Posted December 12th, 2013 @ 06:57pm by Erik J. Barzeski
Not in the way that you might think, either:
The more eye-catching of Apple's claims were its accusations that Bromwich was already insisting on meeting every member of Apple's executive team and board, including former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, Jr., and the company's legendary product designer, Sir Jonathan Ive -- neither of whom had anything to do with antitrust compliance issues, according to Apple (AAPL). In addition, the papers noted, Bromwich was demanding that Apple pay a 15% "administrative fee" to his consulting firm on top of his $1,100 hourly rate and the $1,025 hourly fee of antitrust lawyer Bernard Nigro, who was appointed to assist him because of Bromwich's lack of antitrust experience. (Nigro heads the antitrust group at the law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, where Bromwich was a partner from 1999 to 2010.)
It was, rather, Apple's last claim -- accusing Bromwich of simultaneously playing a quasi-prosecutorial role and yet answering directly to the judge -- which may be the most significant. It signals that Apple is taking aim not just at Bromwich, but also at U.S. District Judge Denise Cote herself.