David Boies's law firm

David Boies's law firm became a consequential part of the account of the Weinstein investigation because it was linked both to The New York Times and to efforts to impede its reporting. The conflict was not abstract: the firm helped execute a contract for an operation targeting the investigation even as it represented the newspaper in legal cases, and David Boies also intervened in The Weinstein Company’s handling of information about Harvey Weinstein.

Role in Company Oversight

In 2015, independent board member Lance Maerov sought access to Harvey Weinstein’s personnel file while considering whether Weinstein’s contract should be renewed. Weinstein refused, with David Boies backing him. Boies offered to review the file himself and report any potential legal problems to the board, rather than allow Maerov to inspect it directly. Maerov distrusted this arrangement: Boies appeared at different times to work for the company and for Weinstein, raising the concern that information damaging to Weinstein might not reach the board.

Maerov later received a brief, secret look at material from the file through Irwin Reiter and other executives. In subsequent contract negotiations, Weinstein agreed to a code of conduct, financial penalties that would rise with future settlements, and the possibility of termination for misconduct. But Maerov’s priority was protecting the company from liability, not guaranteeing that women would be safe from harassment. The arrangement thus treated potential misconduct chiefly as a risk to manage. Bob Weinstein, meanwhile, accepted a private promise that his brother would continue intensive therapy, after Boies discouraged putting that requirement in writing.

Connection to the Weinstein Response

By 2017, David Boies was involved in Weinstein’s response to the approaching New York Times story. At an emergency call with Weinstein and the company’s board, Boies told participants the article was coming and would be damaging. He described a range of settlements and argued against both defending Weinstein outright and terminating him, advocating instead for a united response. As the reporting advanced, Lisa Bloom was also in Weinstein’s circle: she sought a retainer from him, worked with a Black Cube agent, and met with Weinstein and Boies. The evidence places the firm’s leader within this response, while distinguishing those personal discussions from actions expressly attributed to the firm.

The Investigation and the Conflict

The firm’s most consequential institutional role concerned Black Cube. David Boies's law firm helped execute a contract for work intended to undermine The New York Times investigation, even though the firm was representing the newspaper in legal cases. David Boies said he believed that Black Cube would gather facts supporting Weinstein’s defense, and that he had not known of the firm’s underhanded tactics against journalists. He later expressed regret that he had not paid closer attention. The newspaper rejected the arrangement as unacceptable and fired the firm, calling its actions reprehensible.

The conflict was particularly striking because the operation sought information about reporters and their sources while the firm maintained a separate professional relationship with the paper they worked for. Jodi Kantor did not know that the apparently supportive messages she received were connected to an actor-agent hired to disrupt the investigation. Nor did she know of a connection to Boies. At Dean Baquet’s instruction, Kantor and Megan Twohey had declined requests to meet with the attorney; to them, he seemed peripheral to the reporting.

Significance

The firm’s role links two forms of institutional power: legal representation, which can shape access to information and the handling of corporate risk, and investigative work intended to influence what journalists can uncover. The 2015 personnel-file dispute showed how control of records could be concentrated in Weinstein’s hands, with Boies proposing to serve as intermediary. The later contract conflict showed that a law firm could also occupy incompatible professional positions at once. The New York Times’ decision to end its relationship with the firm made that conflict concrete, turning a concealed entanglement into a consequential break.