After successfully representing a journalist in his fight for corporate compliance records, the Reporters Committee recently secured a settlement for attorneys fees from the U.S. Justice Department.
The May settlement brought closure to a five-year public records battle between the agency and reporter Dylan Tokar over the journalists efforts to shed light on the process by which government officials evaluate and appoint attorneys to serve as corporate watchdogs.
Five years ago, Tokar, who now covers corporate compliance and white-collar crime for The Wall Street Journal, sought records related to a federal oversight program that monitors companies alleged to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The federal law prohibits American firms from bribing members of foreign governments to advance their business interests. Firms investigated for potentially violating the law can skirt criminal conviction by entering into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, in which the firm agrees to pay for an independent monitor, appointed by the Justice Department, to investigate its practices for a set period of time.
Because these independent monitors often white-collar defense attorneys oversee companies for long periods of time, the positions are attractive to large law firms, as they bring in long-term, lucrative work. But the quiet interplay between top officials in the federal government and the small nexus of corporate attorneys likely to vy for these positions has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
And despite internal Justice Department guidelines meant to ensure a proper appointment process for monitors, questions about the role of the defendant corporation in the selection process have only added to concerns about the selection process integrity.
Tokars search for the Justice Department records sought to answer the central question of whether the agency has followed its guidelines to ensure a fair selection process for corporate monitorships. Among other revelations, Tokars reporting showed that the memos rules created a more rigorous selection process, but it did little to diversify the pool of candidates the Justice Department considered for the roles.
Diversity in the white collar bar is not great, but within the small cohort of lawyers who have served as FCPA monitors it is even worse, Tokar said. The information we obtained allowed us to raise questions about that lack of diversity, and to better hold the DOJ accountable for it.
Between 2004 and the summer of 2018, according to documents Reporters Committee attorneys helped Tokar obtain, the Justice Department selected 48 corporate monitors; only three were women and three were men of color. No women of color were chosen, records show.
These records shed light on a selection process that is shrouded in secrecy and that raise questions about potential conflicts of interest in the Justice Department, said Jennifer Nelson, the Reporters Committee staff attorney who litigated the case with assistance from the First Amendment Clinic at the University of Virginia Law School. The significant public interest in this information far outweighs any privacy concerns that white-collar corporate lawyers considered for these lucrative monitorships might have.
Tokar was a reporter for the trade publication Just Anti-Corruption when he filed two FOIA requests in 2015 seeking documents related to the selection process for corporate monitors, as well as any letters that objected to the release of such information. When the Justice Department failed to respond to his requests, Tokar filed his lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in December 2016.
While preparing its defense, the Justice Department produced for Tokar a chart, including some of the information he requested in his FOIA request, but with key information withheld. Tokar would later declare that he noted multiple errors in the chart.
When the Justice Department filed its summary judgment motion in the summer of 2017, it argued that it properly withheld private information, including the names of law firms that nominees for corporate monitorships worked for, as well as the names of the attorneys who were nominated for, but ultimately did not receive, corporate monitor positions. When making this argument, the agency relied on a 1984 case, Core v. U.S. Postal Service, in which a federal appellate court allowed the government to withhold the employment details of unsuccessful applicants for a postal service job. The public disclosure of the applicants job search, the court reasoned at the time, could prove detrimental, as it could alert workers present employers that they are seeking new jobs.
In response, Reporters Committee attorneys argued on Tokars behalf that unsuccessful nominees for corporate monitorships do not have the same privacy interests at stake that the postal workers did in the 1984 case, especially considering an overwhelming public interest in the question of whether the government acts with integrity, particularly when it runs agency programs that are alternatives to the judicial system. The accomplished corporate attorneys considered for corporate monitorships are not job applicants in the traditional sense of the term, the brief explains. Rather, they are members of law firms working on a number of cases at one time.
In fact, being nominated for multiple high-profile monitorships is likely to advance their careers and reputations, even when they are not ultimately selected for a position, Reporters Committee attorneys argued in the motion for summary judgment. Revealing their names simply does not implicate the same issues presented by the disclosure of information about unsuccessful job applicants who may have an interest in preventing their current employers from learning that they wanted to leave their jobs and had sought employment elsewhere.
The D.C. District Court ruled in March 2018 that the Justice Department was not allowed to redact the information it withheld on the basis of its Postal Service privacy argument, and that the agency was also wrong to have produced a bare-bones chart when it should have turned over the documents that Tokar requested.
Another round of filings followed in 2019. That year, on behalf of Tokar, Reporters Committee attorneys contested many of the remaining privacy-related redactions the Justice Department kept in the documents, despite the courts opinion in 2018. At the Courts urging, the organization negotiated the remaining redaction issues outside of the courtroom.
Faced with the relentless pace of the news cycle, it can feel like an exercise in futility to pursue a FOIA for information you might not obtain for years to come, Tokar said. I cant thank the RCFP enough for their willingness to take up that cause on behalf of reporters at news organizations that arent able to do it themselves.
The Reporters Committee has received the settlement fee and moved to dismiss the case.
The Reporters Committee regularly files friend-of-the-court briefs and its attorneys represent journalists and news organizations pro bono in court cases that involve First Amendment freedoms, the newsgathering rights of journalists and access to public information. Stay up-to-date on our work by signing up for our monthly newsletter and following us on Twitter or Instagram.
Photo by Tony Webster
Follow this link:
wraps up 5-year FOIA battle with Justice Department - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
- College sued for stopping students from handing out Constitution - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Argument preview: First Amendment protections for public employees subpoenaed testimony - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- China toughens environment law to target polluters - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- 1st Amendment - Laws - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- GBS205 Legal Environment -THE FIRST AMENDMENT - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Supreme Court Preview/Review #2 - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- ConLaw Class 26 - The First Amendment Speech II - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Scalia Ginsburg debate NSA and first amendment - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Political Correctness vs First Amendment - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- ConLaw Class 25 - The First Amendment -- Speech I - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- The First Amendment - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- [USA] First Amendment abused - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- Cliven Bundy and the First Amendment - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- First Amendment Tees Co. Inc. FAT-Tee Intro Video of who we are, and what we stand for - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- University Attacks First Amendment Costs $50,000 Plus - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- First Amendment Lawsuit After '8theist' Vanity Plate Denied, 'Baptist' Approved - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- How A Public Corruption Scandal Became A Fight Over Free Speech - April 28th, 2014 [April 28th, 2014]
- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group - Video - April 28th, 2014 [April 28th, 2014]
- MSNBC: Marjorie Dannenfelser Discusses SBA List First Amendment Case - Video - April 28th, 2014 [April 28th, 2014]
- United Church of Christ sues over North Carolina ban on same-sex marriage - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Federal judge: Delayed access to court records raises First Amendment concerns - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Justices Troubled By Their Earlier Ruling On Public Employee Speech Rights - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Judge Won't Stop Jason Patric from Using Son's Name for Advocacy Purposes - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- PBL in Journalism I, 2014 - Video - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- John Dukes on First Amendment - Video - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Were Sterlings First Amendment Rights Violated? Nope. - April 30th, 2014 [April 30th, 2014]
- Senate Dems vow vote to change Constitution, block campaign funding - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- What happened to Sterling was morally wrong - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Former Supreme Court Justice Wants to Amend the Constitution - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Donald Sterling is my HERO - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Retaining Government Power to Make Economic Policy for Internet Access: Role of the First Amendment - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- America was just defeated from within TODAY 4/29/2014 - Martial law is next - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Westfield Mayor to pay $53K in campaign sign violation case - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- ConLaw 1 Class 27 - The First Amendment - Free Exercise - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Bar Owner Prevails in Buck Foston First Amendment Trial - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Was Donald Sterling's First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated? - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- First Amendment common sense - May 2nd, 2014 [May 2nd, 2014]
- The First Amendment Doesn't Allow us to Silence Opposition; Get Rid of Limits on Political Speech - Video - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Save Us Chuck - First Amendment Zones - Video - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- HAROLD PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- In our opinion: Why government can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- In our opinion: Can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- Sen. Ed Markey proposes eliminating free speech - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- Alabama Chief Justice Stunning Legal Ignorance - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- Church Uses First Amendment Protections To Perform Same Sex Marriages - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- first amendment test filming Tucson FBI Headquarters. - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- "First Amendment ONLY for Christians," Says Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore - Video - May 5th, 2014 [May 5th, 2014]
- Endangered Speeches - Video - May 5th, 2014 [May 5th, 2014]
- First Amendment Monument Music Video by Daniel Brouse - Video - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- first amendment rights - Video - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- News media challenges ban on journalism drones - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT - Video - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- Letter: First Amendment rights trampled - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- News outlets say US drone ban breaches First Amendment - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Chucking the First Amendment: Schumers cranky scheme - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Screw the First Amendment | We cant let people pray? - Video - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Chief Justice: 1st Amendment Only Protects Christians - Video - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Inside the Classroom with Professor Leslie Kendrick - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- 2014 Civics Video Awards First Amendment - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- .First Amendment protects political speech, not profanity - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- Charles "Chip" Babcock on Campaign Finance and the First Amendment - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- A First Amendment attack on Assembly... in George Washington - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- SUPREME STUPIDITY Kills The First Amendment - RIP Separation of Church & State (1787-2014) - Video - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- FBI Agents Harass Photographer: First Amendment Test - Video - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- History Project: First Amendment. - Video - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- SDG&E Challenges The First Amendment and Loses - Video - May 11th, 2014 [May 11th, 2014]
- Richmond City Council Uses Tricks to Undermine First Amendment - Video - May 11th, 2014 [May 11th, 2014]
- Their opinion: Disagreeing on the First Amendment - May 12th, 2014 [May 12th, 2014]
- The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium - Video - May 12th, 2014 [May 12th, 2014]
- City Charter amendment passes 581-556 - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- David Allen Legal Tuesday: Flashing Automobile Lights and the First Amendment - Video - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- Senator Chuck Schumer is against the First Amendment then and now - Video - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- Facebook SUCKS! - Video - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- Dems threaten Kochs with a constitutional amendment - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- Reid backs campaign spending limit - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- Tennessee Boy Recites First Amendment Rights After Being Told to Put Away His Bible - Video - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- 'Shutup,' they explained Crippling the First Amendment - May 18th, 2014 [May 18th, 2014]
- Reid Seeks To Change First Amendment To Stop Koch Brothers - Video - May 18th, 2014 [May 18th, 2014]