U.S. prosecutors have filed a legal motion that if granted would see Huawei's lawyer James Cole forcibly removed from a case currently being conducted in a New York court. The legal proceedings involve accusations that Huawei conducted business which violated U.S. sanctions on Iran, even though most absurdly, there is nothing in international law, Chinese law nor Iranian law which prohibits commerce between China and Iran.

The matter reached a critical situation when in December of 2018, Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou was arrested by Canadian authorities on the order of Washington in relation to the current legal proceedings in New York. This extraordinary situation shocked the world as Meng had not violated any Canadian laws. This last point was specifically mentioned by John McCallum, Canada's former ambassador to China who was relieved of his duties by the Trudeau government after making a calm and objective statement about Meng's terrible and deeply unfair ordeal.

Now the issues surrounding Meng's detention and Huawei's reputation in the United States will be heard by an American judge, but the fate of Huawei's lawyer James Cole remains a major issue. Although prosecutors have not publically stated why they are seeking Cole's removal, a look at Cole's background offers an indication as to why prosecutors have resorted to this unusually desperate move. 

Between 2010 and 2015, Cole was second in command at the U.S. Justice Department. During this period, Cole and his colleagues investigated Huawei's alleged commercial relations with Iran but no legal actions were taken as a result.

At the end of this period, the United States along with China, Russia, Britain, Germany, France, and the EU as a whole agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. This deal still remains in effect among all parties to the agreement with the exception of the United States which last year unilaterally withdrew over the objections of UN experts.

Cole is also known for taking steps which eventually led to U.S. telecom giant AT&T dropping its plans to acquire the rival T-Mobile. When taken as a whole, it appears that Cole has a great deal of experience when it comes to legal issues involving telecom companies. Because of this, it becomes obvious why Huawei chose him to be their lawyer in his private capacity as a partner at the private law firm Sidley Austin.

Given this background, it seems absurd that prosecutors are seeking to prohibit James Cole from representing Huawei. Cole is a lawyer in good standing and had a perfectly respectable record at the Department of Justice.

Furthermore, simply having expertise in a certain area does not create a conflict of interest. On the contrary, lawyers taking on highly intricate legal matters are expected to have some commercial or forensic expertise so they are able to fully understand the evidence brought before them. This, for example, is why good lawyers who litigate on car safety issues will generally have some knowledge of the mechanics of motor vehicles and it is also why criminal defense lawyers tend to require some knowledge about crime scene forensics.

All of this naturally leads one to conclude that prosecutors want Cole removed because he is too qualified to handle the case, something that is both a legally incorrect position and one that would be laughable if it were not so worrying.

Just as major U.S. companies including Apple and Qualcomm have put their faith in the Chinese justice system, so too has Huawei put its faith in the U.S. justice system. In spite of this, it would appear that there is a political motivation among prosecutors to weaken Huawei's American constitutional right to full legal representation through a bizarre attempt to remove James Cole from the case.

If Cole is removed, this would not only indicate a wider attempt to politicize justice when it comes to Huawei receiving what is supposed to be a fair trial, but it would also be highly damaging to the reputation of the U.S. justice system internationally.

If one is not allowed to instruct the lawyer of one's choice, especially if the lawyer happens to be someone with the prominent reputation of James Cole, the resulting conclusions that are naturally drawn make the U.S. justice system appear to be lopsided against a foreign defendant.

Part of any rules-based system of international commerce necessitates access to a fully fair judicial system. Now, however, New York prosecutors seek to make a mockery of this important concept by launching a motion against Huawei's lawyer.

The grotesque treatment of Meng Wanzhou in Canada and now the attempt to remove James Cole from Huawei's legal case in the United States is starting to make an already tense situation appear to have sinister overtones. The sooner these issues are resolved in a spirit of fairness and justice, the better it will be for Huawei and all other interested parties.