ShareThis Page

NY Times calls Weinstein lawyer conduct inexcusable

| Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2017, 6:42 p.m.
In this Jan. 8, 2017, file photo, Harvey Weinstein arrives at The Weinstein Company and Netflix Golden Globes afterparty in Beverly Hills, Calif.
Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP
In this Jan. 8, 2017, file photo, Harvey Weinstein arrives at The Weinstein Company and Netflix Golden Globes afterparty in Beverly Hills, Calif.

NEW YORK — The New York Times on Tuesday called it inexcusable that lawyer David Boies' firm tried to halt the newspaper's investigation into sexual harassment charges against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein while it was also working on other matters for the Times.

Boies disputed the Times' view that his work for Weinstein represented a conflict of interest. Still, he no longer works for Weinstein and said the task he completed for him was a mistake.

Boies, best known for representing Al Gore in the 2000 disputed election against George W. Bush, is the second prominent attorney to take heat for representing the man accused of being one of Hollywood's biggest sexual predators. Lisa Bloom, a prominent women's rights lawyer, quit representing Weinstein when the extent of the accusations against him became known.

The New Yorker magazine reported that Weinstein hired investigators to look into women accusing him of mistreatment, including Rose McGowan and Rosanna Arquette. Journalists pursuing the story, including Jodi Kantor of the Times and Ronan Farrow, author of Tuesday's New Yorker piece, were also investigated, the story said.

A spokeswoman for Weinstein did not immediately return a message seeking comment. He has characterized his contact with actresses as consensual.

The article said the law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner hired and paid one organization with a background in Israeli intelligence agencies at the same time it was representing the Times in a libel case.

“We consider this intolerable conduct, a grave betrayal of trust, and a breach of the basic professional standards that all lawyers are required to observe,” Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said. “It is inexcusable, and we will be pursuing appropriate remedies.”

She did not immediately discuss what those remedies might be, or whether Boies' firm was still doing work for the newspaper.

Boies, in a statement to his firm's employees on Tuesday, noted that his contract with the newspaper made clear that his firm might do work for clients in unrelated areas that were against the Times' interests.

He said Weinstein had told him that the Times was considering publishing a story alleging that the mogul had raped an actress. Boies said he would not defend him against these charges, and told him the only way the story could be stopped was to prove it was untrue.

Weinstein selected private investigators to try and do that, Boies said, and asked him to draft a contract with one such group. Boies said he now believes it was a mistake to do this for an investigative firm he did not know.

The New Yorker said some of the investigators misrepresented themselves in contact with their subjects, compiled personal and sexual histories on some, and left some of the targets feeling intimidated. Boies said he never would have drawn up the contract had he known what it would be used for.

“I would never knowingly participate in an effort to intimidate or silence women or anyone else,” he said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.