Collins raises conflict of interest concerns over Barry Berke
February 26, 2019
“The New York Rules of Professional Conduct indicate Mr. Berke may be conflicted from working on any committee activity that touches on the Trump Organization.”
WASHINGTON – Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, today sent a letter to Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) regarding conflict of interest issues in hiring consultant Barry Berke. The letter is available here and below. This is the second letter sent by Collins regarding conflict of interest with consultants hired by Nadler. The chairman has not issued a response to the first letter. February 25, 2019 The Honorable Jerrold Nadler Chairman Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Nadler: On February 13, 2019, I wrote to you posing a series of questions regarding the hiring of Mr. Barry H. Berke and Mr. Norm Eisen as consultants to the Democrats on the committee. Chief among the concerns articulated in my prior letter was that “[s]uch arrangements are fraught with ethical, legal and financial conflicts of interest.” Today, I learned such a conflict may indeed exist: For many years, the New York City law firm Kramer Levin—of which Barry Berke is a partner—has apparently represented the Trump Organization. The New York Rules of Professional Conduct indicate Mr. Berke may be conflicted from working on any committee activity that touches on the Trump Organization. Rule 1.7(a) states “a lawyer shall not represent a client if a reasonable lawyer would conclude that . . . the representation will involve the lawyer in representing differing interests.” This rule applies to the entire firm. Further, Rule 1.10(a) states: “While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so . . . ” It is my understanding Mr. Berke will maintain his partnership at Kramer Levin while working for the Democrats on the committee. Based on your public statements, you intend to investigate numerous topics related to the Trump Organization. On a radio show yesterday, you told host John Catsimatidis: “Clearly . . . there have been major abuses of power, major obstruction of justice, obvious violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution . . . [a]ll of these have to be looked at." It is inconceivable that the committee could launch an investigation related to the Emoluments Clause without involving the work of the Trump Organization. According to Kramer Levin, no conflict exists and both the firm and Mr. Berke are in compliance with all applicable ethical rules. The Washington Post reported: “Mr. Berke’s work for the committee is in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the firm, which will receive no compensation for Mr. Berke’s services or provide any legal or other support.” In addition, The Post also reports, “[t]he firm also said that none of the work it has done for Trump’s companies is related to the work Berke will be doing for the committee and that no lawyer at the firm is working on any ‘Trump-affiliated matter.’” Unfortunately, this statement does not answer the questions I posed in my previous letter. Instead, it raises additional questions about what Mr. Berke will be working on and whether it is in the best interest of the American people to spend taxpayer dollars on Mr. Berke’s services. To ensure taxpayer dollars will not be wasted paying a partner at a New York City law firm for work that could be done by your committee staff, please answer the following questions:- Since Mr. Berke will be working in his “personal capacity,” how many hours a week does he plan to spend engaged in official committee business?
- Will Mr. Berke be operating out of his home during the time he works on committee business or will he have an office on Capitol Hill?
- Mr. Berke’s prior news articles and reports for the Brookings Institution are about impeaching the president and the president obstructing justice. Will Mr. Berke work on committee business unrelated to President Trump? For example, will Mr. Berke work on intellectual property and antitrust matters?
- What steps did you take to ensure there are no conflicts or the appearance of a conflict of interest with respect to Mr. Berke?
- Did you or your staff work with Kramer Levin staff and attorneys to vet the engagement of Mr. Berke? If so, please provide related documents and information.
- Over the course of Mr. Berke’s law practice at Kramer Levin, has he gained any special knowledge of the business of the Trump Organization or had access to any information related to the Trump Organization?
- Since Mr. Berke is working in his personal capacity, will he be paying for his own commuting expenses from New York City or will the committee be covering his travel expenses?
- Has Mr. Berke reduced his schedule at Kramer Levin to accommodate his public service to the committee?
- Kramer Levin praised Mr. Berke’s performance of public service. Will he be paid what other public servants are paid or will he be billing the committee hourly as is standard with law firm partners?