It looks like we're going to keep hearing about Kevin Morris, a "sugar brother," friend, and lawyer to Hunter Biden. Earlier this week, the transcript was released of an interview he gave on January 18 with House committees investigating Hunter. Morris has loaned Hunter millions, within weeks of meeting him. He even did so before promissary notes were in place. The drama continues, though. As Mike Miller at our sister site of RedState highlighted, law professor Jonathan Turley is concerned as well, to the point that Morris has even threatened to sue him.
Turley published a blog post on Friday, "The Curious Ethical Case of Kevin Morris," in which he explains:
On Wednesday, I received a letter from Bryan M. Sullivan, a partner at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, who is the lawyer of Kevin Morris (who is the lawyer for Hunter Biden). The letter warns that I could face a defamation action if I do not retract (or if I repeat) my criticism of Morris’s representational relationship with Hunter. Putting the personal invectives aside, Sullivan did offer a couple of details on the possible defense of Morris in a pending ethics complaint brought by a conservative legal group.
Roughly a year ago, I wrote a column discussing how Morris and others reportedly met to plan out a scorched earth strategy to attack and threaten critics. The Washington Post reported that the discussion included targeting or threatening critics with defamation lawsuits.
In his letter, Sullivan attacks my reference to ethics rules as unworthy of a professor as well as “blatantly misleading and just bad lawyering.” That tirade about my lack of knowledge and principles is followed by a demand for an immediate retraction and adds “if you repeat your baseless charges, you understand that accusing someone of violating the law is defamation per se.”
I will not issue a retraction despite the threats of Morris and Sullivan. I did, however, publish another column repeating my objections to Morris’s blurry representational claims.
The effort in such threats is to silence or chill critics in their criticism of a wealthy, powerful public figure like Mr. Morris.
Recommended
"The letter was triggered by my column in The Hill in which I criticized Morris for maintaining an array of alleged different roles while serving as counsel. Notably, the letter does not appear to deny the roles, but focuses on a brief reference to the general rule against paying personal costs of clients," Turley noted, as he then proceeded to explain and rebut the claims from Morris' attorneys, using California Bar Rule 1.85.
"If reports are accurate, Morris is alleged to have given Hunter millions for taxes and expenses. It is not clear what representation would generate millions to repay such money as a loan," Turley's blog post reads at one point about the loans.
Another point of interest is that Morris also purchased Skaneateles, LLC from Hunter, giving Morris a 10 percent stake in Chinese backed investment fund, BHR Partners. He made the purchase even though he couldn't say what it is that Skaneateles, LLC does.
As Turley put his concerns:
Finally, the transcript refers to Morris investing or assuming interest in entities associated with Hunter’s foreign partners or businesses. It is not clear what financial interest Morris assumed with regard to any real property owned by Hunter. I specifically asked Sullivan about such transactions. These business interests appear to have arisen after Morris delved into his client’s finances as his counsel. His client was in obvious financial distress at the time. It is important to determine if Morris assumed interest or purchased assets due to his knowledge of Hunter’s past dealings.
Again, there is a telling exchange with Morris of his ownership of 10% of Bohai Harvest RST LLC (BHR), through his acquisition of interest in Skaneateles LLC. Those are business interests associated with Hunter Biden...
In highlighting this part of the transcript, Turley points to "the apparent confusion of Morris in his knowledge and claims of privilege."
It's worth noting that another takeaway from Morris' transcript is that he and his attorneys claimed privilege throughout the testimony, even where it was not apparent how that would apply, befuddling counsel asking the questions and members of Congress who were present for the testimony.
Kevin Morris had minimal knowledge of what Skaneateles, LLC does as a company, yet he admitted that he purchased the company from Hunter Biden and that it owns a stake in Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). pic.twitter.com/vT8HKcItLA
— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) January 23, 2024
Turley sums up his points well in the summary of his column, which reads in part:
In the end, we are left with more questions than answers, even after Morris’s long deposition. The six basic questions on the applicability of claimed exceptions for payments or loans to clients may have clarified some of these points. However, Sullivan refused to answer and accused me of trying to trick him and his client. He objected that I was “clearly engaging in that old trick to pry into alternative matters and misconstrue my letter, which we will ignore.”
There is no trick — new or old. Mr. Sullivan is contesting the application of the cited rule to his client. There is a general rule stating lawyers “shall not” pay personal expenses as quoted in the column. California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) (“[a] lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay, guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer’s law firm will pay the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client.”). There are exceptions, but I fail to see how they would cover Morris’s payments or loans. Indeed, the applicability of exceptions requires underlying conditions that could add to the concerns for some of us on the multifaceted relationship between Morris and Biden.
The assertion of Sullivan and Morris that any of this is defamation is itself unsettling. They are now suggesting that exceptions to a general rule against paying personal costs of clients are applicable to these payments. I disagree. While his public figure standing under New York Times v. Sullivan requires satisfaction of the actual malice standard, that higher standard is not necessary to discard this claim. This is an interpretative disagreement in a matter of great public interest and columnists are allowed to express their opinions on Morris’s conduct.
The original column only made passing reference to this rule, but the threat has allowed for a more comprehensive discussion of the rule and possible counter arguments. For those who might be targeted next by such letters from Sullivan or Morris, I hope that this analysis will reinforce your own position in discussing these issues. Morris would be better served by offering answers rather than threatening lawsuits.
Obviously, as we learn more, this will be an ongoing discussion on the ethics of this relationship. This is an issue that has come up in practice for many of us under different variations of this rule. However, given our California lawyers who are regulars on this blog, I look forward to discussing these issues further in whether Morris’s relationship is consistent and compliant with California bar rules.
Turley provides legal expertise not just as a professor, but as one who blogs, writes columns for many different outlets, and provides legal commentary on Fox News. As Miller put it, "Morris and his attorney threatened the wrong guy — a guy who always seems to do his homework."
And, let's not forget how Turley has also been called upon when it comes to the Biden crime family, as he provided testimony last September before the House Oversight Committee when considering opening an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.
The House Oversight Committee has also heard from others tied to the Biden family, including Mervyn Yan, with the transcript of that interview expected to come soon. The Committee will also interview Rob Walker.
Hunter Biden himself will appear for a deposition on February 28, after a deal struck with the House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and his attorney, Abbe Lowell, after Lowell called for the chairmen to reissue the subpoenas for Hunter that he had defied when he was supposed to appear for on December 13, and was facing contempt for such defiance.
🚨BREAKING🚨
— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) January 25, 2024
Today, we interviewed Mervyn Yan, a Biden family associate affiliated with the Bidens’ dealings with the Chinese government linked energy firm, CEFC.
Mervyn Yan admitted on the record the Bidens had no experience in the energy and infrastructure sectors and was not…
Join the conversation as a VIP Member