• Hawaii Rifle Association; California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated; and Gun Owners of California
  
• New Civil Liberties Alliance
  
• THE STATES OF LOUISIANA, ALABAMA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, GEORGIA, IDAHO, INDIANA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, MISSISSIPPI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TEXAS. UTAH, WEST VIRGINIA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
  
• National Rifle Association of America
  
• Professors of Second Amendment Law, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Cato Institute, Madison Society Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, and Independence Institute
  
• Hawaii Firearms Coalition
  

• Neal Goldfarb
  
• City and County of Honolulu, County of Kauai, and County of Maui in Support of Defendants-Appellees.
  
• Corpus Linguistics Professors and Experts as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees.
  
• States of New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and the District of Columbia
  
• SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AND PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCHERS
  
• State of California
  
• Everytown for Gun Safety
  
• Prosecutors Against Gun Violence
  
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
  

“I’ve worked with Bill for decades for two reasons: He delivers time and time again, and exemplifies the highest of ethical standards,” said Howard Meyers, the head of a global lead manufacturing company that hired Brewer to fend off bondholders in a multibillion-dollar bankruptcy fight.

But some former associates said Brewer sought to maximize fees at the expense of clients.

In interviews, 10 former employees said the Brewer firm pushed lawyers to generate big bills and encouraged “make-work” tasks.

“Bill was an excellent lawyer from a strategy and content standpoint,” said one lawyer who left the firm in the 1990s and, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution. But, the lawyer said, “we would do work that I considered clerical work” to meet the billing goals. “You can always find something more to do. It was a lot more expensive for the client.”

Michael J. Collins, a partner in Brewer’s firm, called that “a misinformed view of the way we manage the firm and its professionals,” adding that “all time charged to client matters is scrutinized internally for accuracy, transparency, and value.”

Brewer said his fees reflect the value of what he provides clients.

“Frankly, I’m disappointed some don’t always see the utility in the way in which we go through the process,” he said. “That’s generally not the clients.”

Methods under scrutiny
At times, Brewer’s process has led to eye-popping totals.

Over the years, his firm was paid $80 million for a wide variety of matters by the Wyly brothers, Texas entrepreneurs who made billions in computers, energy and retail, according to a family adviser.

When the brothers came under federal investigation for the use of offshore tax havens, Brewer urged them to fight the allegations, even as other wealthy figures settled similar cases by paying negotiated fines, according to people involved in the case and news reports at the time.

The Securities and Exchange Commission ultimately charged the Wylys with fraudulently hiding half a billion dollars.

After the death of Charles Wyly in 2011, the family parted ways with Brewer. The brothers were ordered to pay $198 million for tax fraud and Sam Wyly filed for bankruptcy protection. In 2016, he and his brother’s estate were ordered to pay $1.1 billion in back taxes and penalties.

A spokesman for the Wylys declined to comment, citing a pending federal settlement agreement.

Brewer defended his work for the family. “I thought we successfully represented the Wylys,” he said. “Some things turned out badly for them after I was no longer in charge.”

Brewer’s methods also drew scrutiny in a 2014 case in which he represented Titeflex, a pipe manufacturer that had been sued by the family of a young man who died in a house fire.

Texas state Judge Ruben Reyes found that Brewer’s firm hired pollsters to conduct a telephone “push poll” that provided misleading information to people involved in the case and could have tainted the trial.

“The Court finds Mr. Brewer’s conduct disrespectful to the judicial system,” the judge wrote in 2016, adding that it “falls in the category of misconduct which is highly prejudicial and inimical to a fair trial by an impartial jury.”

The judge ordered Brewer to attend 10 hours of remedial ethics classes and pay a $130,000 fine.

Brewer and a fellow lawyer who worked on the case said they were conducting a neutral survey to prepare for trial, not a push poll. Brewer’s lawyer, citing experts in survey research, argued that Brewer was using a widely accepted litigation tool.

Brewer appealed the decision, which was upheld and increased to $177,000. His second appeal is set to be heard by the Texas Supreme Court next month.

“I just think he was wrong,” Brewer said of the judge, adding that he is optimistic that the sanction will be reversed.

Titeflex ended up settling the case with the family and homeowners. Internally, company officials complained that Brewer delivered an unsatisfactory outcome while charging steep fees, according to three people familiar with the concerns.

Lyon, who represented the family that sued Titeflex, said Brewer would “send four lawyers to a deposition that one lawyer could easily handle.” A Titeflex official and the Brewer firm declined to comment on its fees.

In another case, a Texas court disqualified Brewer from a suit in which he represented an heir to the Texas billionaire H.L. Hunt suing his father, because Brewer was found to have represented the father. Brewer said in court papers that opposing counsel tried to push him out for “tactical” reasons, adding that his work helped resolve the case.

In September 2018, Brewer was reprimanded by a federal judge in Virginia after he did not disclose the Texas court sanction to a federal court in Virginia as he represented the NRA in a lawsuit with an insurance broker.

“These are very serious allegations,” U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady told Brewer before ejecting him from the case. “They’re findings of bad faith.”

Brewer told The Washington Post that he believed he disclosed what was necessary, noting that the matter is under appeal.

After he was removed, the NRA settled the case for undisclosed terms in November 2018, court records show.

'Draining NRA cash'
Late last year, NRA budget officers began warning about staggering legal bills from Brewer’s firm, according to people familiar with the communications. Since March 2018, his firm’s fees had routinely topped $1.5 million a month, according to internal documents.

In a Feb. 26 letter, North and board vice presidents Richard Childress and Carolyn Meadows told LaPierre that they believed Brewer’s retainer agreement was not properly executed and demanded that the NRA cease payments to him until they could discuss the matter.

“We have a fiduciary duty that needs to be urgently addressed, with you and if you wish, Mr. Brewer,” the three wrote in their letter, the contents of which were described to The Post.

Newtown massacre divided NRA leaders, foreshadowing split to come

Brewer moved quickly to demonstrate his value to the organization.

In internal presentations, the lawyer warned of impending legal threats that he said he was uniquely equipped to address, according to people familiar with the meetings.

He said the NRA could face significant criminal liability in an ongoing investigation of Russian gun activist Maria Butina, who had cultivated ties to the NRA, the people said, as well as exposure in congressional inquiries into Russian connections to the group.

Brewer, who is not a criminal lawyer, asserted in one March meeting that North could be implicated, according to one of the people.

Federal prosecutors had already told NRA lawyers that the organization and its officers were not under criminal investigation, according to the people familiar with the conversations.

Others familiar with Brewer’s presentations said they greatly inflated the legal risk, with one former prosecutor warning other NRA advisers that Brewer was a “charlatan.”

Brendan Sullivan, a longtime white-collar defense lawyer representing North, later called Brewer’s presentation something “a fifth grader might have put together,” according to people who heard his reaction. Sullivan declined to comment.

Brewer declined to address the substance of his meetings, saying they were privileged. But he said he did not think the other NRA lawyers addressed the legal and reputational risks the group faced, adding that they were “assuming away all of the problems that needed to be confronted.”

In March, North pushed the NRA to hire an outside auditor to examine Brewer’s bills, internal correspondence shows.

But LaPierre emailed Brewer to tell him to ignore the request, according to a message read to The Post.

“My office, not any member of the board, has the authority to hire and oversee legal counsel,” the NRA chief wrote in the email. “Your engagement is valid, is vital to the survival of the NRA and is well known to the entire board. Please keep up the good work and disregard this and other missives you may receive.”

LaPierre had been warning North to stop inquiring about the legal bills, saying he had a conflict of interest because of his financial relationship with Ackerman McQueen, according to internal documents. But North kept up the pressure. “The Brewer invoices are draining NRA cash at a mindboggling speed,” he and Childress wrote in an April letter to NRA officials obtained by The Post.

That month, the fight burst into the open.

On April 12, Brewer sued Ackerman McQueen on the NRA’s behalf, accusing the firm of concealing how it was spending money under its $40 million contract. The suit also questioned the propriety of North’s contract with NRA-TV and Ackerman McQueen, which North said LaPierre had authorized.

Then LaPierre took on North directly. On the eve of the organization’s convention in Indianapolis, he publicly released a letter to the board in which he claimed that the NRA president had tried to extort him by threatening to release a “devastating account” of the group’s financial status if LaPierre did not resign and drop the suit against Ackerman McQueen. LaPierre urged nominating committee members not to support North for another term, board members told their colleagues.

NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre, right, and Christopher Cox, then-chief lobbyist for the NRA, stand near an empty seat reserved NRA President Oliver North at the group’s annual meeting in Indianapolis in April. (Daniel Acker/Bloomberg)
North was forced to relinquish his post as president. As he did so, he warned that the NRA was in “a clear crisis.”

In court filings this summer, the former NRA president said that he was blocked by Brewer when he sought to learn more about the group’s finances.

“Each time that North raised concerns about potential financial misconduct and tried to retain professionals to correct any wrongdoing, North’s efforts were thwarted by LaPierre and Brewer,” his lawyers wrote.

Meadows, North’s successor, has defended Brewer in statements issued by his firm, saying her previous concerns have been assuaged.

“Bill and his team operate with openness and transparency,” Meadows said in a statement, adding: “I have never worked with an outside law firm that is more on call, attentive and positively in tune to the needs of their client.”

The NRA is now locked in legal battles on multiple fronts. Amid the turmoil, seven board members have resigned and some of the group’s top strategists and advisers have been pushed out, including Christopher Cox, an NRA lobbyist whom LaPierre long described as his heir apparent. The NRA chief has accused Cox of conspiring with North, a charge Cox denies.

Last month brought a new defenestration — this time of lawyers. LaPierre announced that the NRA was severing relations with Charles Cooper, its longtime Second Amendment defender. Michael Volkov, its outside lawyer who had been handling the Russia investigation, also resigned.

NRA shakes up legal team amid intensifying civil war

In a statement released by Brewer’s firm, the NRA chief accused the lawyers of being part of the conspiracy against him.

Cooper, who had represented the NRA for the past three decades, said he had always been loyal to the group, “not to any individual officers or directors of the organization.” Volkov declined to comment.

Meanwhile, the New York attorney general has issued subpoenas seeking records of LaPierre’s jet-setting lifestyle, including his efforts to buy a $6 million mansion with NRA money, and has sought information about why some of his spending was kept a secret from the NRA board, according to people familiar with the requests.

Meadows said in a statement that the NRA has offered to cooperate with the inquiry and called the claims of misspending “baseless allegations.”

In late August, New York investigators spent a day interviewing North. Among their questions, according to people familiar with the matter, were queries about Brewer’s fees and growing role in the NRA

Wow, awesome!  I hope you have great success with the filing.
It's insane that butterfly knives are even banned in the first place.

And working with Burton Richardson on this? The same Richardson who trained under Dan Inosanto? Really cool!  My JKD instructor was his student. Was great to meet him and talk story. That was probably around 20 years ago.