{"id":121393,"date":"2025-06-02T08:03:07","date_gmt":"2025-06-02T16:03:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/02\/legal-ethics-roundup-ford-sues-lawyer-billing-57-hour-day-biglaw-3-trump-0-aba-fed-soc-out-on-judges-more\/"},"modified":"2025-06-02T08:03:07","modified_gmt":"2025-06-02T16:03:07","slug":"legal-ethics-roundup-ford-sues-lawyer-billing-57-hour-day-biglaw-3-trump-0-aba-fed-soc-out-on-judges-more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/02\/legal-ethics-roundup-ford-sues-lawyer-billing-57-hour-day-biglaw-3-trump-0-aba-fed-soc-out-on-judges-more\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Ethics Roundup: Ford Sues Lawyer Billing 57-Hour Day, \u2018Biglaw 3, Trump 0,\u2019 ABA & Fed Soc Out on Judges & More"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

Happy First Monday!<\/h3>\n

On the first Monday of each month, you get a longer version of the Roundup with recent headlines plus reading recommendations, job postings, events, and other features.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Sarah Snook in The Picture of Dorian Gray, Music Box Theater, NYC (photo by Renee Jefferson)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

I\u2019ve just returned from a whirlwind trip to NYC and DC, where I spoke at the\u00a0American Bar Association 50th National Conference on Professional Responsibility<\/strong>. (More on that below under the \u201cDeep Dive\u201d section.) While in NYC I caught two plays, both choices inspired after I heard interviews with the actors on NPR\u2019s Fresh Air.\u00a0Sarah Snook\u00a0<\/strong>of\u00a0Succession<\/strong>\u00a0fame plays twenty-six different characters in two hours with no intermission in\u00a0The Picture of Dorian Gray<\/a><\/strong>. It\u2019s the most stunning performance I\u2019ve ever witnessed in theater, and a must-see if you\u2019re in NYC in June. This\u00a0interview<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0of Snook by\u00a0Ann Marie Baldonado<\/strong>\u00a0about how she prepared for the role is terrific too.\u00a0George Clooney<\/strong>\u00a0plays\u00a0Edward R. Murrow<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0in\u00a0Good Night and Good Luck<\/a><\/strong>, also an amazing performance. This is one everyone can see even if you can\u2019t make it to NYC. The play will be broadcast\u00a0LIVE on CNN on June 7<\/strong>\u00a0(for more on that, see\u00a0<\/a>here<\/a><\/strong>). And his\u00a0<\/a>interview<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0about the play with\u00a0Terry Gross<\/strong>\u00a0also is worth a listen.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
George Clooney in Good Night and Good Luck, Winter Garden Theater, NYC (photo by Renee Jefferson)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

That\u2019s it for theater reviews. Now let\u2019s turn to the headlines.<\/p>\n

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

#1<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cBiglaw Firms 3, Trump 0.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/strong>: \u201cPresident Trump<\/strong>\u00a0dismisses court rulings against him as judicial overreach, and sometimes he\u2019s right. But what does it say when multiple judges across the political spectrum rule against him on similar sweeping grounds? That\u2019s happening to his punitive executive orders against liberal law firms, and he\u2019s batting zero for three. The latest forceful rebuke came Tuesday from federal\u00a0Judge Richard Leon<\/strong>, a conservative nominated by\u00a0George W. Bush<\/strong>. His 73-page opinion is a scorcher concluding that Mr. Trump\u2019s EO against the\u00a0WilmerHale<\/strong>\u00a0law firm \u2018must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!\u2019 \u2026 The Trump EOs are an abuse of executive power that isn\u2019t justified under any fair reading of the Constitution. The rulings against the EOs are powerful enough, and the Administration\u2019s arguments in defense are flimsy enough, that we suspect the firms will prevail again if the White House appeals.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link). Read the opinion\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

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

#2<\/strong>\u00a0ABA and Federalist Society Both Apparently Dismissed from Advising on Future Judicial Nominations.\u00a0<\/strong>Two headlines for #2.\u00a0First,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0Reuters<\/strong>: \u201cThe\u00a0U.S. Department of Justice<\/strong>\u00a0on Thursday limited the\u00a0American Bar Association\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0decades-old role in rating candidates for life-tenured positions in the federal judiciary, curtailing its ability to vet new nominations by Republican\u00a0President Donald Trump<\/strong>.\u00a0U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi<\/strong>\u00a0in a letter to\u00a0ABA President William Bray<\/strong>\u00a0said that for decades the nation\u2019s largest voluntary association of lawyers had enjoyed special access to judicial nominees.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. (This isn\u2019t the first time the ABA\u2019s role in vetting nominees has been curtailed. For example,\u00a0President Ronald Reagan<\/strong>\u00a0did not rely on the ABA when selecting\u00a0Sandra Day O\u2019Connor<\/strong>\u00a0as the nation\u2019s first female Supreme Court justice, a history recounted in my book\u00a0Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court<\/a><\/strong>.)\u00a0Second,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0Axios<\/strong>: \u201cPresident Trump has gone scorched earth on the architect of his own judicial legacy, disavowing\u00a0Leonard Leo<\/strong>, the\u00a0Federalist Society<\/strong>\u00a0and any judge who stands in the way of the MAGA agenda.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#3<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cWisconsin Judge Claims \u2018Absolute Immunity,\u2019 Calls DOJ Indictment an \u2018Ugly Innovation.\u2019\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Fox News<\/strong>: \u201cThe legal team representing a Wisconsin judge accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities recently expanded their motion to dismiss the case.\u00a0Judge Hannah Dugan\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0attorneys say that she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts and that the federal government overstepped its authority by arresting and charging her. Additionally, the legal team asserts\u00a0in its memo<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0that the charges violate the Constitution\u2019s Tenth Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#4<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cChief Judge Questions Judicial Boycotts in Tossing Complaint.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Bloomberg Law<\/strong>: \u201cA federal appeals court chief judge dismissed a misconduct complaint against a district judge who will no longer hire law clerks from Columbia University, but said \u2018widespread judicial boycotting\u2019 could lead to lower public confidence in the courts.\u00a0US District Judge Daniel Traynor of the District of North Dakota<\/strong>\u00a0is among the 13 federal judges who signed a\u00a0letter<\/a>\u00a0last year, promising not to hire law clerks from Columbia over its handling of student protests on the Israel-Hamas war. A newly released April 8\u00a0order<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0Chief Judge Steven M. Colloton of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit<\/strong>\u00a0dismissing the complaint didn\u2019t name Traynor, but he\u2019s the only trial judge from that circuit who is part of the boycott.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#5<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cIllinois Lawmakers\u2019 Latest Perk \u2013 Continuing Education Credits for Going to Work.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Chicago Tribune<\/strong>: \u201cState legislators who are also lawyers in Illinois are getting a new perk, courtesy of the state Supreme Court. They just need to show up for work in the\u00a0Illinois General Assembly<\/strong>\u00a0and they\u2019ll be able to collect credit toward satisfying continuing education classes required to keep their law licenses in good standing. \u2026\u00a0Steven Lubet<\/strong>, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University\u2019s law school and an expert on legal ethics, called the credit for lawmakers \u2018remarkable.\u2019 \u2018It is especially weird because full-time law teachers do not obtain credit for teaching law school courses, presumably on the theory that MCLE credit requires more than just doing your job,\u2019 Lubet wrote in an email. \u2018I don\u2019t see why that same principle wouldn\u2019t apply to legislators.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#6<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cThe 10 Texas Law Schools Face Uncertainty as the State Seeks Comments on the Continued Viability of ABA Accreditation.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0University of Houston<\/strong>: \u201cWhat if the 10 Texas law schools no longer were accredited with the\u00a0American Bar Association\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0(ABA) seal of approval? That \u2018what if\u2019 scenario has become a much-discussed possibility since April 4, 2025, when the\u00a0Texas Supreme Court<\/strong>\u00a0issued an order inviting comment on the future role of the ABA in accrediting the state\u2019s 10 law schools. The Court is weighing whether to reduce or eliminate reliance on the national accreditor \u2014 a move that could significantly change how legal education and licensure work in Texas with ripples beyond its borders. Such a change raises important questions about the future of legal education, the availability of federal financial aid, and portability of Texas bar licensure potentially affecting the careers of thousands of current and future law students.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#7<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cTrump Officials Intensify Attacks on Judges as Court Losses Mount.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0New York Times<\/strong>: \u201cEven by the judge-bashing standards of the\u00a0Trump<\/strong>\u00a0administration, the\u00a0White House\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0sharp reactions this week to\u00a0<\/strong>court decisions curtailing its agenda appeared to intensify a strategic effort to undermine confidence in the judiciary. \u2018Trump\u2019s attack on the judges is an attempt to undo the separation of powers,\u2019\u00a0Ty Cobb<\/strong>, a lawyer who defended Mr. Trump in a special counsel investigation in his first term, said in an interview. \u2018It\u2019s an attempt to take what is three coequal branches and make it one dominant branch.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

#8<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cThe Wars on Universities & Law Schools.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Daniel B. Rodriguez<\/strong>\u00a0(Northwestern) on his Substack of the same name: \u201cAn intriguing post\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0on potential threats by Trump administration actions against law schools. \u2026 As to what risks law schools face by federal actions that take away benefits (entitled or merely a privilege, as ultimately courts will need to sort out), let me add one important additional risk and that is employment by federal and even state governments. Many law graduates seek employment by federal agencies and key cabinet departments (e.g., the Dep\u2019t of Justice); some as well look for opportunities in the U.S. military. And a critical mass aspire to clerkships with one or another federal judge. All of these opportunities, even judicial clerkships are in great peril if the presidential administration makes it clear that graduates from certain schools are not welcome.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#8<\/strong>\u00a0Ford Sues Lawyers for Billing 29-Hour, Even 57.5-Hour Days.<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Detroit Free Press<\/strong>: \u201cFord said it found evidence that these California-based lawyers falsely submitted time sheets to the courts that recorded well over 24 hours in a single day or, in one case, a lawyer who claimed to have attended two different trials in two different courtrooms that were hundreds of miles apart on a single day, totaling 29 hours of billing in that 24-hour day. \u2026 The Dearborn-based automaker filed a complaint in Los Angeles federal court against nine defendants, all lawyers, on May 21, accusing them of violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Ford said it lost at least $100 million from the scheme and is seeking some $300 million in damages.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#9<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cCalif. Justices Propose Tweaking Rules For Bar Examiners.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Law360<\/strong>: \u201cThe\u00a0California Supreme Court<\/strong>\u00a0has proposed changes to the administration of the state\u2019s troubled bar exam, circulating a slate of amendments designed to clarify the role of the Committee of Bar Examiners, including spelling out its duty to review and approve all questions used in the exam. An accompanying announcement the court made on Wednesday pointed to some key proposed changes, which include requiring the 10-member Committee of Bar Examiners to review all exam questions, institute standards to be used for selecting subject-matter experts to review new questions, and develop accreditation standards for vetting third-party vendors\u2019 ability to administer or proctor the exam.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#10<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cCelebrating the Michael Franck Professional Responsibility Award.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Legal Ethics Roundup<\/strong>: \u201cMyles Lynk<\/strong>\u00a0(Arizona State) receives the prestigious\u00a0ABA Michael Franck Professional Responsibility Award<\/strong>\u00a0for his years of distinguished service.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(in case you missed the Bonus Post last week).<\/p>\n

\n

Deep Dive<\/h3>\n

In this month\u2019s Deep Dive, I\u2019m bringing you insights from the\u00a0ABA 50th National Conference on Professional Responsibility<\/strong>, where I spoke last week about the rise of nonprofits devoted to lawyer ethics accountability (for more on that see\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>). I also had the opportunity to sit in on a thoughtful discussion among\u00a0Paula Frederick<\/strong>\u00a0(State Bar of Georgia),\u00a0Wendy Muchman<\/strong>\u00a0(Northwestern),\u00a0Ronald Minkoff<\/strong>\u00a0(Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Seitz, PC), and\u00a0Lucian T. Pera<\/strong>\u00a0(Adams and Reese LLP) in a panel titled\u00a0\u201cIs It Time to Reform America\u2019s Lawyer Regulatory System?\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0The short answer from the panelists is yes.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
ABA 50th National Conference on Professional Responsibility Panel \u201cIs it Time to Reform America\u2019s Lawyer Regulatory System,\u201d May 29, 2025 (photo by Renee Jefferson)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

While there\u2019s not a recording of the session to share, you can read their explanation for why the answer is \u201cyes\u201d in an article published by Bloomberg Law. Here\u2019s an excerpt:<\/p>\n

\n

It\u2019s time for the\u00a0American Bar Association<\/strong>\u00a0to launch a fresh, high-level effort to renew the US lawyer discipline system for the 21st century. There has been a steady drumbeat of discussion recently about US lawyer regulation. Much of the debate has surrounded questions of nonlawyer ownership of law firms, fee-sharing with nonlawyers, and licensing of legal para-professionals. These are important discussions, but that\u2019s not what we propose. Instead, as lawyers who have practiced and worked in the lawyer regulatory system for many years\u2014more than 200 years collectively\u2014we believe it is time for the ABA, the traditional convener and leader on lawyer regulation, to launch a once-in-a-generation review of the mechanics, structure, and reach of lawyer regulation. It\u2019s time to revisit the infrastructure of lawyer regulation, rather than the substance of ethics rules. Some of us hold elected or appointed positions in the ABA. None of us speak in those official positions, for the groups we represent or work with, or for the ABA. We speak only for ourselves in our personal capacities. Still, we believe many in lawyer ethics and regulation share our view. Like roads and bridges, the rules, procedures, enforcement tools, as well as the jurisdictional boundaries of lawyer regulation, need periodic maintenance. We believe the infrastructure of American lawyer discipline is overdue for an update.<\/p>\n

Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Recommended Reading<\/h3>\n

Recommendation #1:<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cLaw Firm Executive Orders and the Courts\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>by\u00a0David McGowan<\/strong>\u00a0(San Diego). From the abstract:<\/p>\n

\n

Recent executive orders targeting law firms indirectly target courts. Because the rule of law depends on adjudication, which in turn depends on a bar willing to bring and defend claims, the orders place the rule of law at risk. The administration\u2019s caustic attacks on judges, both in general and in connection with the orders, confirms this point. The orders effectively admit that they retaliate for activity protected by the First Amendment. The administration\u2019s conduct relating to the orders shows that pain is the point of the orders and that the administration is unconcerned with their legality. Some of the firms targeted did important work defending the integrity of the 2020 election against attacks that proved to be unfounded. The example of that election highlights the need for firms to be prepared to defend against such attacks. It also highlights the risk that firms submitting to the administration\u2019s demands will be unwilling to defend such cases in the future.<\/p>\n

Download from SSRN<\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Recommendation #2:<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cAttorney Responsibility for Climate Change?\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>by\u00a0Victor Flatt<\/strong>\u00a0(Case Western). From the abstract:<\/p>\n

\n

It may be true that all humans contribute to climate change, but not all contribute equally. Some \u201csuper emitters\u201d have some agency in how, whether, and how much GHGs will be emitted. These super emitters in turn depend on a myriad of supporting services that facilitate the infrastructure from which these emissions come. Accountants, financiers, Investors, and lawyers provide the most critical of these services. Without them, the super emitters could not continue their emitting. What then is the responsibility of attorneys for these emissions?<\/p>\n

Download from SSRN<\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Recommendation #3:<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cPro Bono Publico Versus Pro Bono Presidential\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>by\u00a0S.I. Strong<\/strong>\u00a0(Emory). From the abstract:<\/p>\n

\n

In March and April 2025, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders directed at various law firms that had represented clients or undertaken actions with which the president disagreed. Those executive orders imposed various sanctions capable of destroying the firms financially. The administration also threatened a number of other law firms with similar types of executive orders. While a few law firms chose to challenge the executive orders in court, the majority of firms targeted by the president entered into informal settlement agreements whereby the firms promised to provide between $40 million and $125 million worth of free \u201cpro bono legal services\u201d to causes supported by the president. In return, the president either revoked any sanction-containing executive orders or withheld from issuing such orders. This Essay considers the propriety of these pro bono agreements from several perspectives. First, this Essay considers the voluntary nature of pro bono and examines the propriety of the executive branch coercing private lawyers to accede to particular pro bono obligations. Second, this Essay discusses the nature of pro bono activities as a means of assisting indigent individuals and considers whether presidential efforts to direct how private law firms fulfill their pro bono obligations constitute an improper privatization of the executive branch\u2019s policy goals, particularly given presidential cuts to and curtailment of conventional public means of fulfilling those policy goals. Third, this Essay considers whether and to what extent the executive orders and settlement agreements discussed herein violate hard or soft principles of international law. The Essay concludes with brief suggestions about how to proceed going forward.<\/p>\n

Download from SSRN<\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Legal Ethics Trivia<\/h3>\n

From the\u00a0Texas Center for Legal Ethics<\/strong>, here\u2019s the question of the month: \u201cDo the ethics rules permit an attorney to join an out-of-state law firm that permits non-attorney partners?\u201d\u00a0Test yourself at this website<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0where you can read a short hypothetical, select an answer, and see your results. So far, out of 167 responses, 39% have gotten it right. Will you?<\/p>\n

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

Get Hired<\/h3>\n

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