The above excellent analysis left unspoken the issue that will be raised herein: That Sidley Austin, the "records retention" expert, knew all too well what their client sought from their services and responded, not to the nation's best interest, but to the particular needs of those in the White House who had determined beforehand a policy of withholding, losing, or otherwise preventing the inspection of certain records and communications.
In other words, Sidley Austin has something at risk besides its reputation.

Likely, WH and OVP had a similar "data retention" policy as Enron: When a signal was sent to "review compliance" with the policy, this was a direct order to destroy records, as was the case with Eron-Arthur Anderson.

Excellent point:

"knew all too well what their client sought from their services and responded, not to the nation's best interest, but to the particular needs of those in the White House who had determined beforehand a policy of withholding, losing, or otherwise preventing the inspection of certain records and communications."

A. What is the contract, agreement, and arrangement between the WH and outside counsel;

B. What legal and auditing standards did counsel know, or should have known were applicable;

C. When was it known, or should have been known to senior partners and supervisory counsel that there was a difference between [a] what the Law required; [b] what the contract terms agreed to (hence, and unlawful unenforceable contract); and [c] what was going on.

D. When the parties agreed to the arrangement, was it with the understanding that the services provided were for advisory; if so, did counsel, upon learning of the illegal violations of Hatch appropriately remove themselves; or did they attempt to mitigate the legal problems through some sort of oversight plan per the original contract terms;

E. When did counsel and supervisory counsel at law firm become aware that the [a] performance of the contract was not [b] consistent with the hatch act; and did they [c] exercise their responsibilities as supervisory counsel to adequately guide junior associates to resolve the non-compliance issues?

F. When did counsel learn, realize, or should they have realized that the intent of the advisory contract to the WH on data retention was not to comply with Hatch, but as it appears, counsel was allegedly complicit with an official or unofficial policy of "withholding, losing, or otherwise preventing the inspection of certain records and communications"

G. In the context of the Waxman letter to the VP, how was the above policy of "withholding, losing, or otherwise preventing the inspection of certain records and communications" promulgated, documented, briefed, understood, communicated, enacted?

H. Can Counsel show that their supervisory counsel are in full compliance with

DC Bar rules related to supervisory counsel? [See Rules 5.1, 5.2]

"requires lawyers with managerial authority within a firm to make reasonable efforts to establish internal policies and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm will conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/current/CRule_5.1.htm

1. Where is the evidence supervisory counsel in the WH, DoJ and outside counsel had "reasonably" established internal policies and procedures to comply with the Hatch Act?

2. To what extent were subordinate WH, EOP, OVP, GOP, and outside counsel reckless in not complying with DC Bar rule 5.2 applicable to subordinate attorneys, and failed to ensure the Hatch Act were fully met?

3. Did Management "authority letters" clearly promulgate who was in charge; or were they, as we have seen with DoJ US attys, vague and unclear on who was or was not capable of exercising supervision based on selective memory?

4. Did the policies, or lack thereoff, meet or not meet the reasonable standard expect of DC Counsel affiliated with WH, EOP, OVP, DoJ and outside counsel?

5. Where are the memoranda showing that counsel in OVP, EOP, GOP, DoJ, and outside counsel did meet this requirement under DC Bar rule 5.1?

6. Where are the training and documentation within Sidley Austin showing that partners knew or did not know the status of all contracts, programs, and other review procedures related to WH training, oversight, and WH IT Department compliance or non-compliance with the Hatch Act?

7. Where within Sidley Austin was it tracked the status of junior associates their ability or inability to independently oversee a training program for the WH and Sidley Austin personnel to fully comply and meet these requirements under 5.1?

8. How was it demonstrated to whom that "all" counsel related to the WH Hatch Act compliance procedures were in full compliance with these legal standards?

Recommendation

Read letter for other questions Waxman sent to VP which apply in this case: [See page 6 of 8 for relevant questions which could be adjusted to focus on this specific situation with outside counsel, auditors, and WH apparent policy of not retaining data as required]:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621093952.pdf
From:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1371

Leadership refusal to comply with the law.

Leadership refusal to respect the law.

Leadership being above the law.

Or just plain leadership BREAKING THE LAW! And destroying the evidence. And their refusal to understand why people can't just take their word that nothing illegal happened.

(see signing statements)

>>3. Meeting standards, not making excuses

Whether the policy was or was not enforced or complied with is meaningless when [a] that policy is weak; and [b] when the leadership determines that all actions -- regardless their legality -- will not be punished as long as they hide evidence of illegal activity. Enforcing and complying with a weak/meaningless policy -- which does not meet the legal requirements -- isn't a problem, but a symptom of the larger issue: Leadership refusal to comply with the law.<<

The letter sent yesterday from Henry Waxman to Dick Cheney
reads in part like an indictment and in part like an interrogatory.
This may lead somewhere.

One the giant law firms with offices around the world.
The breaking of the law by WH staff and others of the administration in such matters as document retention under the counsel and purview of it's Washington office must be of some concern to Sidley Austin's top management, understandably, as the seeds of ruin may be found in such affairs. A concerned management would likely have asked for reports from those of their staff who are most closely invoved, and failure to do this is irresponsible and culpable.

Here is an avenue of investigation for Congress, if it has not already been noted.

is not Brad Berenson a member of the firm Sidley Austin?
He is Ralston's attorney. How is it determined that there may be a conflict of interest in these matters? For example, Sidley Austin may be called on to give testimony as per above, and Brad Berenson, as well. Seems like a potential mess.
As it looks now, WH staff, Sidley Austin, and maybe others could all have their heads together. If Sidley Austin has possible liabilities, should not this be determined and the sooner the better? Can anything be done to head this off?
This tangling could work to the advantage of the guilty.