Miller Barondess Represents Former EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland in Landmark Legal Victory Against U.S. Government
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims heard compelling testimony at trial confirming the existence of an oral agreement between Sondland and former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo regarding the payment of Sondland's attorneys' fees arising from his testimony during the impeachment proceedings. Uncontradicted evidence at trial established that Sondland was denied any legal representation by the government in preparation for his historic, globally televised testimony.
The case, Sondland v. United States, Fed. Cl., No. 21-cv-2083, is significant as a rare example of the government being bound to an oral agreement. While the government can be held liable for an oral contract under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491), courts enforce such agreements only under very strict conditions and are generally reluctant to do so unless the facts are unusually compelling.
Testimony at trial further revealed that the State Department had no established policy for covering legal fees for diplomats or other employees testifying before Congress until Sondland asserted his claim. The government subsequently enacted a policy capping legal fees at $300 per hour with a 120-hour limit. However, Sondland's legal fees amounted to approximately $1.8 million due to the scope and international significance of the proceedings.
Following the trial and before closing arguments were scheduled, the government agreed to a seven-figure payment to settle Sondland's claims under the terms he originally proposed before trial. Judge Loren A. Smith stayed the case pending payment to Sondland.
"Ambassador Sondland simply sought to hold the government accountable for the clear and unequivocal commitments made to him by former Secretary of State Pompeo and other State Department officials," said Mark Barondess. He further added, "We clearly proved the facts alleged in our Complaint at trial, and Ambassador Sondland is very pleased that the government recognized that."
About Miller Barondess, LLP:
Miller Barondess, LLP is a Los Angeles-based law firm that specializes in litigation, including trial, arbitration, and appellate proceedings in California and nationwide. The firm represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a wide range of sectors, including private equity, securities, financial services, intellectual property, patents, licensing and branding, technology and cybersecurity, real estate, healthcare, entertainment and music, sports, consumer products, insurance, retail, environmental, and government. With a reputation for winning bet-the-company litigation, the firm is frequently engaged to resolve pivotal issues before trial, and other law firms bring in Miller Barondess when their clients need a trial or appellate team.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250401070747/en/
Contacts
Media: Mark A. BarondessMiller Barondess, LLP+1 310-552-7574mbarondess@millerbarondess.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
20 minutes ago
- The Verge
Sen. Amy Klobuchar calls for stricter AI deepfake laws.
Why should tech companies' profits rule over our rights to our own images and voices?... It is time for members of Congress to stand up for their constituents, stop currying favor with the tech companies and set the record straight.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Crockett on redistricting: Republicans ‘are cheaters all day, every day'
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) slammed GOP lawmakers in the Lone Star State for attempting to acquire five more House seats through mid-decade redistricting while applauding Democrats' retaliatory efforts in other states. 'The Republicans, they are cheaters all day, every day. But we have never tried to match their energy until now. And I applaud it,' Crockett said during a Tuesday appearance on CNN's 'The Source.' 'This is a dangerous road to travel down and I do applaud those in California that say, if you want to play with us, we will play back,' she said elsewhere in the interview, referring to California Democrats' push for their own redistricting plan. 'You can stop this right now if you just say, hey we will stop in Texas, because California doesn't go into play unless Texas does,' she added. Democratic legislators who fled Texas earlier this month made their way back to the state this week in preparation for Wednesday votes on the GOP redistricting proposal. Republicans backed by President Trump are aiming to add five House seats in Texas, as they seek to defend their narrow majority in Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. Crockett argued Tuesday the effort is a broader reflection of Republicans' repeated attempts to gain an edge in drawing political maps. 'If you will recall, when we look at North Carolina, as soon as they ended up with a Republican majority in that Supreme Court, what did they do? They decided to take their map from seven, which is pretty much what the state of North Carolina looks like, and instead they added an additional three seats for the Republicans,' the Texas Democrat told CNN. 'So now it's 10-4. Well, when you look at the voting, nothing looks like 10-4. And they only did that once the Republicans took control,' she added. Crockett has become a firebrand for Democrats in recent months, making regular cable news appearances to criticize the Trump administration and the president's MAGA allies in Congress. And she's amped up her criticism of the GOP over its redistricting efforts in her home state both in interviews and on social media in recent weeks. 'As a former Texas State Rep, let me be clear: LOCKING Rep. Nicole Collier inside the chamber is beyond outrageous,' Crockett wrote in a Monday post on X, referring to new Texas House rules requiring Democratic legislators to be shadowed by an escort to ensure a quorum for votes. 'Forcing elected officials to sign 'permission slips' and take police escorts to leave? That's not procedure. That's some old Jim Crow playbook,' she added.
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Texas's New Map Is Racial Division by Another Name
I represent the people of El Paso, Texas in the state legislature, a west Texas district that is a 14-hour drive away from the Louisiana border. Yet, data from the Texas Legislative Council indicates that the congressional lines Republicans are rushing through Austin manages to somehow knit 90% of the state's white voting power across that entire expanse—while slicing Latino and Black communities into pieces so small they have little power to choose their own representatives. Fueled by rapid Latino population growth, Texas has amassed new congressional seats. But these gains have not strengthened the political voice of the communities driving that growth. Instead, Texas Republicans have, in my view, used racial engineering to make sure Texans of color cannot meaningfully influence elections for Congress or the state legislature. Latinos now make up a larger share of Texas's 31 million population than in California, the state often considered the Latino capital of America. Texas also has more Black residents than Georgia, despite Georgia's reputation as a center of Black political power. Nearly 60% of Texans are people of color, and 95% of the state's population growth in the past decade has come from those communities. Despite this reality, Texas's new congressional lines position white voters to decide at least 26 of the state's 38 congressional seats—putting power in the hands of white voters by design, not accident. In another three districts, a 'Latino majority' exists only on paper: map-drawers split cohesive barrios, added high-turnout Anglo precincts, and minimized the share of voting-age Latino citizens, handing the keys to white voters in these districts as well. Together, the racially-engineered 26 white-majority seats—plus the three manufactured 'Latino' seats—is how the federal and state government openly conspired to gain additional Republican congressional seats. But the Trump Administration's ambitions come at the expense of Latino and Black Texans. Here's the blunt math on the Texas Republican proposal: under this map, my team and I estimate it would take roughly 445,000 white residents to secure one member of Congress, but about 1.4 million Latino residents and 2 million Black residents to secure the same. In effect, the political 'worth' of a Latino Texan is cut to one‑third of a white Texan's, and for Black Texans, to one‑fifth. On paper the districts are equal in population; in practice the map assigns unequal electoral weight across racial lines. This means that the value of one Latino resident's vote is worth just one-third the value of one white resident, and a black resident is one-fifth; it would take three Latino Texans, or five Black Texans, to equal the voting power of a single white Texan. Republicans insist this is just politics. But Texas has a long, well‑documented history of crossing the line from hardball politics to what I would define as unlawful racial engineering. In 2006, the Supreme Court threw out a South Texas district for unlawfully diluting Latino voting strength after a mid‑decade redraw. Federal courts found problems with parts of the state's 2011 maps, too. Texas operated under federal 'preclearance' for decades because of past discrimination. When Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 removed that guardrail, it invited states like Texas to test the limits—passing racially engineered maps that can stand for years while litigation drags on, yielding short-term gains of up to five additional U.S. House seats. Courts have recently required more Black opportunity districts in Alabama and allowed a second Black district to stand for now in Louisiana, underscoring that the Voting Rights Act still means something when states overreach. Texas, meanwhile, is moving in the opposite direction. Some Republicans argue that growing GOP support among a subset of Latino voters in Texas justifies these lines. But even if you accept their premise, the Voting Rights Act is about opportunity, not partisan outcomes—ensuring communities of color can form districts where they have a realistic chance to elect their preferred candidates, regardless of party. Here, the state is doing the opposite: cracking and packing Latino and Black neighborhoods to reduce the number of such districts. This potential racial engineering sidelines communities of color and ensures they cannot meaningfully influence elections for Congress or the state legislature. If this plan passes, Texas Latinos could become the most underrepresented racial or ethnic group in all 50 states. The level of under-representation in Texas's proposal far exceeds the disparities that courts already forced Alabama and Louisiana to correct. Maps like this do not merely entrench a party; they entrench a racial hierarchy. By cracking Latino barrios and Black neighborhoods, dismantling multi-racial districts, and fine-tuning the citizen-voting-age share to keep those communities just below the thresholds where they can elect their candidates of choice, the lines ensure white voting blocs remain decisive—even inside districts labeled 'Latino.' That is racial vote dilution: it denies Latino and Black Texans an equal opportunity to translate population into seats, and it teaches a generation that their ballots carry less electoral weight because of race, not ideas. A government that is not accountable to Latino and Black Texans teaches children early that their voices don't count. Their families, who pay taxes, work hard, and build this state, are told their votes will be discounted by design and that representation can be rationed by color. When districts are drawn to dilute their votes, the message is that citizenship is conditional and equal protection negotiable. That is the very struggle the civil rights movement sought to end: government may not target voters based on race and then claim neutrality at the ballot box. We have seen this before, from literacy tests to poll taxes—different tools, same result, keeping power just out of reach. A true democracy demands maps that make our government accountable to all of its people, not just the ones it prefers.
