Leading National Security Law Firms: Detailed Reviews and Insights

National Security Law Explained

National security law encompasses a vast range of laws, treaties, executive orders, and regulations that are pertinent to the protection of a nation’s citizens, and its power and independence. It touches on a wide variety of legal issues, including fair and unfair competition, the regulation of international trade, privacy and data protection, cross-border trade sanctions, and even intellectual property and substances trafficking.
Nations have a very practical reason for prioritizing national security, as a country’s safety determines its ability to function. Government officials and lawmakers are very specific about the critical importance of national security , which has been described as a matter of survival for the United States.
As democracy is the basis for the American government, national security does not mean blind allegiance to federal authority. National security law minimizes the risks to citizens while maximizing their freedoms, so special attention is given to civil liberties in policy and procedure.
Most lawyers who work in national security law are focused on how the government interacts with private entities and individuals. For example, statutory and regulatory requirements such as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) processes, export control rules, economic sanctions, and whistleblower and integrity protections are relevant to business and other private interests.

Characteristics of a National Security Law Firm

The distinction of a national security law firm lies primarily in its focus, depth of expertise, and breadth of experience in a complex area of law that often requires cross-discipline knowledge and resources to navigate successfully.
First and foremost, a national security law firm must have a deep bench of attorneys dedicated to this work. This means that the firm has more lawyers focused on these key disciplines than a typical law firm, and more than just one or two practitioners attempting to do all the national security work.
Second, like many practices, national security law requires many hours of training, sometimes over decades, within a specialized area of the law, where such areas often cross-over with other disciplines. National security practice is no different. For example, counsel who represent clients in export controls and economic sanctions matters need to have a detailed knowledge of the laws and regulations governing exports of commodities, software, and technology, as well as an understanding of how the federal executive branch regulates foreign investment in the United States and trade of goods abroad. At the same time, such counsel also have to understand how the laws of various sovereign nations impact whether a product or service can be sold internationally. And when all of this becomes relevant to an enforcement action, or where an adverse consequence may arise from an export or transaction involving a foreign person, the companionship of counsel with significant experience in administrative and civil enforcement matters at multiple federal agencies, such as the Departments of Commerce and Treasury, is essential and should be the standard bearer for any reputable national security law firm.
Third, and what is often third-nature but should be the first quality looked for in a national security law firm, is its experience in training clients on the very subjects in which the firm specializes. This includes providing compliance training for employees, chairing internal risk management committees, and presenting at industry events (among others). Clients need counsel who tell them the truth, and who provide valuable critical insight when it comes to assessing risk. A powerful national security law firm will have a strong presence both on and off the podium, and thus be known by clients, prospective clients, and the government as being truly responsive to their needs, and willing to be the client’s "go-to" advisor on these important issues.

Law Firms Review Criteria

Several factors were considered in reviewing firms, including:
(a) The size and number of attorneys in the practice area,
(b) The range and experience of their attorneys,
(c) The firm’s general reputation,
(d) Specific client and former client satisfaction and responsiveness,
(e) Types of matters handled, and outcome,
(f) Range of industries and issues handled and experience with those issues,
(g) Employee and salary information,
(h) Whether the firm is listed at all, among the recognized leaders in the field, and
(i) Past and present recognition as to the lawyer.
All firms were reviewed based on these criteria, and if a firm did not have certain characteristics identified, they were given a lower score based on that. If the firm had more of the characteristics identified, they received a higher score.

Reviews of Top National Security Law Firms

Leading the Pack
Sidley Austin
Sidley’s national security practice group is widely and universally regarded as the best in the business. The group in Washington, D.C. is led by Bob Kelner, who himself is widely and universally regarded as the best in the business. His partner, Kyle Hurst, is widely and universally regarded as having both substantially augmented the practice and having added to the group’s reputation for excellence. (Michael Miller, Kevin Shim, and Naomi Rao are also terrific national security lawyers and members of the group.)
Major cases lead to major accolades. Last year, Sidley won the first successful judicial challenge to an action pursued by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) to block a proposed acquisition by a foreign entity of a U.S. business. In that case, the Court ruled that the threat of a CFIUS review does not constitute a "realistic risk" of enforcement action. The decision threatens to curtail the government’s ability to use nonenforcement threats to achieve its policy aims.
In any event, we recommend Sidley without reservation. No one has a stronger reputation; everyone likes them.
Hewes & Associates
Ralph Everett Hewes III and Hugh Hewes Wilson IV began practicing law together in 1993. For the past over twenty years, they have represented companies in transactions before CFIUS, the State Department, and other federal agencies. They have also represented many dozens of individuals who are the targets of enforcement actions relating to economic espionage and export and import controls. And they have represented several individuals and their companies in connection with investigations and prosecutions relating to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Ralph and Hugh are the "go-to" experts for the investigation and prosecution of corporate crime and terrorism-related offenses at the AUSA’s office at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District for Columbia, and at the fraud section of the DOJ. Indeed, Hugh’s office was crushed when he left the DOJ to join Ralph.
Ralph Hewes has been repeatedly recognized as an Outstanding Author in International Transactions by The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers 2007, 2011-2014.
Baker Botts
Baker Botts’ 12-Square Platform is a boutique team that focuses almost exclusively on the defense of companies under investigation by U.S. authorities and potentially exposed to U.S. criminal, civil, and administrative liability, particularly for potential violations of the federal laws relating to export controls, economic sanctions, and national security. The firm also advises companies regarding compliance with those and other laws.
The lawyers of the 12-Square Platform have extensive experience in representing U.S. clients in matters involving the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), and more generally matters involving the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
Baker Botts also provides dedicated and focused representation to U.S. clients in their efforts to obtain relief from the U.S. export controls and economic sanctions laws and regulations. The firm’s lawyers, through prior positions with the DOJ, the U.S. Treasury Department, and the U.S. Department of State, have a proven track record of guiding clients through the licensing process and advising clients on how to best structure transactions to maximize their likelihood of success in obtaining relief.

Selecting the Best Law Firm for Your Case

When selecting a national security law firm, there are several important considerations that clients should keep in mind. Experience and expertise: It is essential to choose a law firm that has experience and expertise in the specific area of national security law relevant to the client’s needs. This may include expertise in export controls, international business transactions, economic sanctions, government contracts, or other related areas. Reputation: Clients should research a law firm’s reputation in the legal community and within their industry. This can include seeking recommendations from trusted colleagues or consulting legal directories such as Chambers USA, Legal 500, and Best Lawyers. Tactical proficiency: The goal of the legal strategy is to qualify as the best possible option available to the client. This requires tactical knowledge and understanding of the precise facts of the situation, its regulatory implications, and the best possible solution. Tactical proficiency, therefore, can be considered a critical factor in the selection of a law firm. Experience and reputation, though important , pale in comparison to having tactical understanding of the specific situation that would enable the law firm to devise and implement the best possible strategy in accordance with its experience. Therefore, tactical proficiency may be the most important factor in selecting a legal services provider. Compatibility: The client-lawyer relationship is critical for effective representation. It is important for the client to feel comfortable with the lawyer they have chosen and to have confidence in the lawyer’s ability to handle their case. Clients should assess personality fit and ensure that the lawyer they choose understands their goals. Cost: Legal services can be expensive, so clients should consider the costs associated with hiring a particular national security law firm. Clients should consider whether the law firm’s billing structure (e.g., hourly rate, flat fee, etc.) is manageable for their budget. Clients should also ask whether the firm is willing to consider alternative fee arrangements, such as a success fee. Overall, clients should carefully evaluate their options and ensure that they choose a national security law firm that is well-suited to their specific needs.

Legal Issues in National Security

National security law is perhaps the most rapidly changing area of law because the threats and risks evolve so quickly. Not only do the issues affect a multitude of impact industries, but because national security isn’t just about what is happening within the United States. As a result, a top national security law firm must also have broad knowledge of developments and issues taking place internationally. The challenges that face national security today are all the same but they are now more of an urgency than before. Cyber terrorism is perhaps the greatest challenge faced as many would-be attackers don’t need to be highly skilled or highly funded like before. With recent engagement in active conflict with ISIS, the use of social media has been increased and periodically hijacked by among others, ISIS, who uses it for purposes outside its original intent. The use of technology is much more empowered than in the past. The techniques and approaches of terrorists have also evolved. The old days of using a one-off approach of suicide bombers is still in play, but ISIS and other high impact terrorist groups has found that the more people they can recruit and have engaged in active conflict with them – the more weight they have against their enemies. Special interests and groups along with the private sector are taking notice.

Future of National Security Law

The evolution of technology will undoubtedly lead to further complexity in national security law. The notion that the US, EU, and multilateral treaties (including WTO), recognize and consider technology as a means to evolve law, ought to give rise to future national security regulations that will be different from the past ones. A typical export control, for example, restricts entities on the basis of territorial scope (i.e., US persons, foreign persons resident from certain countries) and a list of technology. In the meantime, however, technology is now ubiquitous and can be easily replicated and distributed. For example, it is much easier to build a drone today than it was 3 years ago, while the technological leap from state-of-the-art to cutting-edge has shrunk considerably. This has led to the understanding that restrictions on the distribution of technology must be updated , and that the territoriality of such restrictions is increasingly irrelevant as technology becomes more ubiquitous. The result is more and more states implementing data protections to govern the flow of data in and out of national borders, leading to more restrictions on exports of technology, even if such technology isn’t "critical".
In terms of individuals, there are other imminent threats. As big-tech companies continue their trend towards greater use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), supervised by supervised and unsupervised machine learning, AI’s ability to learn without human intervention may lead to national security risks as criminals, terrorists, and rogue states continue to develop their own technologies – potentially including AI – to scale the same technologies that verticals in the market have. In addition to traditional traditional threat actors, almost certainly additional threat actors will emerge, leading to the need for further regulation of the marketplace.