{"id":126597,"date":"2025-07-14T08:03:48","date_gmt":"2025-07-14T16:03:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/14\/legal-ethics-roundup-the-ethics-of-doj-firings-jackson-on-the-state-of-our-democracy-wasteful-scotus-paper-filings-ai-scotus-arg-more\/"},"modified":"2025-07-14T08:03:48","modified_gmt":"2025-07-14T16:03:48","slug":"legal-ethics-roundup-the-ethics-of-doj-firings-jackson-on-the-state-of-our-democracy-wasteful-scotus-paper-filings-ai-scotus-arg-more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/14\/legal-ethics-roundup-the-ethics-of-doj-firings-jackson-on-the-state-of-our-democracy-wasteful-scotus-paper-filings-ai-scotus-arg-more\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Ethics Roundup: The Ethics Of DOJ Firings, Jackson On The State Of Our Democracy, Wasteful SCOTUS Paper Filings, AI SCOTUS Arg & 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 Monday!<\/h3>\n

Hello from Washington DC! Yes, I\u2019m back in DC again this week not for\u00a0Beyonc\u00e9<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0but for meetings. It was a busy week in legal ethics news, so we are returning to fifteen headlines. But first I want to share a must-read article about the floods in Texas. This beautifully-written, utterly heartbreaking story from the\u00a0Texas Monthly<\/strong>\u00a0is about the home of my husband\u2019s law partner and her family inside:\u00a0\u201cThe River House Broke. We Rushed in the River.\u201d<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(Fair warning: You will need tissues.)<\/p>\n

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

#1<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cThe Fallout Is Growing on Trump\u2019s Deals With Law Firms.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Politico<\/strong>: \u201cThe Trump administration is on an unbroken losing streak in the courts \u2014 0 for 4 \u2014 in its effort to defend\u00a0President Donald Trump\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0executive orders targeting large law firms. And things could get worse \u2014 for Trump, and for the law firms that capitulated to him. It has been several months since the first major law firm brokered a deal with Trump to get out from under an executive order penalizing the firm for conducting work or hiring lawyers that the White House disfavors. Eight firms followed that precedent in order to avoid becoming targeted themselves, ultimately committing a combined total of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to\u00a0largely unspecified initiatives<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0supported by the Trump administration. Four firms refused to buckle and successfully challenged the orders targeting them in federal district court in Washington, D.C. Trump\u2019s executive orders and the deals struck by the settling firms have not aged well. \u2026 He has publicly boasted about the deals for months and repeatedly said that he will put the settling firms to work for the administration. But there is no publicly available evidence that this has actually happened. Privately, representatives for three of the settling firms (who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters) told me that they have not received any instructions or input from the White House on pro bono matters to take on.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#2<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cJustice Jackson Says \u2018the State of Our Democracy\u2019 Keeps Her Up at Night.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0New York Times<\/strong>: \u201cThe question to the Supreme Court justice seemed lighthearted, following inquiries about her favorite song and what book she is reading.\u00a0Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0answer was deeply serious. When a federal judge asked the justice what kept her up at night, Justice Jackson paused, then said, \u2018I would say the state of our democracy.\u2019 The crowd was quiet for a moment, then burst into applause. \u2018I\u2019m really very interested in getting people to focus and to invest and to pay attention to what is happening in our country and in our government,\u2019 she said at an event on Thursday for the Indianapolis Bar Association. Justice Jackson did not elaborate on what she meant or detail specific concerns. Still, it was striking for a sitting Supreme Court justice to go out of her way to publicly express concern about the state of the country.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

#3<\/strong>\u00a0\u201c\u2018EGREGIOUS.\u2019 \u2018BRAZEN.\u2019 \u2018LAWLESS.\u2019 How 48 Judges Describe Trump\u2019s Actions, in Their Own Words.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0New York Times<\/strong>: \u201cMany Americans in positions of power, including corporate executives and members of Congress, seem too afraid of\u00a0President Trump<\/strong>\u00a0to stand up to his anti-democratic behavior. Federal judges have shown themselves to be exceptions. \u2018Judges from across the ideological spectrum are ruling against administration policies at remarkable rates,\u2019 said\u00a0Adam Bonica<\/strong>, a political scientist at Stanford University. These rulings have halted Mr. Trump\u2019s vengeful attempts to destroy law firms, forestalled some of his budget cuts and kept him from deporting additional immigrants. Yes, the Supreme Court has often been more deferential to the president. Still, it has let stand many lower-court rulings and has itself constrained Mr. Trump in some cases. The bipartisan alarm from federal judges offers a roadmap for others to respond to Mr. Trump\u2019s often illegal behavior. His actions deserve to be called out in plain language for what they really are. And people in positions of influence should do what they can to stand up for American values, as many judges have done. Here, we\u2019ve compiled quotations from judges\u2019 recent rulings and bench comments.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

#4<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cTop Supreme Court Atty Touts AI Version Of Own Argument.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Law360<\/strong>: \u201cYou\u2019re not hallucinating \u2014 a tech-savvy U.S. Supreme Court advocate generated a near-facsimile of his voice, had an artificial intelligence chatbot use it to argue the same case he recently argued, and told Law360 on Tuesday that \u2018many of its answers were as good or better than mine.\u2019\u00a0Jenner & Block LLP<\/strong>\u00a0partner\u00a0Adam Unikowsky<\/strong>, widely regarded as a standout in the Supreme Court bar\u2019s next generation, detailed the AI experiment in his legal newsletter Monday night and discussed it further on Tuesday, saying in an interview that the computerized counsel proved \u2018very clever.\u2019 It did so by answering the same questions that Unikowsky fielded from justices in October when arguing a civil rights case called Williams v. Reed. \u2018You read the transcript, there\u2019s a few answers where I get caught up and make mistakes, and the AI doesn\u2019t really make mistakes,\u2019 Unikowsky said Tuesday, adding that the application impressed him by consistently connecting its answers to the case\u2019s central themes.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#5<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cFirings Without Explanation Create Culture of Fear at Justice Dept., FBI.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Washington Post<\/strong>: \u201cMultiple people familiar with the Justice Department said scores of experienced staffers are opting to voluntarily leave the government to avoid being fired at random or asked to do things that would potentially violate their legal ethics. Their departures are worsening staff shortages in major divisions and U.S. attorney offices, including in D.C. and Los Angeles, and have created an opening for the Trump administration to further shape the department workforce, allowing officials to\u00a0<\/strong>fill career staff vacancies with lawyers who align ideologically with the president. \u2018Many, many lawyers have resigned on their own power because they saw the writing on the wall,\u2019 said\u00a0Max Stier<\/strong>, chief executive of the\u00a0Partnership for Public Service<\/strong>, a nonprofit organization that pushes for a strong federal workforce. \u2018They understood if they didn\u2019t leave on their own volition, they would be subject to firing \u2014 or if they stayed, they felt they couldn\u2019t uphold their oath in a way that was consistent with their integrity.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

#6<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cEliminating ABA Accreditation for Texas Law Schools is Flawed Proposal, Some Deans Say.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Reuters<\/strong>: \u201cDropping the requirement that Texas attorneys graduate from an American Bar Association-accredited law school would impede lawyer mobility and increase costs, law deans warned in a letter to the Texas Supreme Court. Deans from eight of the state\u2019s 10 ABA-accredited law schools asked the court to maintain the ABA requirement \u2014 which has been in place since 1983 \u2014 amid a review of the rule initiated by the court in April.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. (Full disclosure \u2013 I also submitted\u00a0comments<\/a><\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

#7<\/strong>\u00a0\u201c\u2018A Period Of Great Constitutional Danger\u2019: Pam Karlan.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0David Lat<\/strong>\u00a0in\u00a0Original Jurisdiction<\/strong>: \u201cLast month, the\u00a0U.S. Supreme Court<\/strong>\u00a0concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts. To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection\u2014in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases\u2014I interviewed\u00a0Professor Pamela Karlan<\/strong>, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School.\u201d Read more and listen\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#8<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cWhy a Devoted Justice Department Lawyer Became a Whistle-Blower.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0The New Yorker<\/strong>: \u201cIn the early days of the first Trump Administration,\u00a0Erez Reuveni<\/strong>, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, went to court to defend the new President\u2019s travel ban on foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries. \u2026 In short, Reuveni did his job as a government lawyer\u2014and he did so under\u00a0President Barack Obama<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0President Joe Biden<\/strong>, and during both\u00a0Trump Administrations<\/strong>. \u2026 On Wednesday afternoon, I met with Reuveni at his home, in the Washington suburbs. We talked in his kitchen for more than two hours, as his cat intermittently jumped on the table seeking attention and as his dog rang a bell asking to be let out. \u2026 This was not only his first interview about the encounters that ended his government career but his first interview with a journalist ever, and he spoke with a mixture of passion and sadness as he described the events that resulted in his dismissal. \u2018They\u2019re putting attorneys who have dedicated themselves to public service in the impossible position of fealty to the President or fealty to the Constitution\u2014candor to the courts or keeping your head low and lying if asked to do so,\u2019 Reuveni told me. \u2018That is not what the Department of Justice that I worked in was about. That\u2019s not why I went to the Department of Justice and stayed there for fifteen years.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#9<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cCalif. Bar Seeks 30-Day Suspension For Ex-Exec\u2019s Misconduct.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Law360<\/strong>: \u201cThe California State Bar Court has recommended a 30-day \u2018actual\u2019 suspension for its onetime executive director, who last year was found culpable for a \u2018significant ethical violation\u2019 in making misrepresentations to the\u00a0State Bar Board of Trustees<\/strong>\u00a0regarding his 2014 visit to Mongolia, which allegedly cost thousands of dollars in bar funds. In an\u00a0opinion<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0issued on July 2, a three-judge bar court panel recommended the\u00a0California Supreme Court<\/strong>\u00a0impose a one-year suspension on former executive director\u00a0Joseph Lawrence Dunn<\/strong>. \u2026 The panel on Wednesday also recommended a one-year probationary period be imposed on Dunn, along with a $1,500 monetary sanction. Dunn should also take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, or MPRE, the panel recommended. The 36-page recommendation now goes before the state high court, which will issue a final order.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#10<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cMichigan Courts\u2019 Anti-Bias Proposal Faces Significant Opposition.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Bloomberg Law<\/strong>: \u201cThe\u00a0Michigan Supreme Court<\/strong>\u00a0received dozens of letters urging it to reject proposed anti-bias-focused changes to conduct rules for judges and lawyers, with some citing free-speech issues and others saying it\u2019s a solution in search of a problem. The letters\u2014which the court received between early May and July 1, when the comment period closed\u2014came from a variety of groups, attorneys, and members of the public. And while some of the 57 letters supported the proposal, most didn\u2019t.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#11 \u201cExperiential Education.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Deborah Merritt<\/strong>\u00a0(Ohio State) in the\u00a0Law School Cafe<\/strong>: \u201cThe\u00a0ABA Council<\/strong>\u00a0has\u00a0proposed<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0expanding the number of required experiential credits at ABA-accredited law schools from six to twelve credits. This is a remarkably modest requirement, representing less than 15% of a student\u2019s JD work. The Council\u2019s memo lays out the extensive research supporting this requirement. For decades, empirical scholars, employers, and law graduates have agreed that newly licensed lawyers lack essential competencies needed to serve clients. Law schools must strengthen the education they provide to prepare students for counseling clients effectively, negotiating intelligently, exploring the full context of client matters, and solving complex problems thoughtfully. Claiming that employers will offer that education abdicates our role as educators and puts clients at risk.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. (Full disclosure \u2013 I am slated for election to the ABA Council in August 2025.)<\/p>\n

#12<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cIn Digital Era, Supreme Court Insists on Vast Piles of Paper.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0New York Times<\/strong>: \u201cThe court\u2019s rules require many litigants to submit 40 copies of their briefs, resulting in millions of pages printed each term. Critics call the process outdated and wasteful. \u2026 \u2018The court\u2019s rules impose significant and unnecessary costs to litigants and to the environment,\u2019\u00a0William J. Aceves,<\/strong>\u00a0a law professor at California Western School of Law, wrote in\u00a0a study published last month<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0in The University of Colorado Law Review. He urged the court to do away with paper submissions, particularly for the first round of briefs, over whether the justices should hear a case at all. Focusing solely on those early filings, Professor Aceves calculated that the court\u2019s rules require the submission of more than five million pieces of paper each term. \u2018If stacked together, these filings would reach beyond 2,000 feet, which exceeds the height of the tallest building in the United States,\u2019 he wrote. \u2018If weighed, these filings would take over 33 tons of paper to produce.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

#13<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cABA Says Unlawful Jury Selection Bias Not \u2018Legitimate Advocacy\u2019.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Bloomberg Law<\/strong>: \u201cPeremptory juror challenges that constitute unlawful discrimination violate the\u00a0American Bar Association<\/strong>\u00a0model ethics rules even if a client orders that such challenges be made, the ABA says in a new ethics opinion. But lawyers facing such quandaries don\u2019t violate ABA ethics rule 8.4(g) when they exercise peremptory challenges to prospective jurors on a discriminatory basis when not forbidden by other law. Courts have allowed lawyers to use peremptory challenges based on a prospective juror\u2019s age, marital status, and other factors, the ABA\u00a0opinion<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0says.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. And download the new Formal Opinion 517\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

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

#14<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cDemocratic Lawmakers Say EEOC Chair Aided Law Firm \u2018Shakedown\u2019 by Trump.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Reuters<\/strong>: \u201cDemocratic lawmakers on Wednesday asked the acting chair of the\u00a0U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission<\/strong>\u00a0for information about the agency\u2019s role in\u00a0President Donald Trump\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0pressure campaign against a swath of the U.S. legal industry. The lawmakers,\u00a0U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal<\/strong>\u00a0of Connecticut and\u00a0U.S. Reps. Jamie Raskin<\/strong>\u00a0of Maryland and\u00a0Bobby Scott<\/strong>\u00a0of Virginia, in a letter to EEOC acting chair\u00a0Andrea Lucas<\/strong>\u00a0accused her of using her position \u2018to facilitate a shakedown of prominent law firms that represented causes or employed individuals whom the President dislikes.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#15<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cIt\u2019s Illegal in Most States for Private Equity to Buy a Law Firm. Lawyers Have Figured Out a Workaround.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Business Insider<\/strong>: \u201cLegal ethics rules largely bar non-lawyers from owning law firms. MSOs offer a chance to get around that rule.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Get Hired<\/h3>\n

Did you miss the 150+ job postings from previous Roundups? Find them all\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

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

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

\n

Keep in Touch<\/h3>\n