# Covington & Burling *Law firm that represented 3M on fluorochemical matters and later represented the State of Minnesota in its environmental suit against 3M.* Covington & Burling is a law firm that represented 3M on fluorochemical matters for more than twelve years, from 1992 to 2006. It later appeared for the State of [[Minnesota]] in the State's environmental suit against the same company.[^1][^2] A court disqualified the firm in October 2012. The Minnesota Supreme Court remanded the matter on April 30, 2014 for an inquiry into waiver. On February 5, 2016, the ruling on remand allowed the firm to continue, citing 3M's "extraordinarily long delay" in objecting.[^1][^2] Under a contingency arrangement reached in 2010, the firm received $125 million, approximately 14 percent of the recovery. The project's at-issue record states that recovery as $850 million.[^3] A member of the Minnesota House questioned the fee at a March 5, 2018 Ways and Means Committee hearing.[^3] ## Who Covington & Burling represented 3M on fluorochemical matters from 1992 to 2006.[^2] It then acted as outside counsel to the State against 3M, receiving $125 million of the recovery.[^1][^3] 3M separately sued the firm in federal court in *3M Company v. Covington & Burling LLP*, D. Minn. No. 0:12-cv-01800.[^4] ## What The Minnesota Supreme Court decided Nos. A12-1856 and A12-1867. It held that attorneys have independent standing to appeal a disqualification, rejected the Rule 1.9(a) analysis, and remanded for an inquiry into waiver.[^1] Judge John McShane ruled on remand. His ruling cited 3M's "extraordinarily long delay" in objecting. The same ruling found that Covington "received specific facts that are not only relevant to the case but which go to the core legal issues in the case."[^2] The firm's compensation was set under a contingency arrangement reached in 2010.[^3] The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's own accounting reports the $125 million fee together with $4.5 million reimbursing the agency's 2017 costs.[^5] ## When - 1992–2006: Covington represented 3M on fluorochemical matters.[^2] - 2010: The State and the firm reached the contingency arrangement.[^3] - Early 2011: 3M knew of the conflict.[^2] - April 2012: 3M objected to the firm's role.[^2] - October 2012: The firm was disqualified.[^2][^1] - April 30, 2014: The Minnesota Supreme Court issued its opinion and remanded the matter.[^1] - February 5, 2016: Judge McShane ruled on remand.[^2] - March 5, 2018: The House Ways and Means Committee hearing at which the fee was questioned.[^3] ## How much The firm received $125 million, approximately 14 percent of the recovery.[^3] The at-issue record gives the total as $850 million and the outside-counsel share as roughly 14 percent.[^3] The MPCA's accounting lists, alongside the fee, $4.5 million reimbursing the agency's 2017 costs.[^5] At the March 5, 2018 hearing, Representative Sarah Anderson said: "I'm just curious as to why we are paying a law firm $125 million for seven years of work."[^3] ## In the at-issue record The project's at-issue record carries one item on the firm, AI-Washington-012. It pairs the fee with the conflict ruling.[^3] According to the item, the firm had represented 3M for more than twelve years before switching sides and was disqualified in 2012.[^1] The item also states that the firm was reinstated in 2016 principally because 3M had waited too long to object. The same ruling found that the firm had received specific facts going to the core legal issues in the case.[^2] The record cited here does not show the outcome of 3M's separate federal suit against the firm.[^4] ## Notes [^1]: Minnesota Supreme Court, *Opinion in Nos. A12-1856 / A12-1867* (April 30, 2014) — attorneys have independent standing to appeal disqualification; Rule 1.9(a) analysis rejected; remanded for waiver inquiry. This is the primary record of the firm's conflict, its prior representation of 3M, and the 2012 disqualification. https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a12-1856.html [^2]: ABA Journal, *Despite conflict, Covington can represent Minnesota in major enviro suit* (2016) — Covington represented 3M on fluorochemical matters 1992–2006; 3M knew of the conflict by early 2011 and objected in April 2012; disqualified October 2012; Judge John McShane's February 5, 2016 ruling on remand citing 3M's "extraordinarily long delay" and finding the firm "received specific facts that are not only relevant to the case but which go to the core legal issues in the case." https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/despite_conflict_covington_can_represent_minnesota_in_major_enviro_suit_aga [^3]: Bloomberg Law, *Covington's $125M fee for 3M case a little steep, lawmaker* (2018) — $125 million fee, approximately 14 percent of the recovery, under a contingency arrangement reached in 2010; Rep. Sarah Anderson's remarks at the March 5, 2018 House Ways and Means Committee hearing. This is a source of at-issue item AI-Washington-012, which states the recovery as $850 million. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/covingtons-125m-fee-for-3m-case-a-little-steep-lawmaker [^4]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *3M Company v. Covington & Burling LLP*, No. 0:12-cv-01800 (docket) — 3M's separate suit against the firm. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7393017/3m-company-v-covington-burling-llp/ [^5]: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, *Accounting of Minnesota 3M PFAS actions* (2019, ASDWA-hosted) — $125 million fee plus $4.5 million reimbursing MPCA's 2017 costs. https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Krueger-MN-3M-PFAS-Actions.pdf