(The Center Square) – The Center Square reported in March that the Washington Attorney General’s Office had an active contract with Seattle-based private law firm Perkins Coie at the same time it defended the firm’s lawsuit via an amicus brief against President Donald Trump’s executive orders.
The Center Square has since learned through public records that the Washington AGO has nine additional active contracts with Perkins Coie. The contract’s range from $100,000 to $415,000. The purpose or scope of many of the contracts were redacted by the AGO Public Records Office.
On March 11, Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to block President Trump from implementing executive orders that barred the firm from future contracts with the federal government and revoked their security clearance. The firm has previously represented Hillary Clinton and was involved in the creation of a dossier containing claims related to ties between Trump and Russia that were later debunked.
The day after that lawsuit was filed, the Washington AGO filed an amicus brief to the court, which was also signed by 20 other state attorneys general, arguing that Trump’s actions were illegal and unconstitutional.
The brief noted that “Perkins Coie has filed lawsuits against Washington, one of the Amici States here, including challenges to the validity of our state laws.” Records obtained by the Center Square reveal that since 2012, Perkins Coie has been involved in 185 legal cases challenging a state law.
However, the brief did not mention any of the active contracts that the Washington AGO has with Perkins Coie.
When The Center Square reached out to the AGO for comment, Deputy Communications Manager Mike Faulk wrote that “the contracts are a matter of public record. They have no relevance or bearing on our interest in the president’s unconstitutional, politically motivated attacks on firms doing business with clients he holds grudges against. We have joined amicus briefs supporting every law firm targeted by this lawless president. We support them to defend the rule of law.”
When asked why the AGO did not mention the active contracts in the amicus brief, Faulk wrote that “the context should be obvious here: The president is punishing law firms for engaging with clients and causes he politically opposes. We’ve been on the same side and the opposite side with multiple law firms – that does not mean any of them should be subject to an unconstitutional, politically-motivated cudgel that ultimately harms the public’s ability to get counsel.”
When asked if the AGO had any communications with Perkins Coie about the amicus brief prior to filing it in court, Faulk wrote that “when our office files an amicus brief supporting a party, we routinely contact that party to let them know we will be filing and to consult about the filing deadlines and the litigation generally. We did the same here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that or out of the ordinary about it.”
