Yukos case: Robert Amsterdam's failed strategy

As the trial of fallen oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky begins anew in Russia, one name in particular keeps on surfacing again and again in its media coverage: Robert Amsterdam. Yet Amsterdam is not, contrary to what is often relayed in the media, Khodorkovsky’s lead lawyer in this affair (Vadim Kluvgant is).

Though Amsterdam is indeed one of Khodorkovsky’s legal representatives, he is not habilitated to represents Khodorkovsky in a Russian court of law. Amsterdam, however, is Khodorkovsky’s most ardent advocate on the international stage. In other words, Amsterdam is more of a lobbyist than a lawyer. Thereafter, the story becomes murkier, and more puzzling. Given the high political stakes involved in Khodorkovsky’s new trial and given Amsterdam’s out-of-trial grandstanding on this issue, it is truly worth wondering: Who is Robert Amsterdam?

Defending the oligarch

It is not an exaggeration to say that Amsterdam became famous because of Khodorkovsky and the Yukos affair. A high-school drop out, Amsterdam attended Carleton University in Ottawa – where he studied Marxism – and got his law degree from Queen’s University in 1978. After being admitted to the bar two years later, in 1980, he founded his own law firm with a friend, Dean Peroff (Amsterdam & Peroff in Toronto).

Amsterdam’s official biography on Amsterdam & Perroff’s website lists his 25-year experience as including “numerous international disputes” in countries “as diverse as Hungary, Nigeria, Venezuela and Guatemala” and “deeply experienced with politically sensitive cases.”

In July 2003, after an otherwise low-profile and fairly uneventful career as a Toronto-based lawyer, Amsterdam met Khodorkovsky through a “mutual friend” in Washington, DC. This is, in any event, the official version as described by Amsterdam in the media during Khodorkovsky’s first trial. At this meeting, Amsterdam agreed to counsel Khodorkovsky and soon thereafter flew to Moscow, where Khodorkovsky’s partner, Platon Lebedev, had been arrested by the Russian authorities.

When Khodorkovsky and Yukos themselsves were put on trial in 2004, Amsterdam assumed a prime role for himself, becoming Khodorkovsky’s legal counsel and, more importantly, his mouthpiece beyond Russia. Within Russia, of course, Amsterdam was of little help, since he had neither legal authority in the country nor detailed knowledge of Russian law. According to several Russian lawyers, Amsterdam was also not very diligent with paperwork.

The ways in which this lawyer could help was simply by propagating Khodorkovsky’s plight to the world, brandishing him as a victim of a newly authoritarian Russia. In other words, Amsterdam turned Khodorkovsky into a symbol.

This strategy did not work, however. One might even say that it backfired, by turning Khodorkovsky into a symbol of Western liberalism just as Russia was turning its back on the “liberal” and humiliating 1990s.

In any event, Khodorkovsky was eventually found guilty of fraud and sentenced to nine years in jail (later reduced to eight). Meanwhile, Amsterdam’s visa was revoked and he was thrown out of Russia.

Even with Khodorkovsky jailed several thousand kilometers from Moscow, Amsterdam went back to work defending his client. In a seemingly continuous world tour, he began producing a barrage of information in all forms of media outlets as well as academic seminars and political conferences. Since it was announced that Khodorkovsky will stand trial again, Amsterdam’s activities have redoubled, along with his internet footprint.

Methods

Old friends of Amsterdam remember him as a “fonfer”, a Yiddish term for one who talks through his nose. A fonfer is also someone who brays his opinion to the world and uses the force of emotion rather than logic or protocol to make his point. This is not an entirely negative trait for a lawyer. It is, however, an even better one for a lobbyist.

To begin with, Amsterdam & Peroff’s website has direct links to two of Amsterdam’s official blogs, www.corporateforeignpolicy.com and www.robertamsterdam.com. The eponymous blog, which consistently ranks among the top Google results made on Russia, was launched in English in 2006, and is now also available in French, Polish, German and Spanish.

These blogs, which are professionally run and prolific, post just about any negative article written on Russia. And there are many more blogs that can be traced back to Amsterdam.

Given the large number of Amsterdam-related blogs, the actual task of running them has been outsourced to K Social Media Consulting, a firm founded by James Kimer that is, according to its website, specialized in “media relations, social media campaigns, business and issues advocacy blog creation and maintanence [sic], content development, and corporate communications initiatives.”

It is worth noting that, through his blogging activities, particularly on sites devoted to Mikhail Khodorkovsky (www.letthemgonow.com, www.khodorkovsky.com, etc.), Amsterdam is almost certainly in breach of the Canadian Law Society’s Rules of Professional conduct as well as the Law Society of England and Wales. This is all the more blatant considering that the links to Amsterdam’s two major blogs are posted directly on his firm’s web page.

What is more, by frequently cutting and pasting non-public newspaper articles such as those from the Wall Street Journal, Amsterdam seems to be infringing copyright laws with impunity.

Most amazingly, Amsterdam’s biography on his own firm’s website states that Amsterdam is a member of the New York Bar Association (www.amsterdamandperoff.com/amsterdam.html). Yet Amsterdam is not a member of the New York bar. Such false representation is an unsettling form of fraud, particularly from a lawyer supposedly defending the rule of law around the world.

Using labels and stereotypes

Above all, Amsterdam’s strategy is based on labeling Khodorkovsky a victim of Russian authoritarianism and an advocate of free markets and political pluralism (Khodorkovsky was supposedly mounting an opposition force in parliament when he was arrested). The idea behind this strategy is, essentially, to rally Western support.

Whether Amsterdam’s tactic is a shrewd one is another question. Indeed, the more Amsterdam labels Khodorkovsky as a Western-oriented political businessman, the more likely it seems that Khodorkovsky will remain, within Russia, a scapegoat and thus be kept in jail. In other words, Western sympathy may be the last thing Khodorkovsky needs, in light of Russia’s desire to be an independent nation.

If Amsterdam’s aim is to propagate a negative image of “Putin’s Russia”, then his actions seem on target; if his aim is to free Khodorkovsky, which ought to be the case considering their contractual ties, Amsterdam’s actions are far less commendable.

In any event, branding Khodorkovsky as a free-trade, free-market entrepreneur and political free-thinker is not only a tactical mistake: it is a grave distortion of reality.

It is easy now for anyone who dislikes the Russian government to label Khodorkovsky a victim and brandish him as a symbol of Russia’s newfound authoritarianism. In reality, Khodorkovsky was one of the architects of Russia’s post-Soviet, mafia-dominated, capitalism from the beginning.

Who for example now remembers the role of Khodorkovsky’s giant bank, Menatep, in siphoning billions of dollars of Russian wealth into private coffers and concentrating state assets in the hands of a few oligarchs?

Or who now remembers the plight of Kennert Dart for example, an American capitalist who had invested massively in post-Soviet Russia only to be forced out by Khodorkovsky and his men in the late 1990s? Khodorkovsky’s strong-armed and illegal tactics to oust Dart from Yukos were anything but liberal or law-abiding (by contrast, Dart had settled his retreat from Sibneft amicably shortly before).

In reality, Khodorkovsky was, from the start, a corrupt and violent businessman linked to the brutal Russian underworld of the post-Soviet era. Yet this is the same man that Amsterdam is now defending and showcasing around the world as the quintessential liberal, tormented unjustly and imprisoned by an autocratic regime merely for his beliefs in free market and free speech.

In light of such a double-standard, the Khodorkovsky defense as designed by Amsterdam is hypocritical at best. At worst, it represents a significant contribution to the radicalization of Russia’s recent economic and political stance.

In the name of what or whom?

Amsterdam is therefore best described as a lobbyist rather than a lawyer. Since his strategy does not seem to be benefiting his client very much, it is worth wondering, then, what exactly Amsterdam is lobbying for, and on whose behalf.

Given Amsterdam’s activities and spotty past, there has been speculation that he is on the CIA or MI5 payroll. Given Amsterdam’s level of contacts worldwide and his strange background prior to 2003, this is a legitimate question. Such a direct link, however, seems unlikely: these agencies would be most in need of information on the Khodorkovsky trial, but Amsterdam’s knowledge on this is in fact quite limited.

Nevertheless, without actually being a salaried agent, one may speculate that, at the very least, Amsterdam gladly trades information with Western secret services – and indeed does much of the work for them, being a “one-man Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty”.

It is also strange and dubiously ethical for an international lawyer to live in a £ 3,000,000 London home at Cavendish Avenue that is owned by a BVI-based company, or to have his professional expenses routed through a Guernsey-based limited company, Corbiere Trust Company. Surely such a murky figure is not best-placed to defend one now accused of embezzlement and money laundering.

In the end, it seems that Amsterdam is lobbying for himself. After all, who has gained most from all the publicity surrounding the Khodorkovsky trials? Unknown before 2004, Amsterdam owes all of his notoriety from the Khodorkovsky affair.

Amsterdam’s job ought not to be self-publicity, however. Neither should it be an impassioned crusade against what he considers a rogue regime. Indeed, as a lawyer Amsterdam’s top priority should rather be to get his client released. So far, nothing demonstrates that Amsterdam’s actions have helped his client – quite the contrary.

Considering that Khodorkovsky is facing charges that could lead to more than 20 years in jail, Khodorkovsky himself should really be the first to wonder, who is Robert Amsterdam?