'So You're Not Concerned?': Josh Hawley Grills Judicial Nominee About Her Work For Boeing And 3M

4 months ago

At today's Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) questioned judicial nominees about their records.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to the nominees. Thank you for being here.

00:05 Ms. Johnson, if I could just start with you. You work at a large corporate firm here in

00:13 town, I think. Is that right? Yes, Senator.

00:19 According to the materials you submitted, you have represented, among other clients,

00:22 the Boeing Company since 2013. Do I have that right?

00:26 That's correct. According to the same materials for much of

00:29 this representation, you served as the primary or the lead counsel for Boeing. Is that correct?

00:36 Is that litigation still ongoing? No, it is not.

00:40 There's a case in particular I want to ask you about. It's a case that featured breach

00:43 of contract claim, fraud claims, and trade secret claims by a company called Alabama

00:48 Aircraft Industries. They allege that Boeing stole proprietary information when the two

00:53 companies were working together on a joint bid for an Air Force contract.

00:57 Now a federal jury had already determined that Boeing owed this company $2.1 million

01:04 for violating the bidding contract and for breaching a nondisclosure agreement. Boeing

01:09 had previously in 2006 paid a $615 million settlement to DOJ to settle claims that it

01:17 had illegally obtained competitor's information with lucrative government contracts.

01:23 And as I'm sure you're aware, Boeing has been at the center of major, major concerns about

01:28 whistleblower retaliation, safety of its planes. In fact, we've heard testimony right here

01:31 in this committee about all of that. Here's what I'm getting at. Boeing has been -- Boeing

01:38 has engaged in corporate behavior in a pattern going back years now that, shall we say, is

01:43 less than model. Do you have any thoughts about your representation

01:47 in this company, any regrets, any concerns?

01:52 In my work as an advocate, I have been duty-bound to zealously advocate for my client's best

01:59 interests and that is what I have done. As a neutral judge, I am very mindful that my

02:05 role instead would be to apply faithfully and impartially the law to the specific facts

02:12 that appear before me and that is what I would do.

02:15 No moral qualms at all?

02:18 I believe that it has always been a strength of mine to be able to see the shared humanity

02:27 in every one of my clients, no matter the issue, and I understand that as a judge, my

02:32 role would be to fairly and impartially apply the law, no matter the parties or the issue

02:38 that was before me, and that is what I would do.

02:41 Well, shared humanity. This is a corporation, though, isn't it? It's one of the biggest

02:44 corporations in the world.

02:45 It is.

02:46 And one of the most profitable corporations in the world. I assume you chose to represent

02:53 them voluntarily, right? You weren't forced to represent Boeing.

02:57 It was the case I was assigned to at my firm.

02:59 But you continued to do it. You served as lead counsel, I thought. There's multiple

03:03 pieces of litigation in which you served as primary lead counsel for Boeing, correct?

03:09 There are multiple Boeing matters that I've handled.

03:11 Okay, let me ask you about a different corporation that you've represented. The 3M Corporation,

03:16 a huge multinational conglomerate. In this case, the plaintiff was an individual named

03:21 Jonathan Vaughn. He was an Iraq war veteran. He alleged that he'd suffered hearing loss

03:25 stemming from his use of defective earplugs manufactured by your client. Vaughn was awarded

03:31 $2.2 million in that case.

03:33 Here's a report from the case. The jury decided that 3M's earplugs were to blame for his current

03:37 hearing impairment, while also determining the earplugs were unreasonably dangerous,

03:42 according to the verdict form. 3M misrepresented the quality of the earplugs and was negligent

03:48 in their design. The report goes on to note that at the time of this verdict, this was

03:52 the ninth of 15 cases against 3M to go against them in litigation over these earplugs. Any

04:03 conclusions or reflections on your involvement in that case?

04:06 Senator, I've had a varied practice handling cases that span the spectrum of legal issues,

04:12 and representing a wide range of parties throughout my career. And I believe that the litigation

04:20 matters and the variation in the work that I have done has given me a very strong and

04:24 versatile litigation skill set and a comfort in the courtroom that would serve me well

04:28 were I to be confirmed to be a judge on the D.C. Supreme Court.

04:31 Okay, so you're not concerned is what I take from it. I mean, you don't have any regrets

04:34 about representing either of these corporations in these various matters?

04:39 I believe that I have had a strong litigation practice throughout my career.

04:45 Well, I heard that part, but I'm just asking if you have any regrets, if you have any qualms.

04:49 It sounds like you don't, which is fine. I just want to - I mean, obviously you're a

04:52 very talented person. You've done terrific work. You were made partner at a very early

04:57 age, so you have a lot of skill. I'm just trying to figure out why you've chosen to

05:03 use it for these particular clients.

05:07 I do not have regrets about my career. I believe that I have developed a strong litigation

05:12 skill set that would serve me well as a judge.

05:16 Okay, fair enough, fair enough. I have concerns, obviously. I don't love the representation.

05:23 You know, these big corporate clients, these huge corporations, they've got so much influence

05:29 in this capital. They've got so much influence in our economy. They've got probably every

05:35 law firm in America lined up to represent them.

05:38 And I just think sometimes we've got to ask ourselves, I mean, do these people doing these

05:44 kind of things, ripping off people like Jonathan Vaughn, I mean, do they really need our representation?

05:49 Obviously every client's entitled to a vigorous defense, sure. But we still have to ask ourselves

05:54 - I'm an attorney myself. We still have to ask ourselves as attorneys, should we be representing

05:58 them? I mean, do we want to do that?

06:00 Obviously it's your judgment, so it's - I'm not suggesting you've done anything wrong.

06:03 I mean, it's 100% your judgment and you did your job well. But I have to say, it concerns

06:09 me a little bit.

06:10 I'm almost out of time. Mr. McKenzie, I just want to ask you one thing really quickly here

06:13 before my time expires. You wrote a letter in 2021 asking then Vice President Pence to

06:24 invoke the 25th Amendment. I just want to quote you to make sure I get this right. You

06:28 asked - that's the removal from office provision, the unfitness from office provision of the

06:32 Constitution. So you urged then VP Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment against then President

06:37 Trump to declare to the leaders of Congress that the President's unable to discharge the

06:42 powers and duties of his office. You went on to say that then President Trump was unfit

06:46 for office and a reckless and wanton threat to the Constitution. Does that still reflect

06:51 your views?

06:52 Senator, I do want to correct the record. I didn't write the letter. I, along with hundreds

07:01 of other folks, signed on to the letter because we were concerned about the events of January

07:06 6th.

07:07 Okay. You signed the letter, though.

07:09 Absolutely.

07:10 Does it - and does that still represent your views?

07:15 I signed the letter, Senator. I was concerned about January 6th.

07:18 Yeah. And you haven't changed your view at all that the ex-President is unfit for office,

07:23 reckless and wanton threat to the Constitution?

07:26 Under the Judicial Code of Ethics, if that matter were to come before me, it would be

07:31 inappropriate for me to state my position at this time. So I'm precluded from stating

07:36 that position.

07:37 Well, you - I'm just trying to figure out if your view's changed. I think you've answered

07:42 my question. I think your answer is you stand by it. You signed it. You stand by it. Is

07:47 that fair to say? I'm not trying to get how you rule on a case. I'm just trying to figure

07:52 out - you signed a letter. I just want to make sure that you haven't changed your views.

07:55 I think you've answered my question. I think you said you stand by it. Don't let me put

07:58 words in your mouth, but is that correct? You signed it. You stand by it. Is that fair

08:02 to say?

08:03 It is correct that I signed the letter.

08:04 Okay. We'll leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

'So You're Not Concerned?': Josh Hawley Grills Judicial Nominee About Her Work For Boeing And 3M

Category

Transcript

Recommended