Case Document 174 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MAR 5 2020
,D'strictS. Bankruptcy
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $2333 forstho' District of Columbia
V.

Crim. No. 17-232 (EGS)
MICHAEL T. 

Defendant

 

 

ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties? joint stipulation addressing issues surrounding waiver
of the attorney-client privilege with respect to the defendant?s ineffective assistance of counsel
claims and authorizing disclosure of information, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant 
former counsel at Covington Burling, LLP (?Covington?), and any other person acting under
the direction of former counsel on the defendant?s behalf, shall take all actions reasonably
necessary to respond to defendant speci?c allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel
as set out in defendant?s motions, including defendant Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty
(Doc. 151, ?led January 14, 2020), Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion to Withdraw Plea of
Guilty (Doc. 153, ?led January 16, 2020), and Supplemental Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty
(Doc. I60, ?led January 29, 2020). Such actions shall include:

A. disclosing, as reasonably necessary, otherwise

con?dential or privileged information in communicating with

government counsel about Covington?s representation of defendant

as it relates to defendant speci?c allegations of
ineffective assistance;

B. providing to government counsel any relevant documents
in Covington?s possession that are reasonably necessary to respond
to defendant speci?c allegations of ineffective assistance of
counsel;

Case Document 174 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 3

C. providing a declaration or af?davit, as reasonably
necessary to address defendant speci?c allegations of
ineffective assistance;

D. testifying at any evidentiary hearing, if one is needed, as
reasonably necessary to respond to defendant speci?c
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.

It is further ORDERED that any interviews of Mr. former counsel shall be
conducted in the presence of a certi?ed court reporter; the government shall provide to
the defense a copy of the resulting transcriptions, as well as copies of all documents or records that
are produced by Covington, all materials used of potential witnesses, and any adopted
versions of declarations or af?davits created by or on behalf of a witness, as set forth in the joint
stipulation between the parties. All information produced by Covington to the government
pursuant to this Order shall be governed by the terms set forth in the parties? joint stipulation and
the previously-existing Protective Order and shall be deemed ?sensitive materials? until further
agreement by the parties or order of this Court. (Doc.22).

It is further ORDERED that the government?s use of any information provided by
Covington, and any other person acting on defendant behalf with former counsel in this
case, is solely limited to obtaining and providing to the Court a declaration, an af?davit or
testimony at an evidentiary hearing (if one is necessary) from these counsel, and any other person
acting at the direction of former counsel on defendant behalf in this case, in response to
the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in defendant motions to withdraw his guilty
plea, and to any further litigation on those motions, including any appeal of the Court?s ruling on
those motions, and any collateral attacks by defendant It may not be used by the
government in any other proceeding against Mr. 

It is further ORDERED that Covington shall consult Ethics Opinion 364 of the District of

Columbia Bar, Confidentiality Obligations When Former Client Makes Ine??ective Assistance of

Case Document 174 Filed 03/06/20 Page 3 of 3

Counsel Claim (Jan. 2013), for further guidance as to the scope of their ethical obligations in

responding to defendant allegations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge