Speaking of Cleary, yesterday, La Nacion reported that the law firm has billed more than $400 million in fees to Argentina over the past decade, with its lead partner Jonathan Blackman charging $1,000/hour

Argentina Loses Again in the U.S. Supreme Court; La Nacion reports on Cleary Gottlieb’s billings

Post date : 11.04.2014 5:00 pm

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court batted down yet another delaying tactic by the government of Argentina – an attempt to challenge for the second time in the Supreme Court an arbitration award of $185 million in favor of British Gas that the Supreme Court reinstated in a decision in March, 2014.

This time Argentina sought Supreme Court review of the arbitration award on a new basis – alleged arbitrator bias. The Court refused to hear the case.

It should come as no surprise that Argentina has refused to pay British Gas, given the country’s track record of ignoring its bills.

But what’s more interesting about this case is that it was ever appealed in the first place.  This was a complete long shot with little chance of success, but Argentina’s lawyers at Cleary Gottlieb filed it anyway.

Speaking of Cleary, yesterday, La Nacion reported that the law firm has billed more than $400 million in fees to Argentina over the past decade, with its lead partner Jonathan Blackman charging $1,000/hour.

Experts have speculated on Cleary’s litigation strategies and on the quality of its advice to Argentina, including its recommendation that Argentina default on its debt, which is causing economic harm to the client.  Of late, Cleary’s advice to its clients – not just Argentina – has been put to the test. This summer, theAmerican Lawyer published an article that might shed some light on the matter.  The story reported on a “litigation slump” for Cleary and. reviewed a string of recent high profile losses by Cleary for its clients – including Argentina, Russia, and Google.

Last summer, Cleary was exposed for giving unusual advice to its client when the press revealed in to be “Law Firm 1” in the U.S. Justice Department investigation of BNP Paribas.  According to these reports, Cleary advised BNP Paribas that it might escape U.S. penalties if it routed Sudanese transactions through an unaffiliated U.S. bank.

While pointing these things out may seem gratuitous to some of our readers, we think it is important to continue raising questions about the role of Cleary and any responsibility it has in delaying a resolution and facilitating the toxic environment that exists between Argentina and its creditors.  These creditors have tried time and again to negotiate a settlement with Argentina’s leaders, only to be blocked at every turn.  Default and evasion has not been a good strategy for Argentina’s people, nor has it worked in the courtroom.  Law firms for both sides should be facilitators for dialogue and resolution, and Cleary needs to play its part.