Firm that handles cases for Russian interests is locked in Mueller grand jury fight

The identity of the law firm representing a company at the center of what appears to be a legal showdown with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office was officially confirmed Friday by the federal courts.

Filings unsealed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals named Atlanta-based Alston and Bird as the firm that has been battling with federal prosecutors since last summer over a demand for records sought by a grand jury in Washington, D.C.

Story Continued Below

Alston and Bird’s clients have included Russian interests including a Russian oligarch, although the country and the specific state-owned company in the subpoena fight have not been publicly confirmed.

The dispute has proceeded with unusual secrecy, including — until now — the names of the lawyers for both sides being withheld by the three different federal courts to grapple with the matter.

While one of those courts on Friday unsealed documents identifying Alston and Bird’s Brian Boone and Ted Kang as lawyers for the firm, the names of the prosecutors remain under seal at all levels of the court system. Despite that secrecy, there are now numerous indications that the legal battle involves Mueller’s office.

Last month, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press asked the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit to unseal more information about the legal imbroglio. The filing and the appeals court’s Friday order making it public contain only a fraction of the material the press group is seeking, but the documents disclose that the opposition to unsealing the records has come from the government prosecutors.

“It looks like it is the government that is resisting disclosure and that the company wanted the public to know that fact,” said Ted Boutrous, who is representing the Reporters Committee in its bid to unseal details of the case. “Absent some extraordinary order that we don’t know about, there is nothing stopping the company from revealing its identity and we are hoping it will do so now that its lawyers have gone on the record with their identity in this filing.”

Boone and Kang did not immediately reply to a request for comment Friday.

The government’s explanation of the need for some of the more extreme secrecy in the case, such as the deletion of prosecutors’ names and titles from the public record, has not been disclosed. However, in a Supreme Court filing last week, the Justice Department said it believed some more information in court filings there could be released without harming grand jury secrecy.

A spokesman for Mueller’s office declined to comment Friday.

POLITICO reported last October that the court fight appeared to involve Mueller’s prosecutors because shortly after a deadline in the case, a man entered the appeals court clerk’s office and said he needed a copy of the filing just submitted by the special counsel. He refused to identify himself to a reporter who was present.

In addition, D.C. Circuit Judge Greg Katsas — who formerly worked as deputy White House Counsel under President Donald Trump —recused himself from the dispute, a court docket shows.

CNN has reported that it observed prosecutors from Mueller’s office emerging from Chief Judge Beryl Howell’s courtroom in September and October along with Kang and Boone. Kang’s page on the Alston and Bird website displays his involvement in Mueller-related matters.

“Representing numerous entities and individuals in connection with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election,” the page says.

So far, the firm has failed to get much traction for its arguments that the company should be immune from the grand jury demand because the firm is effectively part of a foreign government. Both Howell and a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel rejected those arguments.

When the firm took the issue to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts briefly stayed Howell’s contempt order and the $50,000-a-day financial penalty Howell imposed for defying her order. However, the high court lifted that stay several weeks ago.

After that ruling, the two sides squared off again in front of Howell over whether she has power to enforce the financial sanction. She denied the firm’s motion to declare the order unenforceable, a docket made public this week shows.

While the Supreme Court turned down the company’s bid for emergency relief, the firm’s petition asking the justices to review the lower court rulings remains pending at the high court.

At a closed-door meeting on February 15, the justices are scheduled to consider what additional portions, if any, of the Supreme Court’s file on the dispute can be opened up.

Disclosure: Gerstein serves on a governing board of the Reporters Committee.