Photo of William Sokolove

William Sokolove

William Sokolove is an associate in the Congressional Investigations, Election and Political Law, and White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice Groups. He advises clients cooperating with and responding to high-profile investigations before Congress and the Department of Justice that entail significant legal and reputational risks. He is familiar with each phase of the investigatory process, including preparing for congressional hearings and responding to subpoenas and requests for documents.

William is an active member of the Firm’s LGBT+ Affinity Group and maintains a robust pro bono practice. He has significant experience litigating on behalf of tenants facing eviction.

Prior to joining the Firm, William was a law clerk on the Senate Judiciary Committee and worked on successful congressional and state attorney general campaigns.

Late last week, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability published the House of Representative’s “Authorization and Oversight Plans.” The massive 241-page report is required by the House rules, and the Oversight Committee’s report collects the individual oversight plans that each standing committee of the House is required to create at the start of a new Congress. The report is the most comprehensive collection of the committees’ plans for investigations in the coming Congress.

This year’s report reflects a significant shift in priorities, reflecting the change in control of the House to the Republicans. For example, the Oversight Plan speaks to expected oversight of the Administration’s alleged “collusion” with “Big Tech,” the “politicization” of the federal government, China’s interactions with the American economy and national security, and the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing prevention efforts. A repeated priority throughout the plans is seeking out and minimizing instances of “waste, fraud, and abuse” in government programs, which includes scrutinizing the recipients and use of government funds.

The plans of the four most active oversight committees—Oversight and Accountability, Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services—stand out in particular for their focus on the private sector and the way companies interact with the federal government. Other committees, including the Foreign Affairs Committee, have outlined ambitious oversight agendas as well. Of note, the Foreign Affairs Committee has added a Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability “to undertake more complex oversight and investigative activities,” including on issues related to China, the conflict in Ukraine, the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the origins of the pandemic. The Oversight Plan does not include the oversight objectives of the newly created House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, which we explored in a separate alert.

The following summarizes key portions of the Oversight Plan with implications for the private sector and other individuals and entities that routinely interface with government:Continue Reading Newly Published “Oversight Plan” Outlines the House’s Investigative Priorities

What happens in Arkansas does not stay in Arkansas.  Or at least not when federal prosecutors from the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section get involved.

A recent sentencing from Arkansas highlights the many options in DOJ’s toolkit to pursue “state-level” misconduct involving public officials.  In the case of former state senator Jeremy Hutchinson, DOJ obtained a “global” guilty plea for misconduct charged in three separate district courts.  The court sentenced Hutchinson to 46 months incarceration. 

According to the Government’s sentencing memorandum, Hutchinson accepted over $157,500 from the owner of an orthodontic clinic in exchange for advancing favorable legislation to deregulate the state dental industry.  The bribes masqueraded as payment for legal retainers, according to the Plea Agreement.  In addition, Hutchinson:

commingled campaign contributions and donations with his own personal funds and misappropriated and converted campaign funds for his own personal use, including, but not limited to, using campaign funds for a vacation, hotel stay, travel expenses, groceries, a gym membership, and jewelry.

Continue Reading Recent Arkansas Sentencing Highlights How Easily Federal Prosecutors Can Target State Campaign Finance Issues

Yesterday, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol filed a highly consequential brief in ongoing litigation relating to a subpoena seeking documents involving attorney John Eastman’s alleged participation in efforts to thwart Congress’s certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election.  Not surprisingly, the Select Committee’s

Every four years, prosecutors at the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) train their sights on money spent to influence the outcome of the presidential election—and those who spend it.  While the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has exclusive jurisdiction to penalize and enforce civil violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 52 U.S.C. § 30101 et