Boies Schiller's Representation of The New York Times and the Conflict of Interest

Boies, Schiller & Flexner's Representation of The New York Times and the Conflict of Interest centered on a sharp collision between legal representation and a client’s journalistic work. The firm represented The New York Times in legal cases while helping Harvey Weinstein execute a contract intended to undermine the newspaper’s investigation of him. The resulting conflict was not merely a question of appearances: the firm was assisting the subject of a major investigation while its client was preparing to publish it.

Overlapping Roles

David Boies occupied positions in several connected disputes. In 2015, when board member Lance Maerov sought access to Weinstein’s personnel file, Weinstein refused and Boies supported the refusal, offering to inspect the file himself and report legal problems to the board. Maerov distrusted the arrangement because Boies sometimes appeared to be acting for the company and sometimes for Weinstein, leaving unclear whose interests would govern what the board learned. This episode did not itself establish the later conflict with The New York Times, but it showed how Boies’s roles could overlap around information potentially damaging to Weinstein.

The Investigation and the Firm’s Work

As The New York Times prepared its investigation, the firm helped carry out a contract to undermine the reporting. Jodi Kantor did not initially recognize the connection: in the summer of 2017, she took apparently supportive outreach at face value and did not know it came from an operative hired to sabotage the investigation and undercut women’s accounts. The firm’s involvement linked that effort to a law office that was also representing the newspaper in legal matters.

Boies later said he believed the best way for Weinstein to rebut critical reporting was to provide facts supporting his defense, and that he expected Black Cube to gather such information. He said he had not known about the firm’s underhanded tactics against journalists and regretted not paying closer attention. He also rejected the claim that the firm’s conduct amounted to a conflict of interest; The New York Times, by contrast, ended the firm’s representation and described its actions as reprehensible.

The Conflict Becomes Explicit

The strain surfaced inside The Weinstein Company as publication approached. At an emergency call with the company’s board, Boies reported that the Times story was imminent and likely to be damaging. He outlined the investigation’s conclusions, including eight to twelve settlements and the possibility that the number was higher, and urged the participants to present a united front rather than defend Weinstein or remove him outright. His role in briefing the board about the forthcoming report sharpened the contradiction: he was involved in managing Weinstein’s response even as his firm remained counsel to the newspaper preparing the story.

Significance and Limits

The relationship illustrates how a formal attorney-client connection can be compromised when a firm undertakes work for interests opposed to its client’s work. The episode also sits within a broader pattern of private control over consequential information: in a separate board dispute, Weinstein’s personnel file was withheld from Maerov, while Boies offered to review it and report back. These overlapping arrangements made the question of whom counsel served—and who could see damaging information—central to the conflict. The account records Boies’s explanation and denial, as well as the newspaper’s decision to sever the relationship; it does not present the two sides’ assessments as equivalent.