Zainab Ahmad, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and a former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor, has denied having a conflict of interest in defense of a man accused of hacking emails on behalf of Qatar by a former fundraiser for Donald Trump. The case involves the defense of Kevin Chalker and his company, Global Risk Advisors, in a lawsuit brought by Elliott Broidy, who pleaded guilty to an unrelated lobbying charge in October 2020. Broidy alleged that Ahmad had a conflict of interest because she had investigated the alleged hacking while working for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. In August, Gibson Dunn withdrew from the defense of Chalker and his company, leading to speculation about a possible conflict of interest.
In a hearing last October, U.S. District Judge Mary Vyskocil, overseeing the case, expressed skepticism about Gibson Dunn’s withdrawal and allowed Broidy to move to sanction the firm. Gibson Dunn has now filed a motion urging Vyskocil to deny that motion, arguing that the firm acted in good faith and had no conflict of interest.
Ahmad stated in a sworn declaration that she was not involved in any investigation into Broidy and never learned confidential information regarding any issue relevant to the pending litigation. Gibson Dunn said that Chalker and his company decided to go with a different firm for their defense, not because of any purported conflict of interest but purely based on their business interests.
Broidy’s lawsuit alleged that Qatar’s government hired Global Risk Advisors to hack his emails, some of which were leaked to the media. Qatar, Chalker, and the company have all denied his claims. In a Feb. 23 motion for sanctions, Broidy’s lawyers argued that Gibson Dunn should pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees they incurred for investigating and prosecuting the potential conflict.
Find your perfect match and submit your resume to BCG Attorney Search now.
The case raises important questions about conflicts of interest in legal defense work and the role of former government prosecutors in private practice. Ahmad’s previous work for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election, has drawn scrutiny from Broidy’s lawyers and Judge Vyskocil. However, Ahmad’s declaration suggests that she did not work on any investigation involving Broidy or the alleged hacking of his emails.
The case also highlights the challenges of representing clients accused of cyber crimes, mainly when those clients are based overseas. Cybercrime is a rapidly evolving area of law, and lawyers must stay up-to-date on the latest developments in technology and cybersecurity to provide effective representation. Additionally, clients accused of cyber crimes may face unique legal challenges, such as difficulty obtaining evidence from foreign governments or navigating complex extradition laws.
Overall, the case underscores the importance of ethical conduct in the legal profession and the need for lawyers to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. While Ahmad has denied any conflict, the fact that Gibson Dunn withdrew from the case has raised questions about the firm’s motives and led to accusations of wrongdoing. As the case unfolds, it will be interesting to see how Judge Vyskocil rules on Broidy’s motion for sanctions and whether Gibson Dunn will face any further consequences.
