Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has been accused of colluding with Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie on its federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, raising ethics concerns.

Emails obtained by The Center Square revealed that Brown’s Office gave the law firm advice on when and where to file the lawsuit against the Trump administration. Additionally, Brown directly collaborated with the law firm on an amicus brief filed in support of Perkins Coie, which had its security clearances and federal contracts revoked by President Trump via executive order.

One day after Perkins Coie filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration in March, Attorney General Brown led a coalition of 21 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie. Brown’s Office did not disclose its 10 active contracts with Perkins Coie in the court filing. An amicus brief, or “friend of the court,” is filed by a third party who has a special interest in the case and wants to influence the court’s decision.

Internal emails obtained by the outlet show that numerous AGOs and Perkins Coie attorneys communicated about the lawsuit and amicus brief before they were filed in court. 

In a March 9 email, Washington Solicitor General Noah Guzzo Purcell asked a Perkins Coie attorney for advice on how the AGO should write the amicus brief. This included any claims Perkins Coie intended to raise in their lawsuit and when the amicus brief needed to be filed. Additionally, Purcell also requested draft copies of the complaint and emergency relief papers that Perkins Coie may have possessed.

“I’ve always considered it a badge of honor to be a Perkins alum, and even more so now,” Purcell wrote in the email.

A Perkins Coie attorney responded in an email sent the same day, explaining that he had been in touch with Attorney General Nick Brown about the amicus brief. He stated that an attorney at the law firm would be “helping coordinate” with the AGO, the Center Square reported.

Emma Grunberg, Deputy Solicitor General for the AGO, received email copies of the law firm’s draft complaint from a Perkins Coie attorney on March 11, as well as a request for a temporary restraining order, which were requested by Grunberg who wrote: “We’ve recieved some questions from other states wanting to see the filing. Thanks so much and we are working on the amicus in support!”

On March 10, Grunberg wrote in an email sent to Purcell and several Perkins Coie attorneys about possible obstacles they may face in court from District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan for the District of Columbia. “Just to chime in, Judge Chutkan in the DOGE case in DDC denied a TRO because there wasn’t sufficient evidence of truly irreparable harm even though she thought there was a strong merits case,” she wrote. “It seems like (it) may be worth waiting a couple days for a hearing if there’s a greater chance of winning.”

On March 12, a Perkins Coie attorney emailed AG Brown and Purcell, writing, “great brief!”

The Center Square reported that the emails exchanged between the Washington AGO and Perkins Coie used the subject line “work producted, common interest privileged,” which the AGO used as a justification to deny the release of the emails. However, the records were released following threats of a lawsuit.

>Grunberg’s email and many others exchanged between the Washington AGO and Perkins Coie contained the subject line “work product, common interest privileged,” which was initially used by the AGO Public Records Office as justification to deny the release of those emails in their entirety. The records were eventually released unredacted after a lawsuit was threatened. An ethics complaint was filed shortly after the emails were released, but the complaint was dismissed by Kate Reynolds, the Executive Director of the Washington State Ethics Board, who directly reports to Purcell.
Pete Serrano, a former WA GOP candidate for attorney general who narrowly lost to Brown in November, said that the amicus brief collusion is “beyond concerning.”

“It begs the question of where the ethical lines should be drawn,” he told the outlet. “Personally, I draw it well before that. They’re giving advice to the people they’re contracting with. If it were the Silent Majority Foundation (a legal nonprofit run by Serrano), they wouldn’t be telling us how to stick the landing with another judge. I’ve had tons of firearms dealers say they’ve called the AGO asking for some information on how to interpret the law. AGO flatly refuses to do it. Why does Perkins Coie get preferential treatment?”

He added, “To me, that’s the most scandalous part of the story. It’s all done on the back of the taxpayer.”

Attorney General Brown wrote in a press release announcing that amicus brief filing that President Trump’s March 6 executive order against Perkins Coie is an attempt “to exclude certain lawyers and certain viewpoints from reaching a court of law at all…The American legal system depends on lawyers taking difficult cases and defending unpopular clients. The President’s illegal order is clearly meant to bully Perkins Coie and punish them for taking cases and clients he disagrees with.”

On May 2, federal DC Judge Beryl Howell ruled in favor of Perkins Coie, striking down President Trump’s executive order. Trump’s Department of Justice has not yet filed an appeal.

Attorney General Brown’s Office has defended its communications with Perkins Coie, with Deputy Communications Director Mike Faulk telling the outlet, “we’ve already told you that we were in touch with Perkins and that there was nothing unusual or inappropriate about it.”