the end of the 1990s, growth had returned to Perkins Coie. The partnership's billings and the number of attorneys it employed increased largely through the emergence and rapid growth of high-technology companies in the Pacific Northwest. A new breed of high-technology entrepreneurs needed legal advice on issues ranging from corporate finance to intellectual property, and Perkins Coie fulfilled those needs. The partnership expanded its intellectual-property practice by forming a patent-litigation group. Perkins Coie also completed a significant merger late in the decade. In October 1998, the partnership absorbed the practice of a Silicon Valley firm, Hosie, Wes, Sacks & Brelsford LLP. The merger gave Perkins Coie 13 attorneys with a strong high-technology practice that included clients such as Yahoo!, Intuit Inc., and The Learning Company and strengthened its position in the Pacific Northwest. Perkins Coie's high-technology clients in Seattle increasingly were dealing with counterpart companies and venture capital firms in Silicon Valley. "We had to be seen as a player in the Bay Area to maintain our position in Seattle," Giles explained in a June 25, 1999 interview with thePuget Sound Business Journal.

As Perkins Coie entered the 21st century, its business continued to be grounded by its long-standing relationships with corporate heavyweights, particularly Boeing. There were a wealth of other important Pacific Northwest-based clients, such asAT&T Wireless and Nintendo of America,that added to the considerable sway of the venerable law firm, lending reassuring stability to the Giles-led enterprise. In the years ahead, Perkins Coie promised to be a fixture in the legal field, its legacy of legal work providing justifiable optimism for its future success.

Principal Competitors: Cooley Goodward LLP; Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe LLP; Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Perkins Coie

History

Political Law Practice

George Soros Lawsuits

Russia Dossier Work

Facebook Advertisement Disclosure

Redistricting Challenges

2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate Recount

Notable Clients

Political Candidates

Political Action Committees

Other Left-Wing Groups

Political Law Group Personnel

Marc Elias

Rebecca Gordon

Graham Wilson

Ezra Reese

Jonathan Berkon

Elisabeth Frost

Kate Keane

Katherine Labeau

Brian Svoboda

Karl Sandstrom

Tyler Hagenbuch

Kevin Hamilton

Bruce Spiva

References

Amazon's defense

Amazon's letter to Congress

Contents

People

Contact

Resources and articles

Related Sourcewatch

References

company Perspectives:

Key Dates:

Company History:

Further Reading: