{"id":115865,"date":"2025-04-21T10:02:57","date_gmt":"2025-04-21T18:02:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/04\/21\/legal-ethics-roundup-doj-attacks-law-firm-mansfield-rule-conflicts-for-1b-eo-payments-lawyer-wellbeing-more\/"},"modified":"2025-04-21T10:02:57","modified_gmt":"2025-04-21T18:02:57","slug":"legal-ethics-roundup-doj-attacks-law-firm-mansfield-rule-conflicts-for-1b-eo-payments-lawyer-wellbeing-more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/04\/21\/legal-ethics-roundup-doj-attacks-law-firm-mansfield-rule-conflicts-for-1b-eo-payments-lawyer-wellbeing-more\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Ethics Roundup: DOJ Attacks Law Firm Mansfield Rule, Conflicts For $1B EO Payments, Lawyer Wellbeing & 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

Late last year I had a conversation with\u00a0David Weisenfeld<\/strong>\u00a0of the\u00a0ABA Journal<\/strong>\u00a0about when it is appropriate for a judge to address public criticism, sparked by the California Judicial Ethics Committee\u2019s November 2024\u00a0formal opinion<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0on judges responding to criticism during a judicial election or recall campaign. His article is now out in the April\/May print edition of the ABA Journal. Here\u2019s a glimpse:<\/p>\n

\n

Media appearances might be beneficial, depending on the circumstances, according to ethics professor\u00a0Renee Knake Jefferson<\/strong>, who teaches at the University of Houston Law Center.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt may very well be that a judge commenting in a major news outlet is what is needed to correct misinformation so that the public can be informed when they go to vote in a judicial election or recall,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Read the full article, including observations from\u00a0Scott Cummings<\/strong>\u00a0(UCLA) and\u00a0Gabe Roth<\/strong>\u00a0(Fix the Court)\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

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

And now, let\u2019s dive into the headlines.<\/p>\n

Highlights from Last Week\u00a0\u2013 Top Fifteen Headlines<\/h3>\n

#1 \u201cTrump\u2019s $1 Billion Law Firm Deals Are the Work of His Personal Lawyer.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/strong>: \u201cPresident Trump<\/strong>\u00a0has reached around $1 billion in deals with the country\u2019s top law firms in the past month, using the full weight of his presidency to threaten their business. To do these deals, Trump has turned to a lawyer who doesn\u2019t work for the government. Trump\u2019s personal lawyer\u00a0Boris Epshteyn<\/strong>, who has been indicted in Arizona on charges related to Trump\u2019s 2020 election loss, has emerged as the face of the Trump administration\u2019s campaign against large law firms that it views as hostile to the president and his causes, according to lawyers at seven of the firms and White House officials. In a series of meetings and phone calls, Epshteyn has extracted large commitments of pro bono work for Trump-supported causes and changes to the law firms\u2019 hiring practices to Trump\u2019s preferences, the lawyers and officials said.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link). In addition to being indicted in Arizona, Epshteyn was one of the co-conspirators named in the federal indictment against Trump that has now been dismissed \u2013 revisit\u00a0LER #2<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0for more on that history.<\/p>\n

\n

#2 \u201cAs Big Law Folds to Trump, Some D.C. Firms are Fighting.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Axios<\/strong>: \u201cThe big picture: Some of America\u2019s most prestigious law firms have agreed to provide almost $1 billion worth of legal work to Trump\u00a0<\/em>\u2014 and that total will probably grow, according to\u00a0Axios\u2019 Sam Baker<\/a><\/strong>. What we\u2019re watching:\u00a0<\/strong>It remains unclear what millions of dollars of pro bono work will entail \u2014 Trump has hinted at everything from helping the coal industry to fighting antisemitism \u2014 whether he can legally force firms to undertake projects, and what it means reputationally for the firms that folded. As is often the case with Trump, firms are in uncharted territory. The\u00a0American Lawyer<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0points out, Trump\u2019s definition of pro bono significantly differs from the legal norm. As one legal ethics professor told the publication: \u2018What President Trump is talking about is more accurately described as free legal work for the government. He has been talking about these agreements like he has received hundreds of millions of dollars of free work in his personal piggy bank.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

#3 Initial Victory for Susman Godfrey Blocking President\u2019s Executive Order.<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0New York Times<\/strong>: \u201cA federal judge on Tuesday blocked\u00a0President Trump<\/strong>\u00a0from punishing the law firm\u00a0Susman Godfrey,<\/strong>\u00a0calling the retribution campaign he has waged from the White House against the nation\u2019s top firms \u2018a shocking abuse of power.\u2019 Ruling from the bench,\u00a0Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia<\/strong>\u00a0said that the\u00a0executive order<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0Mr. Trump signed last week targeting the firm stemmed from a \u2018personal vendetta.\u2019 \u2026 The judge\u2019s decision temporarily blocks the Trump administration from carrying out many of the order\u2019s punishments, including one directing agencies to turn the firm\u2019s lawyers away from federal buildings and another aimed at terminating any federal contracts Susman Godfrey holds. \u2026 Judges elsewhere have issued temporary orders blocking much of Mr. Trump\u2019s executive orders targeting two major law firms that participated in investigations of him,\u00a0Jenner & Block<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0WilmerHale<\/a><\/strong>.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

\n

#4 \u201cLegal Ethics Nerds Weigh In.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance<\/strong>: \u201cLast Friday, with little fanfare, the heavyweights of the legal ethics world weighed in. In a case brought by the law firm\u00a0WilmerHale<\/strong>\u00a0challenging\u00a0Donald Trump\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0executive order that forbids federal agencies from doing business with the firm, ethics professors filed an\u00a0amicus<\/em>\u00a0brief, advising the court on legal issues as \u2018friends of the court.\u2019 It\u2019s just lawyers, you might be thinking right now. And that\u2019s true, this is about the executive orders Trump is using to try and extract obedience from the legal profession. \u2026 But the issue matters beyond the big law firms. \u2026\u00a0Amici\u00a0<\/em>have to ask the court for permission to file a brief with the court. They do so here, explaining that their brief is offered by law professors who are \u201cscholars dedicated to studying the ethical questions that arise when lawyers weigh their duties to clients, the courts, and society writ large\u2014and teachers who introduce aspiring lawyers to ethical rules and norms.\u201d \u2026 The five law professors are\u00a0George M. Cohen<\/strong>\u00a0at UVA,\u00a0Susan P. Koniak<\/strong>\u00a0at Boston University,\u00a0Jonah E. Perlin<\/strong>\u00a0at Georgetown,\u00a0Mitt Regan<\/strong>\u00a0at Georgetown, and\u00a0Bradley Wendel<\/strong>\u00a0at Cornell Law School. They make three simple, but devastating, arguments: The law firms that gave in to Trump\u2019s demands to avoid his executive orders have created a conflict of interest for their lawyers. \u2026 Those firms may have violated federal anti-bribery laws. \u2026 Trump\u2019s gamesmanship threatens the historic independence of the legal profession and the rule of law.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. Read the\u00a0brief here<\/a>.<\/strong>\u00a0(Side note:\u00a0Nancy Rapoport<\/strong>\u00a0at UNLV is also listed as one of the amici though her name doesn\u2019t appear in the Vance post.)<\/p>\n

\n

#5 Unions, Groups Launch Pro Bono Legal Network for Federal Employees.<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Reuters<\/strong>: \u201cA coalition of labor unions and left-leaning groups on Wednesday announced an initiative aimed at providing free legal advice to federal employees who lose their jobs or believe their legal rights were violated amid the Trump administration\u2019s purge of the government workforce. The project led by the\u00a0AFL-CIO<\/strong>, the largest U.S. labor federation, and\u00a0We The Action<\/strong>, which connects volunteer lawyers with nonprofits, will recruit and train thousands of lawyers to consult with federal employees about their legal options, the groups said in a joint release.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#6 Law Student Ethics.\u00a0<\/strong>Two headlines for #6. First:\u00a0\u201cWe<\/strong>\u00a0Need Law Students to Clean the Stain on the Legal Profession.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Lauren Stiller Rikleen<\/strong>\u00a0(Lawyers Defending American Democracy) in\u00a0Bloomberg Law<\/strong>: \u201cNow that nine of the largest firms in the US have chosen their own financial interests over protecting the rule of law, leverage in the form of courage remains hard to find. But law students may offer some hope.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. Second:\u00a0\u201cLaw Students Sue to Oppose Trump Administration\u2019s Ongoing Assault on Legal Profession.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Democracy Forward<\/strong>: \u201cA group of law students responding to the Trump administration\u2019s ongoing assault on the legal profession and attempt to turn civil rights laws on their head has filed\u00a0a new lawsuit<\/a><\/strong>, which asks a federal court to stop the handover of sensitive personal data for attorneys who work or applied to work at 20 law firms currently being targeted by the Trump administration. The suit,\u00a0Doe 1 et. al. v. EEOC<\/em>, was filed by Democracy Forward in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#7 \u201cLaw Firm Executive Orders Create a Legal Ethics Minefield.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Law360<\/strong>: \u201cOver the past few weeks, the White House has issued a series of unprecedented executive orders and memoranda that target both specific law firms associated with\u00a0President Donald Trump\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0opponents, as well as the legal profession more broadly. These executive actions not only raise constitutional questions, but also create potential ethical dilemmas \u2014 and even possible civil or criminal liability \u2014 for government attorneys implementing them, and perhaps also for private attorneys whose firms choose to comply with administration demands. This article addresses some of these risks. As always, following orders\u2019 is no excuse; most relevant ethical rules and statutes apply even to those acting at the direction of superiors, including the president.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(full article courtesy of\u00a0Buchalter<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

\n

#8 \u201cNew Research on Lawyer Wellbeing Informs Pathway for Systemic Change.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Victoria Legal Services Board (Australia)<\/strong>: \u201cThe\u00a0Lawyer Wellbeing, Workplace Experiences and Ethics Report<\/a><\/strong><\/em>\u00a0examines how the perceptions of organisational ethical climate, experiences of workplace incivility, and the presence of workplace supports influence the wellbeing of lawyers. Around 2,000 lawyers practising under the Uniform Law Scheme in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia took part in the research.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(H\/T\u00a0Julian Webb<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 University of Melbourne).<\/p>\n

\n

#9 Discipline for Failure to Update Bar Application.<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee<\/strong>: \u201cOn April 16, 2025,\u00a0Robert Andrew Pope<\/strong>, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, received a Public Censure from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Mr. Pope was terminated by the Tennessee Department of Corrections in March 2024 while his application for bar admission was still pending. Mr. Pope failed to supplement his pending bar admission application to disclose this material fact. By this act, Mr. Pope has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) (misrepresentation to a bar admission authority<\/em>) and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations.\u201d Read full order\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>(H\/T\u00a0Legal Profession Blog<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

\n

#10 Unauthorized Practice of Law Case Against LegalZoom Heads to Arbitration.<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Law360<\/strong>: \u201cA suit accusing online legal services provider\u00a0LegalZoom<\/strong>\u00a0of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law will head to arbitration, after a New Jersey federal judge ruled the claims fall within the scope of an enforceable arbitration agreement. In an opinion issued Tuesday,\u00a0U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals<\/strong>\u00a0stayed the case and sent the parties into arbitration, finding that when plaintiff\u00a0Ryan Erasmus<\/strong>\u00a0purchased services from the website, he was given \u2018reasonable notice of the terms of service,\u2019 which included the mutual arbitration clause. \u2026 Erasmus brought a proposed class action against LegalZoom in New Jersey state court in June, accusing the company of violating New Jersey law by offering and providing services, including document filing, that meet the definition of the \u2018practice of law.\u2019 Erasmus asked the court to declare LegalZoom\u2019s offerings constituted the unauthorized practice of law and sought damages under the Consumer Fraud Act.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

#11 670+ AmLaw 200 Firm Partners Form Group to Oppose Attacks on Lawyers and Firms.<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0LinkedIn<\/strong>: \u201cLaw Firm Partners United<\/strong>\u00a0(\u2018LFPU\u2019) is an informal association of over 500 partners at law firms often described as the \u2018AmLaw 200.\u2019 Bound by a commitment to the rule of law and opposition to fundamental constitutional attacks against lawyers and law firms, LFPU is nonpartisan, and its members are acting in their individual capacities and not as law firm partners. LFPU\u2019s members represent a broad range of practices and every quartile of the AMLAW 200 and have served as firm chairs, global practice group leaders, office managing partners and equity partners, and many are globally recognized leaders in their field.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(H\/T\u00a0Neel Chatterjee\u00a0<\/strong>\u2013 Goodwin) and\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#12 \u201cA Higher Standard for the Highest Court: The ABA\u2019S Push for Enforceable Ethics Code.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Legal Intelligencer<\/strong>: \u201cEvery federal judge in the United States is bound by a written and enforceable code of conduct. Every judge, that is, except those who sit on the Supreme Court. More than a year after the court adopted a code of conduct for itself \u2014 a historic first \u2014 critics argue the code lacks a critical element: enforcement. Now, the\u00a0American Bar Association<\/strong>\u00a0has renewed its efforts to change that.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

#13 \u201cLawyer Up? Increasingly, Americans Won\u2019t, or Can\u2019t.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From the\u00a0New York Times<\/strong>: \u201cIt\u2019s dangerous to go to court without legal representation \u2014 but more Americans are going it alone. \u2026 \u2018We should change the underlying assumption,\u2019 says\u00a0Ben Barton<\/strong>, a scholar at the University of Tennessee College of Law whose work focuses on people who represent themselves. \u2018If we\u2019re taking the time and money to change the system, why set up a self-help center so you can navigate a complicated system with a lot of rigmarole on the front end?\u2019 he asks. \u2018Instead, try and put it together in a way that\u2019s better for normal people.\u2019\u201d Read more of this lengthy feature on the plight of the unlawyered\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>(gift link), including commentary from\u00a0Rebecca Sandefur<\/strong>\u00a0(ASU) and\u00a0Jessica Steinberg<\/strong>\u00a0(George Washington).<\/p>\n

\n

#14 \u201cA 74-Year-Old Needed a Lawyer, So He Used an AI Avatar in Court. It Didn\u2019t Go Well.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Entrepreneur<\/strong>: \u201cA New York courtroom came face-to-face with artificial intelligence last month when a plaintiff attempted to use an\u00a0AI-generated avatar<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0to present a case.\u00a0Jerome Dewald<\/strong>, a\u00a074-year-old plaintiff<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0in an employment case,\u00a0submitted an AI-generated video<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0for his argument without telling judges beforehand. The video featured an AI-created person who didn\u2019t exist\u00a0<\/strong>and was used to speak in his place.\u201d Read more\u00a0<\/a>here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

#15 \u201cMansfield Rule Widely Adopted By BigLaw Faces DOJ Scrutiny.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Law360<\/strong>: \u201cA system for sourcing job candidates used by the vast majority of large U.S. law firms called the Mansfield Rule was highlighted by the\u00a0U.S. Department of Justice\u00a0<\/strong>in a court filing accusing\u00a0Perkins Coie LLP<\/strong>\u00a0of discriminatory hiring practices. However, employment law experts say the program appears to comply with federal antidiscrimination laws. \u2026 The rule asks participants to consider \u2018a broader pool of qualified talent\u2019 when making selection and promotion decisions. Participating firms aim to consider at least 30% qualified, underrepresented candidates before determining final slates for hiring certain positions, according to Diversity Lab, the organization that operates the program. \u2026 The Mansfield Rule has been adopted by more than 350 law firms in the U.S., Canada and the U.K.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\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

Looking for the Legal Ethics & Democracy Tracker?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

You\u2019ll find it\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Keep in Touch<\/h3>\n