{"id":145155,"date":"2026-03-02T10:10:42","date_gmt":"2026-03-02T18:10:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/03\/02\/legal-ethics-roundup-ethics-of-ai-glasses-in-court-gambling-lawyer-guilty-scotus-restricts-access-to-counsel-judges-novel-recusal-more\/"},"modified":"2026-03-02T10:10:42","modified_gmt":"2026-03-02T18:10:42","slug":"legal-ethics-roundup-ethics-of-ai-glasses-in-court-gambling-lawyer-guilty-scotus-restricts-access-to-counsel-judges-novel-recusal-more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/03\/02\/legal-ethics-roundup-ethics-of-ai-glasses-in-court-gambling-lawyer-guilty-scotus-restricts-access-to-counsel-judges-novel-recusal-more\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Ethics Roundup: Ethics Of AI Glasses In Court, Gambling Lawyer Guilty, SCOTUS Restricts Access to Counsel, Judge\u2019s Novel Recusal & 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

Hello First Monday!<\/h3>\n

I\u2019m writing you from sunny Florida after wrapping up a board meeting. Once\u00a0again I find myself wondering<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0whether our legal ethics headlines matter given the other news of the day, this time\u00a0Iran<\/a><\/strong>. But the past week has been packed with important news about the responsibilities of lawyers and judges, so I keep writing and I hope you keep reading.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Naples Beach, Florida (photo by Renee Jefferson)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Now for your headlines.<\/p>\n

Highlights from Last Week\u00a0\u2013 Top Ten Headlines \ud83d\udcf0<\/h3>\n

#1<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cLawrence Fox, Longtime Drinker Biddle Partner and Legal Ethics Authority, Dies at 82.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From the\u00a0Philadelphia Business Journal:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cHis career includes more than four decades at Drinker Biddle & Reath and teaching legal ethics at four Ivy League law schools.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#2 \u201cSupreme Court Backs Restrictions on Lawyer-Defendant Trial Talks.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Bloomberg Law:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cJudges can bar criminal defendants from speaking with their lawyers about their testimony during an overnight recess without violating their right to counsel, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously. The opinion authored Wednesday by\u00a0Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson<\/strong>\u00a0said when a defendant chooses to take the stand as a witness their \u2018status shifts,\u2019 and so does the balancing of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel. \u2018He does not shed his rights as a criminal defendant,\u2019 Jackson wrote. \u2018But he does assume some of the burdens of a testifying witness.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#3 \u201cJustice Thomas Bemoans Incivility as Security Prompts Cancellation of In-Person Speech.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0The New York Times:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cThe justice participated remotely in a closed-door session of a legal conference, a reminder of the heightened threats facing jurists in recent years.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

#4 \u201cNovel-Writing Judge Steps Back From Hedge-Fund Bankruptcy as Ethical \u2018Corrective\u2019.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0The Wall Street Journal:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cChief Judge Stacey Jernigan of the Northern District of Texas<\/strong>\u00a0agreed to recuse herself from matters involving Highland Capital Management following complaints about parallels to her fictional books.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

#5 \u201cFrom Hallucinations to Sanctions: Perils of the Use of Legal AI.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0JDSupra:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cA recent decision from Suffolk County Justice Linda Kevins in\u00a0Cassata v Michael Macrina Architect, P.C.<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0serves as yet another warning to practitioners concerning the risks and ethical considerations implicated by the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal profession, and the Court\u2019s inclusion of a sanctions\u00a0chart<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0for AI-related errors offers a practical guide for attorneys on how to responsibly navigate the use of AI in legal submissions.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#6 \u201cMichigan Federal Judge Charged With Drunken-Driving Goes on Leave.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Reuters:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cA federal judge in Michigan is taking a leave of absence pending the resolution of drunken-driving charges stemming from his October arrest \u2026 The court reform group\u00a0Fix the Court<\/strong>\u00a0separately on Tuesday said it had filed a judicial misconduct complaint against [the judge] with the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#7 \u201cSupreme Court Lawyer Who Moonlighted in High-Stakes Poker Is Convicted of Tax Fraud.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0The New York Times: \u201c<\/strong>The lawyer\u00a0Thomas C. Goldstein<\/strong>, who co-founded the SCOTUSblog website, hid millions in gambling income from the government, federal prosecutors said.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

#8 \u201cJudge Scolds Mark Zuckerberg\u2019s Team for Wearing Meta Glasses to Social Media Trial.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0CBS News:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cA California judge admonished members of\u00a0Mark Zuckerberg\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0team for wearing Ray Ban-Meta AI glasses, which are equipped with a camera, as they entered a Los Angeles courtroom on Wednesday for a landmark trial over the impact of social media on children. \u2026\u00a0Judge Carolyn Kuhl<\/strong>, who is presiding over the trial, ordered anyone in the courtroom wearing AI glasses to immediately remove them, noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#9 \u201cDigital Visibility Is a Professional Responsibility.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Etienne Toussaint\u00a0<\/strong>(South Carolina) on\u00a0LinkedIn:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cWe tend to frame digital visibility as a personal career question. Should\u00a0I<\/em>\u00a0be on LinkedIn? Should\u00a0I<\/em>\u00a0update my faculty bio? Should\u00a0I<\/em>\u00a0share my research on social media? But this framing is too narrow. Because when scholars remain invisible online, the consequences extend well beyond their individual careers. They ripple outward\u2014through their fields, their institutions, and the communities whose lives their research is meant to improve. Here\u2019s why digital visibility has become a professional responsibility\u2014not just a personal preference.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. [Side note: I think this professional responsibility applies to lawyers too, not just scholars.]<\/p>\n

#10 \u201cIs AI the End of Lawyers, or the Beginning of Access to Justice?\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Fast Company:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cFor decades, a legal degree felt like a golden ticket, a safe career choice because a robot could never take a lawyer\u2019s job. Today consumers are increasingly turning to new technologies like generative artificial intelligence for answers to their legal questions without the assistance of a lawyer. No wonder: The high cost of legal services places them beyond the reach of most Americans.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/a><\/p>\n

Recommended Reading \ud83d\udcd6<\/h3>\n

So much great reading in legal ethics is out in the world right now. I have a stockpile of recommendations to share in the coming months. For now you get four items.<\/p>\n

\u201cConditional Admission and the Hazards of Lawyer Assistance Programs Operating Without Transparency or Oversight\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>by\u00a0Paula Schaefer<\/strong>\u00a0(Tennessee). From the abstract:<\/p>\n

\n

In February 2025, the ABA adopted a new Conditional Admission Model Rule. The Rule, sponsored by the Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs, contemplates state Lawyer Assistance Programs will have a significant role in determining the terms of a bar applicant\u2019s conditional admission. This Article is aimed at educating states with conditional admission\u2014and those considering it as urged by the ABA\u2014about the hazards of a system that allows LAPs to define fitness standards, impose conditional admission terms, and operate without transparency or oversight. While the ABA\u2019s 2025 Conditional Admission Model Rule contains several positive changes, it also creates new problems and fails to address old ones. The result is a rule that permits LAP overreach and may encourage violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.<\/p>\n

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

\u201cConservative Legal Advocacy Organizations And Constitutional Change In The Roberts Court\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>by\u00a0Ann Southworth<\/strong>\u00a0(UC Irvine). From the abstract:<\/p>\n

\n

The Roberts Court has overturned major precedents and transformed constitutional doctrine on a host of issues: campaign finance, voting rights, labor, religion, guns, abortion, affirmative action, business regulation, federal agency power, and more. To explain this legal revolution, scholars and journalists typically emphasize the composition of the Court. They rightly observe that the conservative movement\u2019s laser focus on judicial appointments since the early 2000s vastly improved conservatives\u2019 chances of prevailing in litigation. Large swaths of doctrine shifted as justices vetted through Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation networks took control of the U.S. Supreme Court, and those shifts accelerated after they won a super majority.<\/p>\n

But understanding this transformation also requires attention to other ingredients for constitutional change through the courts, including legal advocacy organizations, patrons, and networks. This Essay focuses on the roles of conservative and libertarian legal advocacy organizations, using campaign finance as a case study. Part I describes how these organizations, along with allied party leaders, activists, and interest groups, have shared in the work of making constitutional law. Part II examines how conservative legal advocacy organizations have contributed to the creation of First Amendment doctrine governing money in politics. Movements for civil rights and civil liberties provided the model and some of the tools. The Essay is primarily descriptive, but it raises some normative questions, too.<\/p>\n

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

\u201cIs the Legal Profession a Constitutional Stepchild? Lessons from the Law Firm Executive Order Litigation\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>by\u00a0Brad Wendel<\/strong>\u00a0(Cornell). From the abstract:<\/p>\n

\n

In this essay, part of an Oklahoma Law Review symposium on the public responsibilities of private law firms, I offer some suggestions for operationalizing the right to counsel in constitutional adjudication involving threats to the independence of the legal profession.<\/p>\n

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

\u201cOptimizing the Litigation Funding Ecosystem\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>by\u00a0Cassandra Burke Robinson<\/strong>\u00a0(Case Western). From the abstract:<\/p>\n

\n

Litigation finance has become increasingly prevalent in the United States, yet its regulation remains fragmented and contested. This Article challenges the conventional wisdom that uniform federal regulation is the solution to the issues posed by litigation funding. Instead, it argues that targeted improvements to the existing legal ecosystem can enhance predictability and fairness without requiring sweeping regulatory overhaul. This Article makes three key contributions. First, it provides a comprehensive analysis of the growth and maturation of the U.S. litigation finance industry over the last decade and a half, distinguishing between commercial and consumer financing. Second, it explains why regulatory fragmentation persists, situating debates over litigation funding within the broader context of procedural advantage in civil litigation. The Article demonstrates that state-level policy variation reflects legitimate differences in judicial resources, economic conditions, and views about access to justice. Finally, the Article identifies two concrete improvements that courts and practitioners can implement using existing legal frameworks: first, courts should treat litigation funders as agents who facilitate legal representation, bringing them within the established doctrine of attorney-client privilege; and second, parties can achieve greater certainty in priority rights by taking advantage of the UCC\u2019s existing Article 9 framework for secured transactions, thereby reducing uncertainty and decreasing dispute-related costs. These targeted enhancements can significantly improve the functioning of litigation finance while preserving state policy choices about regulation.<\/p>\n

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

Legal Ethics Trivia \ud83e\udde9<\/h3>\n

From the Texas Center for Legal Ethics, here\u2019s the question of the month: \u201cCan you correctly answer this question involving an attorney\u2019s proposal to a client to acquire literary and media rights to a portrayal based on the representation?\u201d\u00a0Test yourself at this website<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0where you can read a short hypothetical, select an answer, and see your results. So far, no one has gotten it right. Will you?<\/p>\n

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

Legal Ethics in Pop Culture \ud83c\udf7f<\/h3>\n

\u201cSidebar: Pop Culture Court \u2014 Harry Potter, Star Trek and the Tinhatting of Originalism\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Courthouse News: \u201c<\/strong>Fictional worlds can be a total dream \u2014 until the legal system turns into a nightmare. From wizarding mishaps to galactic treaties, we look at how imaginary laws mirror our own messy struggles with ethics and the Constitution.\u201d With\u00a0Lenora Ledwon<\/strong>\u00a0(St. Thomas University),\u00a0Stacey Lantagne<\/strong>\u00a0(Suffolk),\u00a0Kiersten Marcil\u00a0<\/strong>(attorney and author of The Enlightened saga),\u00a0and Fabrice Defferrard<\/strong>\u00a0(University of Reims). Read more and listen\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

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

Get Hired \ud83d\udcbc<\/h3>\n

Did you miss the 450+ job postings from previous weeks? Find them all\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Accreditation Counsel, ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar \u2014 Chicago\/Hybrid.\u00a0<\/strong>From the posting: \u201cProvides counsel and expertise to the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. Serves in compliance role in assuring that the Section follows all US Dept of Education criteria, as well as the Section\u2019s Standards, Rules and own Internal Operating Practices.\u201d Salary range from $117,280 \u2013 144,156.50.\u00a0<\/strong>Learn more and apply\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Associate General Counsel, Ethics Officer, Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons \u2014 Washington DC.\u00a0<\/strong>From the posting: \u201dThe incumbent serves as the Associate General Counsel\/Ethics Officer in the Ethics Branch, Office of General Counsel. The Ethics Office is responsible for administering the Bureau-wide ethics program and for implementing Bureau-wide policies on ethics issues.\u201d Salary range $169,278 to $197,200. Learn more and apply\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Conflicts Attorney, Wilson Sonsini \u2014 Remote.\u00a0<\/strong>From the posting: \u201cThis role works closely with attorneys and business stakeholders to ensure timely conflicts clearance and efficient matter progression. The Conflicts Attorney will conduct daily reviews of firm conflicts reports, identify and resolve issues using sound legal judgment, and provide practical, solutions-oriented guidance consistent with professional responsibility rules and Firm policies.\u201d Salary range $116,875 \u2013 $158,125. Learn more and apply\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Conflicts Counsel, Baker Botts \u2014 Multiple Locations.\u00a0<\/strong>From the posting: \u201dThis position is responsible for reviewing conflicts reports and assisting in the identification and clearance of potential conflicts of interest primarily in connection with new business intake. The role may also include conflicts analysis relating to hiring of new lawyers and non-lawyer staff on an as-needed basis. The Conflicts Counsel provides support for Office of General Counsel in implementing risk management strategies relating to new business intake and lawyer hiring.\u201d Salary range $148,000 \u2013 $210,000. Learn more and apply\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Director of Litigation and Policy, Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law, University of Pennsylvania \u2014 Philadelphia.\u00a0<\/strong>From the posting: \u201dCERL seeks a full-time Litigation and Policy Director to lead its nationwide initiatives in U.S. courts, supporting and advising members of Congress, executive branch officials, and actors in state and local government. This position will work in close collaboration with CERL\u2019s Faculty Director, post-doctoral fellows, members of CERL\u2019s Executive Board, Advisory Counsel and Faculty affiliates and Penn Carey Law students to align CERL\u2019s litigation and policy work with strategic defense for the rule of law and Penn\u2019s pedagogical mission.\u201d Salary range $109,000.00 \u2013 $140,000.00. Learn more and apply\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Ethics Attorney, State Bar of Texas \u2014 Austin.\u00a0<\/strong>From the posting: \u201dProvides ethical advice to members of the State Bar of Texas with respect to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, and opinions published by the Supreme Court\u2019s Professional Ethics Committee.\u201d Learn more and apply\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Legal Counsel or Senior Legal Counsel, Ethics, Campaign Legal Center \u2014 Washington DC\/Hybrid.\u00a0<\/strong>From the posting: \u201cCentral to the mission of Campaign Legal Center (\u2018CLC\u2019) is the protection of the right to a government free from both the reality and appearance of improper influence and corruption. Reporting to the Ethics Director, the Legal Counsel\/ Sr. Legal Counsel (LC\/SLC) works on both proactive and responsive actions consistent with mission of CLC\u2019s ethics program, including conducting legal and factual research, ethics investigations, drafting complaints, rulemaking petitions, letters, testimony and other public documents, as well as working with outside groups to advance our mission.\u201d Salary range for Legal Counsel \u2013 $110,776 \u2013 149,875 and for Senior Legal Counsel \u2013 $128,078 \u2013 183,773. Learn more and apply\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Litigation Counsel or Senior Litigation Counsel, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 Washington DC.\u00a0<\/strong>From the posting: \u201dCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) seeks a passionate and creative Litigation Counsel or Senior Litigation Counsel to join our legal team and help us secure our democracy and build a better Washington. This position is a unique opportunity to be on the front lines of the fight for a more ethical, accountable, and open government, while working alongside smart, dedicated and kind people.\u201d Salary range $145,000 \u2013 190,000. Learn more and apply\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Supervisory Attorney Advisor (Ethics Counsel), Office of Government Ethics \u2014 Washington DC.\u00a0<\/strong>From the posting: \u201dThis position is located in the Ethics Law and Disclosure Division (ELDD) and will receive general direction and guidance from the Director and will be responsible for the administration of the ELDD. The ELDD is responsible for establishing liaison with all executive agencies, including the White House and the DOJ and for providing advice and counsel to agency ethics officials and the general public and analyzing, resolving, and monitoring potential conflicts of interest.\u201d Salary range $151,661 to \u2013 $228,000. Learn more and apply\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Upcoming Ethics Events & Other Announcements \ud83d\uddd3\ufe0f<\/h3>\n

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

March 25, 6-7:30PM Eastern. Book Talk Series: Lawyer 3.0: A Guide to Next-Wave Lawyering, sponsored by the Monroe H. Freedman Center for the Study of Legal Ethics and the Stein Center for Law and Ethics.<\/strong>\u00a0Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing will transform all sectors of the economy, including the legal profession. But technology has dramatically impacted lawyers before. In his new book, author Ray Brescia shows how technologies of the late 19th century spurred the emergence of a new \u201cversion\u201d of the profession, but one that was largely inaccessible to too many consumers. Today, new technologies are creating an even newer version of the profession\u2015Lawyer 3.0\u2015that could be more affordable and effective than the one that currently exists. Professor Brescia\u2019s book not only describes this phenomenon but shows how lawyers cannot just survive but thrive in this new reality. Join us to hear Professor Brescia provide an overview of his book with reactions and commentary from a trio of national experts in ethics and technology:<\/p>\n