Since last May, when 3M and its lawyers at Bickel & Brewer first accused Covington & Burling of betraying its client relationship with 3M in favor of a potentially more lucrative assignment from the Minnesota attorney general in an environmental suit against the company, Covington management committee chairman Timothy Hester has let the firm's filings and court appearances in the Minnesota case speak for themselves. But on Thursday, as Covington's counsel at Williams & Connolly filed a motion to dismiss 3M's breach-of-fiduciary-duty complaint against the firm, Hester broke his silence. In a phone interview, he spoke about what he called the "false premises" of 3M's accusations, the "silliness" of Bickel & Brewer's assertions that Covington dropped 3M because it is struggling financially and the hurtfulness of having to explain all of that to clients.

"We think these are false statements, false allegations," Hester told me. "People here are not happy seeing false statements made about the firm."

The basics of the dispute between 3M and its former lawyers at Covington, in case you've forgotten, are that Covington had an ongoing relationship with 3M in the 1990s and early 2000s, representing the company in regulatory proceedings over food packaging at the Food and Drug Administration. The firm also handled an employee benefits matter for 3M that ended in Sept. 2010. Soon after the benefits assignment concluded, Covington surfaced as counsel to the Minnesota attorney general in an environmental waste case against 3M. More than a year later, 3M moved to disqualify Covington, asserting that the AG's case involved the same chemicals that had been at issue in Covington's prior representation of 3M. Last month, with proceedings on the disqualification motion underway in Minnesota state court, 3M filed its breach-of-fiduciary-duty suit in federal court in Minneapolis.

Covington's new dismissal motion is mostly procedural, arguing that the federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction on diversity grounds. It does not address the merits of the firm's defense with much more specificity than the firm has already offered in the disqualification proceeding. But Hester supplied some of those details in our interview.

The most compelling new information he offered is that 3M signed an agreement in 2010 stating that Covington could sue 3M without consulting the company. That's a blockbuster assertion, but the circumstances of that agreement are also significant. According to Hester, Covington's ongoing representation of 3M in regulatory proceedings before the FDA had dried up by the mid-2000s. (I should note that Hester said Covington's work for 3M was strictly limited to the FDA and, contrary to 3M's assertions, involved no proceedings before the Environmental Protection Agency.) In 2010, 3M contacted Covington about an employee benefits assignment. By then, Hester said, Covington was involved in two other matters in which its clients were adverse to 3M: a patent case and an environmental case for a corporate client.

According to Hester, Covington informed 3M that it would not accept the assignment without a written agreement that it could pursue litigation against the company in unrelated matters. Hester said that after 3M resisted and Covington said it wouldn't take the project, the company ultimately agreed to sign the agreement. I asked Hester whether the agreement covered future suits against 3M, in addition to the matters Covington was already engaged in. Hester said yes.

Covington declined to show me the 2010 agreement with 3M because it has not yet been submitted in the breach-of-duty case. But I obtained the three-page document from 3M's counsel at Bickel & Brewer. Here is its key provision: "You also consent to our representing clients in business transactions, counseling, litigation, legislation, or other matters in which they are adverse to 3M, provided that any such matter has no substantial relationship to any matter in which we represent or have represented 3M."

Hester also told me that 3M disavowed any intention of accusing Covington of a conflict on two occasions long before the disqualification motion was filed. In April 2011, a few months after the AG's suit against 3M was filed, a senior 3M lawyer asked Covington about its representation of the AG. Covington replied in an email that its relationship with 3M had been dormant, in contrast to its longtime and ongoing relationship with the Minnesota attorney general. In an email response, Hester said, the 3M lawyer wrote that he understood the firm's decision. (Covington declined to make the emails public because they haven't been disclosed in court.)

Then, in November 2011, Covington sent a description of its insurance practice to 3M's general counsel, as part of a wide distribution of the materials. The GC, Hester said, wrote an "unhappy letter" back to Covington, complaining about the firm's role in the AG case and noting that 3M had considered raising the conflicts issue but had decided against it. (Again, Covington declined to disclose the GC's letter because it's not in the court record.)

All of these communications, Hester said, belie 3M's claims that Covington dropped one client for another. He said they also support Covington's argument that 3M filed the disqualification motion for tactical purposes, to stall the AG's environmental suit. "I have never seen anyone delay a motion like this," he said. "It's a pretty stunning and unattractive set of tactics."

Particularly disturbing, Hester said, is 3M's assertion in its breach-of-duty suit that Covington took on the contingency fee case for the Minnesota AG because it "has experienced declining revenues, profits, and prestige" and "has been forced to make significant changes in order to stay relevant." Hester said 3M's lawyers at Bickel & Brewer had absolutely no basis for that claim: Covington, he said, has been one of the few firms in The Am Law 100 to expand headcount, revenue and profits since 2008. Unlike most of its peer firms, Hester said, Covington didn't engage in any layoffs in the last few years and didn't defer a single associate. "That was hurtful, gratuitous and completely unfounded," Hester said. He called 3M's language "silly," and when I prodded, escalated to "outrageous," adding "I'm trying to be measured."

"It was really an effort to hurt us," he said. "We thought most people reading it would see it for what it was -- an overblown rhetorical effort."

I asked if the conflict case has hurt the firm. Hester acknowledged that he's had to answer questions from some clients who were concerned about the allegations. He said that when he explained that Covington didn't have an ongoing client relationship with 3M when it agreed to represent the Minnesota AG, clients were reassured. "Once they understood the facts, they've been fine with it."

3M counsel William Brewer of Bickel & Brewer said the record contradicts Covington's claims about its relationship with the company. He said that when 3M signed the 2010 agreement, it also sent Covington its outside counsel guidelines, which include a requirement that firms disclose any adverse representation to the company before accepting it. He also said that in an affidavit (unfortunately under seal), 3M's general counsel said the Covington conflicts question was never discussed by anyone who knew the firm had previously represented the company on matters involving the same chemicals at issue in the AG suit.

I also asked Brewer about the complaint's allegations about Covington's declining finances. He declined to tell me the basis of his assertions, saying he was "not prepared to reveal work product." He said he included the allegations because they are relevant to Covington's intent, and said he will be prepared to show evidence of the firm's financial motive.

(This post has been corrected. A previous version incorrectly reported when Covington's employee benefits engagement for 3M ended.)

(Reporting by Alison Frankel)

Follow us on Twitter @AlisonFrankel, @ReutersLegal  | Like us on Facebook