Senior judgment for consequential decisions.
Kevin Hall founded the firm in 2002 to give national-security clients direct access to senior judgment. His practice centers on terrorism-financing investigations, material-support allegations, financial evidence and the parallel sanctions or regulatory questions that frequently determine a client’s real exposure. Before entering private practice, he served for twelve years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney handling national-security matters in the Southern District of New York. That experience informs a defense style that is candid about risk, exacting about evidence and measured in dealings with government authorities.
Kevin begins an engagement by identifying the immediate decision: whether to respond to an interview request, preserve and collect data, challenge a financial restriction, prepare for compulsory process, or brief a board. He then builds a single chronology across payments, communications, designations, counterparties and government contacts. He does not treat a transaction label or analytics score as proof. The team tests attribution, knowledge, intent, timing and lawful explanations before deciding whether a presentation, litigation position or remediation step is warranted.
The strongest first move is usually the one that creates order: preserve the record, define the legal theory and make every later decision from verified facts.
How Kevin works
Clients often meet Kevin when several workstreams are moving at once. A bank may be reviewing an account while prosecutors seek records; a charity may face a sanctions alert and questions about overseas partners; an individual may confront travel, interview or extradition risk. Kevin gives each workstream an owner and decision calendar, but keeps strategy centralized. That discipline reduces inconsistent explanations and helps the client understand which facts are confirmed, which are inferred and which still require investigation.
Every matter begins with a defined scope, conflicts clearance and an agreed communications protocol. The team identifies urgent deadlines, relevant agencies, custodians, systems and jurisdictions. Confirmed facts are separated from reasonable inferences and open questions. That distinction is maintained in board materials, government submissions and internal work product so the client can make decisions without confusing an investigative lead with a legal conclusion.
Kevin works closely with the firm’s defense, compliance, sanctions and policy leads. This integrated approach is important because one fact may be viewed differently under the material-support statutes, the Bank Secrecy Act, OFAC authorities, a contractual risk standard or a foreign-law restriction. Workstreams are coordinated, while privilege, professional duties and local-law responsibilities remain clear.
Focus areas
- Terrorism-financing and material-support investigations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A and 2339B
- Grand-jury subpoenas, search response, witness preparation and early government engagement
- Financial-record analysis, privilege, preservation and cross-border evidence strategy
- Parallel OFAC, FinCEN, bank-regulatory and forfeiture issues
- Board and senior-management advice during urgent national-security events
Representative experience
Representative experience includes urgent response to government process; privileged reviews of transactions, communications and control decisions; preparation of witnesses and decision-makers; and development of clear submissions for prosecutors, regulators, sanctions authorities, boards and counterparties. Client confidentiality is maintained throughout every engagement, and prior experience does not guarantee a future result.
A matter may begin when a client receives parallel questions from a financial institution and government authority. Kevin would organize the request set, preserve the evidence, identify the governing legal standards and develop a sequenced response. Where technical analytics, foreign law or specialized accounting is required, he defines the question and integrates qualified experts or local counsel into the legal work plan.
A related assignment may begin when an institution discovers a control weakness while reviewing a terrorism-related alert. The immediate work is to understand the transaction and prevent avoidable harm; the longer work is to determine scope, root cause, reporting implications and sustainable remediation. Legal defense and compliance improvement are coordinated so the record is accurate and the organization can demonstrate what changed.
Education and professional background
Education: Harvard Law School, J.D. (1998). Prior public service: Twelve years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney handling national-security matters in the Southern District of New York. Professional focus: Counter-terrorism finance investigations, material-support defense and financial evidence.
For an engagement inquiry, use the firm’s central confidential intake page. Individual contact numbers are not published. Do not send classified information, suspicious activity reports, privileged files or sensitive identity documents before the firm confirms an engagement and provides transfer instructions.
