Former Harvard Senior Fellow William Lee ’72 Faces Ethics Complaints Over Potential Conflict of Interest with Harvard

Former Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow William F. Lee ’72 is facing two ethics complaints alleging his dual roles at Harvard and law firm WilmerHale created a conflict of interest, the New York Post reported Thursday.

The complaints, which were filed with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers and the state attorney general’s office, alleged Lee’s role leading the Corporation — the University’s highest governing body — meant he oversaw the University officials who manage relationships with external law firms.

The state attorney general office did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday.

Lee was elected to the Corporation in 2010 while he was co-managing partner of WilmerHale. Lee ascended to the Corporation’s top post in July 2014.

Four months later, when anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions filed a lawsuit challenging Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies in November 2014, the University retained WilmerHale as legal counsel.

While serving as senior fellow, Lee personally represented Harvard during the trial stages of the case through 2019, although it was WilmerHale lawyer Seth P. Waxman ’73 — a former member of the Board of Overseers — who argued the case before the Supreme Court in 2022.

While the complaint alleged Harvard paid WilmerHale nearly $42 million for its services during Lee’s tenure, he did not personally charge Harvard for his services in the affirmative action case.

Lee stepped down from the Corporation in 2022.

A WilmerHale spokesperson told The Crimson that “there was nothing improper about the firm’s legal representations of Harvard, including in the admissions case.”

“The role of Bill Lee and the terms of his recusal from participation in the University’s consideration and decisions concerning the case were disclosed to the court and have long been a matter of public record,” they added.

Lee also played a central role in preparing former University President Claudine Gay ahead of her congressional testimony in December over the University’s response to antisemitism, a process that sidelined outside public relations consultants and crisis communications experts in favor of WilmerHale lawyers.

His involvement with Gay’s testimony suggested he remained an important adviser to Harvard leadership beyond his tenure as senior fellow. However, Lee’s agreement to work without pay was limited to the SFFA litigation.

Nancy J. Moore, a professor of legal ethics and expert in professional responsibility at Boston University, said that she didn’t see a conflict of interest in Lee’s influence over Gay’s testimony preparation.

“Simply because he was a prior fellow of the Corporation or chair, I don’t see how that would affect his role as a lawyer,” Moore said.

New York University Law Professor Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics, said although uncommon, there are no rules against a corporation’s lawyer serving on its board.

He said the quoted parts of the complaint in the Post “does not put Lee on opposite sides of a negotiation” to create a conflict of interest.

“He’s not negotiating with Wilmer for Harvard,” Gillers said. “He’s not negotiating for Harvard with Wilmer.”

Gillers said Lee would have crossed an ethical line if he had negotiated the University’s original contract with WilmerHale. But according to Harvard spokesperson Jonathan L. Swain, he did not.

“As a Corporation member, he recused himself from Corporation discussions regarding the lawsuit so he could act as a lawyer for Harvard in the case,” he wrote.

“Lee recused himself from the decision to retain WilmerHale to represent the University on the SFFA case,” he added.

The Post also alleged that Harvard had not properly disclosed Lee’s financial interests in WilmerHale on its Massachusetts financial disclosures forms.

To the question “was your organization a party to any transaction in which any of its officers, directors, or trustees has a material financial interest,” Harvard repeatedly answered no.

According to Swain, Harvard complied with the federal and state reporting requirements. He said Harvard’s annual filings include any individual that meets the threshold or requirement for reporting.

Gillers said that the 11 other members serving on the Corporation helped the University avoid a conflict of interest with Lee and WilmerHale.

“That’s their job,” he said.

“So long as he isn’t part of the team negotiating with Wilmer or choosing Wilmer for Harvard, there’s not a problem,” he added.

—Staff writer Emma H. Haidar can be reached at emma.haidar@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @HaidarEmma.

—Staff writer Cam E. Kettles can be reached at cam.kettles@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @cam_kettles or on Threads @camkettles.