Is it a Conflict of Interest if...?

In the strictest sense of the word, not, because Holder has divested himself of his equity interest in the firm and will not personally profit from the firm's work. He is therefore not profiting personally from what's going on. Technically, it's no longer "his" law firm.

In the practical sense, it's much like you suspect -- his former firm will profit immensely and if he wants to go back there when he is done serving as the AG, he will surely be rewarded for remembering his old friends.

As for the venue, that's not something I think he has much control over. The Constitution requires that a criminal trial take place in the venue where the crime took place. So he has a choice of New York or D.C. -- it just plain couldn't be held in, say, Las Vegas or Chicago or San Francisco. And it can't be held at Guantanamo Bay, either.

Whether the payback is why Holder opted for a civilian court rather than a military tribunal is unclear. There would have been nothing stopping his firm from representing the defendants before a military tribunal, so I don't see a link between the money and the choice of court. A theory that I think is more likely is that he believes there is political advantage to be gained by trying the terrorism defendants in a PUBLIC court, and that's not something a military tribunal does. The political advantage he thinks he'll get will be 1) domestic, by letting the defense trot out evidence about the torture of the defendants authorized by the previous administration, and 2) diplomatic, by trying to make us look good in front of the rest of the world to show how fair we are.

Of course, if he'd been executing this maneuver with competence, he'd not have also told the Senate that the result doesn't matter and we're just going to keep these guys in prison anyway. That makes these things show trials, which is (IMO) a quantum level more objectionable than the implied monetary exchange.

It raises questions, but unlikely any of significance. The only potential conflict would be if Holder himself, or those working on his behalf, had chosen the firm. Even then, a conflict wouldn't necessarily exist since Holder, as the Attorney General, is no longer with Covington & Burling. Money received by an LLP is distributed among active partners. (Unlike a corporation, like Halliburton, where the profit belongs to the entity and therefore to Dick Cheney as a shareholder after he leaves office, in a partnership, past and future partners do not generally partake in the profits.) Holder may or may not have defined benefits resulting from leaving, but they would be unaffected by the firm's work in this case.

Regardless, a defense law firm is not chosen by the Justice Department. It is chosen by the Defendants or the Courts, neither of which Holder controls. It is no coincidence Covington got these cases. It is among the top firms in the nation and perhaps the most equipped to handle this sort of case, partly because of their former relationship with the current Attorney General.Further, Holder worked for them partly because they were a firm of the stature that would likely get this type of case.

It is a potential conflict worth looking into, but I don't see it as in any way likely to be a genuine conflict.

Is it the reason why? Who knows. Was it a contributory factor? Almost certainly. Is it a conflict of interest? I think the NY legal ethics board would likely find it to be so.

However, the point is moot. Obama knew Holders pro-terrorist views and connections when he appointed him AG to begin with. Holder and his firm were active in the the legal arguments that led to the release of - among others - Said Ali al-Shihri, who was released as "no longer a threat" and is now issuing press releases from his new position as #2 of Al-Qaida in Yemen, and Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, who, shortly after his release from Gitmo, carried out a suicide bombing in Mosul.

The release of both men was vehemently opposed by the CIA and by counter-terrorism experts who claimed they were both a threat, but Holders law firm successfully argued that they were not.

Richard

conflict of pastime is a felony term. It has no longer something to do with Christianity and is not any longer reported whilst quickly as interior the Bible. what's reported are the ten commandments. Writing erotica may well be a sin against purity.

First, Holder is no longer a partner at Covington & Burling. Second, how exactly is anyone going to make a bundle on representing terrorists? Third, KSM is talking about representing himself.

Since the firm will make millions regardless of whether they win the case or lose it, how does it constitute a conflict of interest?

How do they stand to make millions?