Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn

A summary of what happened?

Peter Gray, formerly a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Dubai office, became embroiled in significant legal controversy due to his conduct in litigation involving the Republic of Djibouti and businessman Abdourahman Boreh.

Key Allegations and Legal Proceedings:

1. Misleading the High Court:
   • In 2013, Gray represented Djibouti in securing a freezing order against Boreh, based on allegations linking him to a 2009 grenade attack in Djibouti City. The application relied on telephone transcripts purportedly implicating Boreh. However, it was later revealed that these transcripts were misdated, with conversations occurring before the attack, thus not supporting the allegations. Gray was found to have been aware of this discrepancy but failed to inform the court, leading Mr. Justice Flaux in 2015 to conclude that Gray had “deliberately misled” the court.
     Legal Business
2. Firm’s Response and Apology:
   • Following the revelation, Gibson Dunn reported the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and issued an apology to the court and all affected parties, acknowledging that their conduct fell below expected standards.
3. Disciplinary Actions:
   • In 2021, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) struck Gray off the roll of sning that he had acted dishonestly by submitting misleading evidence and allowing deceptive submissions in court.
     Legal Futures
4. Appeal and Outcome:
   • Gray appealed the SDT’s decision; however, in 2022, the High Court dismissed his appeal, affirming the strength of the case against him and upholding the original disciplinary actions.
     Global Legal Post

Implications:

Gray’s actions not only led to his disbarment but also raised concerns about legal ethics and the responsibilities of legal practitioners to maintain integrity in court proceedings. The case underscores the critical importance of transparency and honesty in the legal profession.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)

Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.

What was Peter Gray - Gibson Dunn trying to hide?

Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report on Peter Gray and the Gibson Dunn Controversy

Introduction:

Peter Gray, a former partner at the global law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, became embroiled in one of the most serious cases of professional misconduct in recent legal history. His actions in a high-profile case involving the Republic of Djibouti and businessman Abdourahman Boreh led to accusations of deliberately misleading the High Court in London. This controversy not only culminated in Gray’s disbarment but also cast a shadow over Gibson Dunn, one of the world’s most prestigious law firms. This report investigates the allegations, court proceedings, and broader implications of the case, painting a detailed picture of the events and their fallout.

Background:

Peter Gray was a senior partner in Gibson Dunn’s Dubai office, specializing in contentious disputes and representing high-profile clients. In 2013, he was tasked with representing the Republic of Djibouti in its litigation against Abdourahman Boreh, a former ally of Djibouti’s president turned political rival. Djibouti accused Boreh of corruption and terrorism, including an allegation that he orchestrated a grenade attack in Djibouti City in 2009. The Republic sought a freezing order over Boreh’s global assets, a critical legal tool to restrict his financial activities.

Central to this case were transcripts of telephone conversations between Boreh and another individual, presented as evidence to link Boreh to the grenade attack. These transcripts formed the foundation for obtaining the freezing order, which had significant financial and political implications.

Allegations Against Peter Gray:

1. Deliberately Misleading the High Court:
   • Gray submitted the telephone transcripts as evidence, suggesting that Boreh had confessed to involvement in the attack. However, it later emerged that the transcripts were misdated; the conversation in question took place before the grenade attack occurred, nullifying its probative value.
   • It was revealed during proceedings that Gray became aware of the date discrepancy before the freezing order was issued but chose not to inform the court. This omission misled the court into granting the order based on flawed evidence.
2. Breach of Professional Duty:
   • As an officer of the court, Gray was obligated to act with honesty and transparency. His failure to correct the record was seen as a severe breach of these duties, with the court later describing his actions as a deliberate attempt to mislead.
3. Dishonesty and Ethical Violations:
   • Gray allowed the submission of evidence he knew to be misleading and facilitated arguments based on this evidence. These actions not only violated legal ethics but also undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

Court Proceedings and Findings:

1. High Court Judgment (2015):
   • Justice Flaux, presiding over the case, concluded that Gray had “deliberately misled the court” by allowing it to rely on evidence he knew to be false.
   • The judge described Gray’s actions as “misconduct of the utmost seriousness,” which significantly impacted the fairness of the proceedings.
2. Gibson Dunn’s Apology:
   • Following the revelation, Gibson Dunn issued a public apology to the court, Boreh, and other affected parties. The firm acknowledged that its conduct fell below expected professional standards and referred Gray’s actions to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
3. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT):
   • In 2021, the SDT struck Gray off the roll of solicitors after finding him guilty of dishonesty and misconduct. The tribunal emphasized that his actions had harmed the administration of justice and damaged public confidence in the legal profession.
4. Appeal to the High Court (2022):
   • Gray appealed the SDT’s decision, arguing that the tribunal had failed to consider mitigating factors. However, the High Court dismissed his appeal, reaffirming the findings of dishonesty and the appropriateness of the disciplinary measures.

Impact on Gibson Dunn:

The controversy surrounding Peter Gray had significant repercussions for Gibson Dunn:

1. Reputational Damage:
   • As one of the world’s leading law firms, Gibson Dunn’s association with Gray’s misconduct tarnished its reputation. The case attracted widespread media attention, with critics questioning the firm’s oversight and internal compliance mechanisms.
2. Accountability Measures:
   • The firm took steps to distance itself from Gray and implemented measures to prevent similar incidents in the future. Gibson Dunn’s decision to report the matter to the SRA and cooperate with investigations was seen as an effort to restore its credibility.
3. Client Concerns:
   • The incident raised concerns among Gibson Dunn’s clients about the firm’s commitment to ethical practices, particularly in high-stakes litigation involving sensitive political and financial issues.

Broader Implications:

1. Legal Ethics and Professional Standards:
   • The case highlighted the critical importance of honesty and integrity in the legal profession. Gray’s actions were a stark reminder of the damage that ethical lapses can inflict on the judicial process and public trust in the legal system.
2. High-Stakes Litigation Risks:
   • Representing governments and other powerful entities often involves navigating complex ethical dilemmas. Gray’s misconduct underscored the need for robust internal controls within law firms to ensure that lawyers adhere to professional standards.
3. Lessons for Legal Practitioners:
   • The case served as a cautionary tale for lawyers about the consequences of prioritizing client interests or personal success over ethical obligations. It reinforced the principle that lawyers must act as custodians of justice, even when faced with intense professional pressure.

Conclusion:

The Peter Gray controversy is one of the most significant legal ethics cases of recent years. Gray’s deliberate misrepresentation of evidence not only led to his disbarment but also caused lasting damage to the reputation of Gibson Dunn. The case serves as a sobering reminder of the responsibilities that come with legal practice and the severe consequences of ethical breaches.

For Gibson Dunn, the incident underscored the importance of maintaining rigorous oversight and a strong commitment to ethical standards. For the legal profession as a whole, it highlighted the need for vigilance in safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process. Ultimately, the case of Peter Gray is a cautionary tale about the profound impact of ethical lapses on individuals, institutions, and the broader legal system.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn (or actors working on behalf of Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn), we will inform Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for the Streisand effect…The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms. Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible, which Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Peter Gray - Gibson Dunn

Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.

Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).

Is Peter Gray - Gibson Dunn Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.

Faced with these limitations, some companies like Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn is certainly keeping interesting company here….

The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.

Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.

Reputation Agency's Modus Operandi

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the “back-dated article” technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a “true original” article and back-dates it, creating a “fake original” article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn is in great company ….

What else is Peter Gray - Gibson Dunn hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on Peter Gray – Gibson Dunn that you want to share with experts and journalists, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.