{"id":110154,"date":"2025-03-11T02:05:16","date_gmt":"2025-03-11T10:05:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/03\/11\/legal-ethics-roundup-attacks-on-law-firms-ethics-of-lawyer-ndas-sanctions-on-fake-cases-aba-rule-of-law-more\/"},"modified":"2025-03-11T02:05:16","modified_gmt":"2025-03-11T10:05:16","slug":"legal-ethics-roundup-attacks-on-law-firms-ethics-of-lawyer-ndas-sanctions-on-fake-cases-aba-rule-of-law-more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/03\/11\/legal-ethics-roundup-attacks-on-law-firms-ethics-of-lawyer-ndas-sanctions-on-fake-cases-aba-rule-of-law-more\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Ethics Roundup: Attacks On Law Firms, Ethics Of Lawyer NDAs, Sanctions On Fake Cases, ABA Rule Of Law & More"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ed. note<\/u>: Please welcome Renee Knake Jefferson to the pages of Above the Law. Subscribe to her Substack, Legal Ethics Roundup,\u00a0<\/strong>here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

It was another intense week of headlines about legal ethics.\u00a0<\/strong>So like last week, your top ten headlines list is packed with extras (see #5 and #10), making it a total of fifteen. Let\u2019s dive right in.<\/p>\n

Highlights from Last Week\u00a0\u2013 Top\u00a0Ten<\/s>\u00a0Fifteen Headlines<\/h3>\n

#1 Michigan Attorney Discipline Board Sets Hearings for Lawyers in 2020 Election Fraud Case.<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Detroit News<\/strong>: \u201cA group of seven lawyers who were involved in an unsuccessful lawsuit to overturn Michigan\u2019s 2020 presidential election will face a May 7 misconduct hearing in Detroit, according to\u00a0notices sent out last week<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0by the state\u2019s Attorney Discipline Board. \u2026 The hearing could lead to penalties, such as a public reprimand or license suspension, for some of the most vocal proponents of the past legal effort to reverse Trump\u2019s 2020 defeat, including Texas lawyer\u00a0Sidney Powell<\/strong>\u00a0and Georgia lawyer\u00a0Lin Wood<\/strong>. In addition to Powell and Wood, lawyers\u00a0Scott Hagerstrom<\/strong>\u00a0of Michigan,\u00a0Julia Haller<\/strong>\u00a0of Washington, D.C.,\u00a0Brandon Johnson<\/strong>\u00a0of Washington, D.C.,\u00a0Howard Kleinhendler<\/strong>\u00a0of New York and\u00a0Gregory Rohl<\/strong>\u00a0of Michigan are also scheduled to participate in the hearing on May 7, according to the Attorney Discipline Board notices.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. And revisit\u00a0LER Bonus Content #4<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>for more background on this case.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

#2 DC Bar Election Makes National Headlines Over Targeting by Trump Allies.\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0NBC News<\/strong>: \u201cTwo of\u00a0President Donald Trump\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0allies have launched bids for leadership roles with the D.C. Bar Association, an under-the-radar effort that would give them more control over the influential legal group. The push comes amid bar associations\u2019 confrontations with the Trump administration, and some federal attorneys have\u00a0looked to their state groups for ethical guidance amid<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0Trump\u2019s rapid reshaping of government.\u00a0Bradley Bondi<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 a lawyer who is\u00a0Attorney General Pam Bondi\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0brother \u2014 and\u00a0Alicia Long<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 a deputy to\u00a0Ed Martin<\/strong>, Trump\u2019s interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia \u2014\u00a0are running for president and treasurer<\/a><\/strong>. The election runs from April to June, according to the organization\u2019s website. While the general public may not pay much attention to bar associations, lawyers do. The nongovernmental groups decide who gets to be a lawyer \u2014 and who gets to stay a lawyer when misconduct allegations are involved.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

#3 \u201cSenate Judiciary Democrats Seek Probe of D.C. U.S. Attorney Ed Martin.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Washington Post<\/strong>: \u201cDemocrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have lodged a formal complaint against\u00a0acting D.C. U.S. attorney Ed Martin<\/strong>\u00a0with the office that handles attorney discipline, seeking the suspension of his law license or other penalties. \u2018Martin has abused his position in several ways,\u2019 committee Democrats, led by\u00a0Sen. Dick Durbin<\/strong>\u00a0(Illinois), wrote in a letter sent Thursday to a legal disciplinary office, called the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Those abuses include Martin\u2019s dismissal of charges against a pardoned Capitol riot defendant he represented before taking office and his \u2018using the threat of prosecution to intimidate government employees and chill the speech of private citizens,\u2019 the senators alleged. Durbin has complained to D.C. authorities about alleged wrongdoing in the legal profession before. After\u00a0a request from him<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0in 2021, the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel launched a probe of\u00a0Jeffrey Clark<\/strong>, who had served in\u00a0President Donald Trump\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0Justice Department, over alleged ethical violations he committed\u00a0<\/strong>in advancing false claims of election fraud after the 2020 presidential election.\u00a0<\/strong>A panel recommended in August that Clark\u2019s license be suspended, though the case is still pending.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

#4 \u201cEmil Bove Faces DOJ Ethics Complaint Over Mayor Adams Dismissal.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Bloomberg Law<\/strong>: \u201cA watchdog organization is calling on the Justice Department\u2019s attorney misconduct office to investigate\u00a0acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0\u2018partisan\u2019 order to dismiss charges against New York\u2019s mayor. Bove potentially violated multiple New York attorney ethics rules and DOJ policies by directing prosecutors to partake in \u2018what appears to be a corrupt quid pro quo deal,\u2019 the Campaign for Accountability said in a\u00a0complaint filed<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0Monday with the department\u2019s Office of Professional Responsibility. The complaint, which echoes similar accusations made by two Democratic senators Feb. 27, puts Bove in a somewhat awkward situation of possibly facing a probe from an office he oversees.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

#5 The Ethics of White House Attacks on Law Firms.\u00a0<\/strong>Four headlines for #5.\u00a0First,<\/strong>\u00a0from the\u00a0New York Times<\/strong>: \u201cPresident Trump<\/strong>\u00a0signed\u00a0an\u00a0<\/a>executive order<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0on Thursday seeking to severely punish the law firm\u00a0Perkins Coie<\/strong>\u00a0by stripping its lawyers of security clearances and access to government buildings and officials \u2014 a form of payback for its legal work for Democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign. With the order, Perkins Coie becomes the second such firm to be targeted by the president. Late last month, he signed a similar memorandum\u00a0attacking<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>Covington & Burling<\/strong>, which has done pro bono legal work for\u00a0Jack Smith<\/strong>, who as special counsel pursued two separate indictments of Mr. Trump. While the Covington memorandum sought to strip clearances and contracts from that firm, the Perkins Coie order goes much further, seeking to also limit its lawyers\u2019 access to federal buildings, officials and jobs in a way that could cast a chilling effect over the entire legal profession.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).\u00a0Second,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0Bloomberg Law<\/strong>: \u201cRevoking Security Clearances: How Bad Could It Get for Lawyers?\u201d And what about their clients? Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0Third,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0Reuters<\/strong>: \u201cTrump\u2019s orders targeting law firms raise constitutional concerns, experts say.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a>. Fourth,\u00a0<\/strong>from\u00a0Vox<\/strong>: \u201cTrump is shredding the First Amendment under the guise of \u2018national security.\u2019 Trump\u2019s retribution campaign is now targeting prominent Democratic lawyers \u2014 with broad implications for every American.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

#6 \u201cUS Judiciary Relaxes Ethics Standard on Clerks Seeking Political Jobs.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Reuters<\/strong>: \u201cA U.S. judicial panel on Friday relaxed ethics guidance it issued just six months ago advising federal judges to restrict their law clerks from seeking post-clerkship employment with political organizations to make clear judges retain \u2018broad discretion\u2019 to decide whether to do so on a case-by-case basis. The U.S. Judicial Conference\u2019s Committee on Codes of Conduct\u00a0modified advisory opinions<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>it had\u00a0updated in September<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0addressing what types of political activities are permissible or prohibited by judicial employees and ethics issues concerning future employment by law clerks.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

#7 Confidentiality Exception Exists if Lawyer is Victim of Client Fraud, Violence, Theft.\u00a0<\/strong>From the\u00a0ABA Journal<\/strong>: \u201cIt\u2019s a common scam\u2014someone poses as a potential client online, with the nefarious goal of getting a lawyer to cash and refund a fraudulent check. Reporting the person to law enforcement does not violate an attorney\u2019s duty of confidentiality because there\u2019s an implicit exception when the lawyer is the victim of a client or a potential client\u2019s crime, according to an ethics opinion published Wednesday by the ABA\u2019s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. The exception also applies to acts of violence and theft, according to\u00a0Formal Opinion 515<\/a><\/strong>.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

#8 Lawyer Sanctioned $2,500 and Required to Take Continuing Legal Education on AI and Legal Ethics for Citing Fake Cases.\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Lawsites<\/strong>: \u201c\u2018My dear Miss Glory, the Robots are not people. Mechanically they are more perfect than we are; they have an enormously developed intelligence, but they have no soul.\u2019\u00a0<\/em>With that quote from\u00a0R.U.R.<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(Rossum\u2019s Universal Robots), a 1920 science fiction play by Czech writer Karel \u010capek,\u00a0U.S. District Judge Kai N. Scott<\/strong>, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, eases us into yet another instance of a lawyer in trouble for filing hallucinated cases. It was just two days ago that I\u00a0wrote about another such case<\/a><\/strong>, one in which the judge let the lawyer off the hook, calling his citation errors an \u2018honest mistake.\u2019 Not so in this case, where the judge, having concluded that the lawyer,\u00a0Raja Rajan<\/strong>, \u2018outsourced his job to an algorithm,\u2019 imposed a $2,500 sanction and ordered him to complete a CLE program on AI and legal ethics, all for violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires lawyers to certify the veracity of their court filings.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

#9 ABA Issues Another Statement on the Rule of Law and the Ethical Obligations of Lawyers.<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0American Bar Association\u00a0<\/strong>website:<\/p>\n

\n

Three weeks ago, the American Bar Association spoke to you about values that guide us. We called upon every lawyer to insist that the government adhere to four major principles of law that have guided our country for over 200 years: Defending Judges and Courts, Acknowledging the Role of the Courts, Adhering to the Rule of Law, and Respecting the Separation of Powers and the three co-equal branches of government with distinct duties and responsibilities. These principles have been bedrocks of American democracy. The ABA does not shrink from standing in support of each of them.<\/p>\n

Since that time, government actions evidence a clear and disconcerting pattern. If a court issues a decision this administration does not agree with, the judge is targeted. If a lawyer represents parties in a dispute with the administration, or if a lawyer represents parties the administration does not like, lawyers are targeted. We issued statements standing up for these four key principles, and a government official targeted us by instructing some of its lawyers not to attend ABA meetings or participate as speakers. These actions highlight escalating governmental efforts to interfere with fair and impartial courts, the right to counsel and due process, and the freedoms of speech and association in our country. \u2026<\/p>\n

We speak today on behalf of the legal profession and its members who seek to live by the oath each took upon admission to the bar. This is not something we do lightly nor is it the first time we have spoken in opposition to actions against an administration, regardless of political party. We sued or opposed policy proposals of the last few administrations when they failed to adhere to the rule of law or interfered with access to justice, and we are doing the same with the current administration. We are nonpartisan. We stand for the rule of law. We stand for the vital role of our courts and the essential job that lawyers do every day throughout our country. We have stood on this ground for many years.<\/p>\n

We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not. Words and actions matter. And the intimidating words and actions we have heard must end. They are designed to cow our country\u2019s judges, our country\u2019s courts and our legal profession. Consistent with the chief justice\u2019s report, these efforts cannot be sanctioned or normalized.<\/p>\n

There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation. We acknowledge that there are risks to standing up and addressing these important issues. But if the ABA and lawyers do not speak, who will speak for the organized bar? Who will speak for the judiciary? Who will protect our system of justice? If we don\u2019t speak now, when will we speak?<\/p>\n

Read the full statement<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>
ABA 75th Anniversary 3-cent 1953 U.S. Stamp (Source: US Postal Service National Postal Museum)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

#10 Gloria Allred\u2019s Clients Question Tactics Like NDAs; Across the Pond, UK Regulators Include NDA Misuse by Lawyers Among Proposed Ethics Reforms.\u00a0<\/strong>Two headlines for #10.\u00a0First<\/strong>, from the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/strong>: \u201cFor decades, Allred has hugged and comforted her clients while they give tearful accounts of their alleged abuse at press conferences. But that public image is often at odds with the lawyer\u2019s behavior behind the scenes. There, clients said, Allred and her firm ignored their wishes and pushed them to agree to confidential settlements.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).\u00a0Second<\/strong>, from the\u00a0Legal Services Board\u00a0<\/strong>website: \u201cNew regulatory measures to strengthen ethical standards in the legal sector have been proposed today, to initiate a significant shift in how lawyers\u2019 ethics are taught, overseen and supported in workplaces. The Legal Services Board (LSB) is seeking views on how regulators support lawyers to fully understand and uphold their ethical duties throughout their careers. High standards of ethical conduct are crucial to ensuring that legal services retain the trust and confidence of consumers, continue to underpin justice and the rule of law, and can truly support and facilitate economic growth. The proposals are based on substantial evidence of where lawyers are failing to meet the ethical standards expected of them. Examples range from unintentional oversights to more serious misconduct. This includes misleading courts, using Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs) and misusing non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). The proposals address areas such as legal education, training and regulators\u2019 codes of conduct. They would require regulators to make sure that ethics are at the core of how lawyers behave and act throughout their careers.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Legal Services Board, London (photo by Renee Jefferson)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\n

Where\u2019s the Rest of the Roundup?<\/h3>\n

Revisit the\u00a0\u201cWelcome Back Edition\u201d<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0for an explanation of the new format. And keep an eye out for next month\u2019s \u201cFirst Monday Edition\u201d with reading recommendations, analysis, reforms watch, jobs, events, and much more.<\/p>\n

\n

Get Hired<\/h3>\n

Did you miss the 100+ job postings from previous weeks? Find them all\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Upcoming Ethics Events & Other Announcements<\/h3>\n

Did you miss an announcement from previous weeks? Find them all\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Keep in Touch<\/h3>\n