United States: Press Release: John Payton Elected D.C. Bar President

Washington, D.C. -- June 12, 2000 -- John Payton, a partner at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and a former Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, was voted in as president-elect of the D.C. Bar on June 9, 2000. Mr. Payton, co-chair of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering's Litigation Practice Group, defeated Carol Elder Bruce, a partner at Tighe, Patton & Babbin. Mr. Payton will succeed John Nields, Jr. of Howrey Simon Arnold & White in 2001.

As D.C. Bar President, one of Mr. Payton's primary goals will be to see that the D.C. Bar maintains its leadership role in balancing business necessities with the responsibilities of pro bono service and civic participation. Mr. Payton's own career reflects a deep personal commitment to a balance of corporate litigation and pro bono work. Mr. Payton commented: "It has always been important to me to work on matters that seek to improve the well being of my community."

William J. Perlstein, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering's Managing Partner, remarked: "We are extremely proud that John has joined three previous WCP D.C. Bar Presidents: WCP alumni, Louis F. Oberdorfer and James Robertson, both now Federal District Judges, and John Pickering, one of the Firm's founding partners. A great tradition continues."

Mr. Payton has a wide-ranging corporate litigation practice, including commercial matters, libel (including Internet-related libel), partnership matters, civil rights, and employment matters. He has handled a wide range of complex litigation for clients ranging from Fannie Mae to ABC News to the University of Michigan. He currently represents the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School in lawsuits that challenge its use of race in their admissions processes.

Throughout his career, Mr. Payton has played pivotal roles in some of the most significant civil rights cases of recent history. He was chief counsel for the City of Richmond, Virginia in defending its minority business utilization program in the United States Supreme Court (Richmond v. Croson Broadcasting and Adarand Contractors). He also headed a team of lawyers that filed an amicus brief on behalf of 66 members of the United States Senate and 118 members of the United States House of Representatives in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, a racial discrimination in employment case. In 1994, he headed a team of lawyers that filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Adarand Contractors v. Pena, the most recent case addressing the uses of race to address continuing problems in our society.

Mr. Payton also served as a member of the election observer team that the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law sent to observe the first democratic elections in South Africa. At the very beginning of his career, Mr. Payton represented the NAACP in a Mississippi case that grew out of a bitter civil rights boycott.

Mr. Payton has received two awards in recognition of his significant contributions to the advancement of civil rights. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. presented him its Pro Bono Award. And the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Educational Fund presented him its Charles Hamilton Houston Award.

Mr. Payton received his bachelor of arts degree from Pomona College and his law degree from Harvard Law School. He clerked for the Honorable Cecil F. Poole of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. He is a fellow of the American Bar Foundation. Mr. Payton has taught as a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and the Georgetown Law Center. He is on the boards of the National Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. He served as Co-Chair of the Washington Lawyers Committee in 1996-1997. He also serves on the boards of the D.C. Appleseed Center and the Southern Africa Legal Services and Legal Education project.

This letter is for general informational purposes only and does not represent our legal advice as to any particular set of facts, nor does this letter represent any undertaking to keep recipients advised as to all relevant legal developments.