{"id":111554,"date":"2025-03-24T07:02:40","date_gmt":"2025-03-24T15:02:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/03\/24\/legal-ethics-roundup-associates-revolt-scotus-chief-rebukes-judge-cleared-over-cnn-critique-co-missing-400k-judicial-complaints-office-new-legal-ethics-democr\/"},"modified":"2025-03-24T07:02:40","modified_gmt":"2025-03-24T15:02:40","slug":"legal-ethics-roundup-associates-revolt-scotus-chief-rebukes-judge-cleared-over-cnn-critique-co-missing-400k-judicial-complaints-office-new-legal-ethics-democr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/03\/24\/legal-ethics-roundup-associates-revolt-scotus-chief-rebukes-judge-cleared-over-cnn-critique-co-missing-400k-judicial-complaints-office-new-legal-ethics-democr\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Ethics Roundup: Associates \u2018Revolt,\u2019 SCOTUS Chief \u2018Rebukes,\u2019 Judge Cleared Over CNN Critique, CO Missing $400k Judicial Complaints Office, New Legal Ethics\/Democracy Tracker Launched & More"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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

Welcome to what captivates, haunts, inspires, and surprises me every week in the world of legal ethics.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hello from London!<\/strong><\/h3>\n

I\u2019m working from abroad this week during my daughter\u2019s spring break. You\u2019ll notice that I\u2019ve drawn many of this week\u2019s headlines from UK sources. Needless to say, across the pond they are following the ethics of judges and lawyers as much as we do here at the LER!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Shakespeare\u2019s Globe Theater, London (photo by Renee Jefferson)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Announcing the Legal Ethics & Democracy Tracker<\/h3>\n

Having trouble keeping track of the many ongoing and emerging cases involving legal ethics and democracy? I\u2019ve started a\u00a0tracker here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0with a list of matters I\u2019m watching. I hope you find it helpful.<\/p>\n

And now for the headlines\u2026you get sixteen this week. (Maybe it is time to turn the\u00a0weekly \u2018top ten\u2019<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0into at least a \u2018top fifteen\u2019?)<\/p>\n

Highlights from Last Week\u00a0\u2013 Top\u00a0Ten<\/s>\u00a0Sixteen Headlines<\/h3>\n

#1 \u201cWith New Decree, Trump Seeks to Cow the Legal Profession.<\/strong>\u00a0A Presidential Memorandum Aimed at Lawyers Everywhere Struck a Menacing Tone.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0New York Times<\/strong>: \u201cPresident Trump<\/strong>\u00a0broadened his campaign of retaliation against lawyers he dislikes with a new memorandum that threatens to use government power to punish any law firms that, in his view, unfairly challenge his administration. The\u00a0memorandum<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0directs the heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to \u2018seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States\u2019 or in matters that come before federal agencies. Mr. Trump issued the order late Friday night, after a tumultuous week for the American legal community in which one of the country\u2019s premier firms,\u00a0Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison<\/strong>, struck a deal with the White House to spare the company from a punitive decree issued by Mr. Trump the previous week.\u00a0Vanita Gupta<\/strong>, who as a civil rights lawyer and a former Justice Department official has both sued the government and defended it in court, said Mr. Trump\u2019s memo \u2018attacks the very foundations of our legal system by threatening and intimidating litigants who aim to hold our government accountable to the law and the Constitution.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

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

#2 \u201cLawyers Revolt\u201d Over Attacks on the Legal System.<\/strong>\u00a0Two headlines for #2.\u00a0First,<\/strong>\u00a0from the\u00a0Law Society Gazette (UK)<\/strong>: \u201cHundreds of associates from leading US firms have joined the chorus of protest against president\u00a0Donald Trump\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0attacks on the legal sector, saying they will lead where their employers have failed. No major law firm has issued any public statement since the Trump administration\u00a0started issuing orders against certain firms<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>restricting their security clearance and restricting access to government contracts. \u2026 Associates from many of those firms are among the almost 500 signatories to an open letter condemning Trump\u2019s actions. The\u00a0letter<\/a><\/strong>, signed anonymously by associates but with their firm and qualifying year included, accuses the executive of having \u2018launched an all-out attack aimed at dismantling rule-of-law norms, including by censuring individual law firms by name because of past representation.\u2019 The letter continues: \u2018Our hope was that our employers, some of the most profitable law firms in the world, would lead the way. That has not yet been the case, but it still very much can be.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. [Side note: As of 03.24.25, the letter has nearly 1,400 signatures.]\u00a0Second,<\/strong>\u00a0from the\u00a0Global Legal Post (UK)<\/strong>: \u201cCampaigning Skadden associate resigns citing Big Law\u2019s failure to challenge Trump\u2019s attacks on law firms.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

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

#3 \u201cTop US Supreme Court Justice Rebukes Trump\u2019s Call to Impeach Judge.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0BBC<\/strong>: \u201cThe chief justice of the US Supreme Court has released a rare statement in response to\u00a0President Donald Trump\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0call to impeach a judge who ruled against his administration over migrant deportations. \u2018For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,\u2019\u00a0Chief Justice John Roberts<\/strong>\u00a0said in a statement. He added that the \u2018normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#4 \u201cTrump Rescinds Order Targeting Law Firm After It Makes $40M Promise.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0Two headlines from the UK for #4 and two from the US.\u00a0First,<\/strong>\u00a0from the\u00a0BBC<\/strong>: \u201cPresident Donald Trump<\/strong>\u00a0has rescinded an executive order targeting a prestigious international law firm after it promised to abandon diversity policies and provide $40m (\u00a331m) worth of free legal work to support White House initiatives.\u00a0Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP<\/strong>\u00a0is a multinational law firm headquartered in New York that has many high-profile clients. Trump\u2019s 14 March executive order had terminated federal contracts with the firm and suspended security clearances for its lawyers, saying it was undermining the US judicial system. Trump has issued similar executive orders against the law firms\u00a0Perkins Coie<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0Covington & Burling<\/strong>. The White House rescinded the order on Thursday after a meeting between Trump and\u00a0Brad Karp<\/strong>, the chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0Second<\/strong>, from\u00a0The Guardian<\/strong>: \u201cInside the White House, advisers to\u00a0Donald Trump<\/strong>\u00a0reveled in their ability to bully\u00a0Paul, Weiss<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 one of the largest law firms in the US \u2013 and see its chair criticize a former partner as he tried to appease the US president into rescinding an executive order that threatened the firm\u2019s ability to function.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0Third,<\/strong>\u00a0over at his\u00a0Legal Ethics Stuff<\/strong>\u00a0Substack,\u00a0Brad Wendel<\/strong>\u00a0(Cornell) called this a\u00a0\u201cdisgraceful capitulation<\/a><\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0Fourth,<\/strong>\u00a0it is well worth your time to\u00a0read Karp\u2019s email<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>to his fellow lawyers explaining why negotiating rather than litigating was in the best interest of their clients and the firm, courtesy of\u00a0David Lat<\/strong>\u00a0at his\u00a0Original Jurisdiction<\/strong>\u00a0Substack. Here\u2019s an excerpt:<\/p>\n

\n

Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients. In particular, it threatened our clients with the loss of their government contracts, and the loss of access to the government, if they continued to use the firm as their lawyers. And in an obvious effort to target all of you as well as the firm, it raised the specter that the government would not hire our employees.<\/p>\n

We were hopeful that the legal industry would rally to our side, even though it had not done so in response to executive orders targeting other firms. We had tried to persuade other firms to come out in public support of Covington and Perkins Coie. And we waited for firms to support us in the wake of the President\u2019s executive order targeting Paul, Weiss. Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys.<\/p>\n

We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm. But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration. We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn\u2019t erase it. Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.<\/p>\n

At the same time, we learned that the Administration might be willing to reach a resolution with us. So, working with our outside counsel, we did exactly what we advise our clients to do in \u201cbet the company\u201d litigation every day: we talked with the Administration to see if we could achieve a lasting settlement that would not require us to compromise our core values and fundamental principles.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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

#5 Ethics Complaint Tossed Against Federal Judge Who Critiqued Trump on CNN Over Judiciary Attacks.<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Reuters<\/strong>: \u201cA U.S. judge has been cleared of alleged wrongdoing for going on CNN to speak out against threats made against members of the judiciary and respond to\u00a0Donald Trump\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0comments about the daughter of the judge who presided over the New York case in which the now-president was convicted last year. The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit Judicial Council threw out two ethics complaints against\u00a0Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton<\/strong>\u00a0in Washington. It found that Walton did not talk about the merits of any legal case, but commented only on Trump\u2019s statements made on social media about\u00a0Justice Juan Merchan<\/strong>, who presided over the New York criminal case, and his family.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#6 \u201cBig Firms Under Fire as Trump\u2019s Diversity Purge Takes Aim at Legal Sector.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Law Society Gazette (UK)<\/strong>: \u201cUS president\u00a0Donald Trump<\/strong>\u00a0has continued his attack on the legal sector with leading law firms being ordered to show they are not discriminating through their diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The federal government\u2019s\u00a0US Equal Opportunity Commission<\/strong>\u00a0(EEOC) has written to 20 firms requesting information about equality practices. The list includes\u00a0A&O Shearman<\/strong>,\u00a0Hogan Lovells<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0Freshfields<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 as well as global firm\u00a0Perkins Coie<\/strong>\u00a0which was last week made subject to an executive order restricting its access to government work. The latest move has prompted the International Bar Association to condemn what it calls the \u2018ongoing erosion of the rule of law.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

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

#7 \u201cColorado Lawmakers Funded an Office to Handle Complaints Against Judges. No One Set It Up.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0KUNC<\/strong>: \u201cIn the wake of an alleged blackmail scandal that\u00a0roiled the state judicial branch<\/a><\/strong>, the Colorado legislature in 2023 created an independent office to help ensure it didn\u2019t happen again. But two years later, the ombudsman office still doesn\u2019t exist \u2014 and it\u2019s not clear why. The apparent oversight came to light this week when a legislative budget staffer \u2014 looking line by line for things to cut from the state\u2019s operating budget to close a $1.2 billion shortfall \u2014 discovered an oddity: a $400,000 budget for an agency that had no employees, hadn\u2019t made a budget request and didn\u2019t appear to exist anywhere but on paper.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#8 \u201cFix the Court Sues State Department Over FOIA on Justices\u2019 Travel Abroad.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Fix the Court<\/strong>: \u201cFix the Court\u00a0sued<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0the U.S. Department of State in federal court today over an unfulfilled Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on Supreme Court justices\u2019 international travel.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#9 \u201cAttorney\u2019s \u2018Egregious\u2019 Conduct Warrants Disbarment, Not Suspension, Florida Supreme Court Says.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0ABA Journal<\/strong>: \u201cThe Florida Supreme Court has ruled that a Palm Beach County, Florida, attorney should be disbarred over professional misconduct, despite a referee\u2019s recommendation that he only receive a 91-day suspension. In its\u00a0March 13 opinion<\/a><\/strong>, the Florida Supreme Court said\u00a0Malik Leigh<\/strong>, a founding partner of Watson Leigh in Tallahassee, Florida, showed that he did not understand \u2018the most fundamental legal doctrines or procedures.\u2019 The state supreme court also said Leigh had \u2018a propensity to flout court rules and orders\u2019 despite receiving several warnings.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#10 On the Ethical Obligations of Lawyers and Judges to Preserve the Rule of Law.<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Frank Bowman<\/strong>\u00a0(Missouri) in\u00a0Slate<\/strong>: \u201cIf confronted by apparent government attorney misconduct or apparent defiance of court orders, judges should first \u2026 insist on determining the facts. Do not accept vague unsworn platitudes. Put the relevant witnesses, including lawyers, on the stand under oath. \u2026 This alone would serve the immensely valuable purpose of advising the public of the judicial view of government misbehavior. Second, when appropriate, judges should use their civil contempt powers promptly and sternly. \u2026Finally, if a reasonable basis exists to believe that government lawyers have misrepresented facts to the court or otherwise behaved unethically, judges should promptly refer offenders to disciplinary authorities of the court or the relevant state bar.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Bonus Headlines \u2013 Recusal Watch<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Trump administration is seeking the removal of judges in at least two of the cases where it was unhappy with a ruling. Here are headlines from the past week.<\/p>\n