Did Latham & Watkins Really Lie To The Court To Get Hunter Biden's Personal Information Redacted From A Court Filing?

The Biglaw firm strongly denies any wrongdoing.

close up soft focus on telephone devices at office desk for customer service support conceptThe internet is all a-flutter with talk of how Biglaw firm Latham & Watkins, representing Hunter Biden, tried to pull a fast one on the court yesterday. That’s because U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika issued an order to show cause demanding the firm explain why they do not deserve to be sanctioned.

Apparently an amicus brief was filed in the U.S. v. Biden case, and defense counsel believes it contains Biden’s sensitive tax information that should be sealed. A Latham staff member, Jessica Bengels, the firm’s Director of Litigation Services, called the courthouse to get the material redacted or taken off the public docket. But here’s where things go pear-shaped. According to the court’s order, Bengels apparently “misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the Clerk’s Office to remove the amicus materials from the docket.” The court believes Bengels falsely claimed to work with the author of the amicus brief, Theodore Kittila of Halloran Farkas + Kittila, in order to get the sensitive information taken down.

But Latham strongly denies the allegations and chalks it up to, well, a game of telephone. In their letter to the court, they explain that Bengels is not a practicing attorney (though she’s barred in New York, she works as staff at the firm) and has not worked on the substance of the case at all. What’s more, the firm notes Bengels “represented her affiliation with Latham & Watkins LLP to the ECF Clerk with whom she spoke earlier today. Both her phone number and her affiliation with Latham also typically appears on Caller ID (which typically shows “LATHAM”).”

Indeed, Latham says that when asked substantive questions about the matter, Bengels couldn’t answer them without consulting with the attorneys on the case.

The ECF Clerk asked for more information about which specific materials should not have been filed on the public docket. Our Lit Services Staff Member did not immediately know the answer because she has had no involvement in this matter, other than occasional docket research. Because she did not know the answer to the ECF Clerk’s question, our Lit Services Staff Member indicated she would call the ECF Clerk back with more information. Shortly thereafter, and before getting a chance to call the ECF Clerk back, our Lit Services Staff Member received a call from a different employee of the Court. This second employee of the Court informed our Lit Services Staff Member that the filing had been removed from the Court’s docket.

And that just may be where the miscommunication arose:

We can only speculate how and when the misunderstanding occurred. We noted, however, that the Court employee who corresponded with Halloran (see Dkt. No. 8-1) is not the first ECF Clerk with whom our Lit Services Staff Member spoke. Our Lit Services Staff Member did not get the name of the second Court employee with whom she spoke.

Sponsored

In an affidavit, Bengels says she never misrepresented her firm on calls to the court: “I am completely confident that I never indicated that I was calling from Mr. Kittila’s firm or that I worked with him in any way.”

I am one of the first to say that attorney (or Biglaw Directors of Lit Services) can do misguided things. But in this instance, it is hard to imagine an administrative member of the staff with 18 years of experience at the firm is putting her career on the line for a lie that is easily discoverable. (And when caller ID probably gave it away from jump.)


Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.

Sponsored