{"id":166603,"date":"2026-11-02T16:43:48","date_gmt":"2026-11-03T00:43:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/11\/02\/legal-ethics-roundup-can-ai-be-ethical-doj-lawyers-under-scrutiny-weil-gotshal-implodes-rogue-activist-judges-reading-recommendations-jobs-more\/"},"modified":"2026-11-02T16:43:48","modified_gmt":"2026-11-03T00:43:48","slug":"legal-ethics-roundup-can-ai-be-ethical-doj-lawyers-under-scrutiny-weil-gotshal-implodes-rogue-activist-judges-reading-recommendations-jobs-more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/11\/02\/legal-ethics-roundup-can-ai-be-ethical-doj-lawyers-under-scrutiny-weil-gotshal-implodes-rogue-activist-judges-reading-recommendations-jobs-more\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Ethics Roundup: Can AI Be Ethical?, DOJ Lawyers Under Scrutiny, Weil Gotshal Implodes, \u2018Rogue Activist Judges,\u2019 Reading Recommendations, Jobs & 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

Hello First Monday!<\/h3>\n

What is a \u201cFirst Monday\u201d edition?<\/strong> Every Monday here at the LER you receive a summary of the top ten legal ethics headlines. But, on the \u201cFirst Monday\u201d<\/strong> of the month, you get lots more \u2014 the headlines plus reading recommendations, legal ethics trivia, job postings, events, and other features.<\/p>\n

Last week took me from Texas to Atlanta to Detroit to Washington DC. The highlight was attending the American Inns of Court\u2019s annual Celebration of Excellence at the U.S. Supreme Court. You can read about this year\u2019s honorees here<\/a><\/strong>. And headline #1 below belongs to my co-author Keith Swisher<\/strong> (Arizona), who won the Warren E. Burger Prize for his scholarship examining the ethical challenges posed by artificial intelligence in the legal profession. Other awardees included Judy Perry Martinez<\/strong>, a former president of the American Bar Association (ABA) who received the 2026 Lewis F. Powell Jr. Award for Professionalism and Ethics<\/a><\/strong>, which is one of the highest honors bestowed by the American Inns of Court.<\/p>\n

It was a welcome reminder, amid a week of headlines about ethical failures and institutional challenges, that the legal profession also has extraordinary individuals working to uphold its highest ideals.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
U.S. Supreme Court (photo by Renee Jefferson)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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

#1 Keith Swisher Wins the Warren E. Burger Ethics Prize.<\/strong> From the American Inns of Court:<\/strong> \u201cKeith Swisher<\/strong> is the 2026 winner of the prestigious Warren E. Burger Prize<\/a><\/strong>, a writing competition sponsored by the American Inns of Court to promote scholarship in the areas of professionalism, ethics, civility, and excellence. [P]resented in October at the 2026 Celebration of Excellence at the Supreme Court of the United States, the award recognizes Swisher\u2019s paper \u2018The Moral Gaps in Legal Machines.\u2019 The winning paper warns of the moral and ethical challenges inherent in the use of artificial intelligence in the legal world. On the plus side, Swisher writes, so-called \u2018legal machines\u2019 that can autonomously or semi-autonomously do the work of lawyers and judges could prove much more efficient and productive than humans. These machines will not, however, be ethical or accountable. The technology industry and its partners must address five key issues\u2014legal machines\u2019 lack of moral responsibility, inability to empathize, difficulties with new or challenging cases, lack of legal ethics, and lack of accountability\u2014before they can ethically and competently take over the field of law. Until these concerns are addressed, Swisher argues, legal machines need to be kept under close human supervision.\u201d Read more here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#2 \u201cHere Are the U.S. Attorneys Who Are Carrying Out Trump\u2019s Grievance Agenda.\u201d<\/strong> From The New York Times:<\/strong> \u201cTogether, they have pursued cases against the president\u2019s enemies and protesters and amplified false claims of widespread election fraud, often citing thin evidence.\u201d Read more here<\/a><\/strong> (gift link).<\/p>\n

#3 \u201cNYSBA Releases In-Depth Guidelines To Advise Attorneys on Ethical Use of AI.\u201d<\/strong> From the New York State Bar Association:<\/strong> \u201cGuidelines on artificial intelligence approved by the New York State Bar Association will help avoid the unauthorized practice of law, ensure that legal decisions are in human hands, and reduce bias in legal proceedings. On Saturday, the New York State Bar Association\u2019s governing body, the House of Delegates, adopted the report \u2018Legal Ethics Guidelines for Lawyers\u2019 Use of Artificial Intelligence<\/a><\/strong>.\u2019\u201d Read more here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#4 \u201cWhat Does the Weil Gotshal Implosion Mean for the Law-Firm Industry?\u201d<\/strong> From The Wall Street Journal:<\/strong> \u201cThe turmoil at Weil, Gotshal & Manges has led its leaders to wind down the law firm<\/a><\/strong>. They took the steps as the firm hemorrhaged top lawyers and had no clear succession plan after its incoming chair declined to step into the role.\u201d Read more here<\/a><\/strong> (gift link).<\/p>\n

#5 \u201cJudge Wants to Know if Trump Attorneys Violated Ethics in One of 2 Cases to Change D.C. Landscape.\u201d<\/strong> From the Los Angeles Times:<\/strong> \u201cA federal judge said Friday she would open a \u2018formal inquiry\u2019 to investigate if attorneys for the Trump administration violated ethical boundaries during a legal dispute about a golf course project \u2014 one in a pair of plans that are revealing the breadth of the president\u2019s attempts to mold parts of the District of Columbia to his own vision.\u201d Read more here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#6 \u201cTrump Wants to Kick \u2018Rogue Activist Judges\u2019 Off Cases. Can He?\u201d<\/strong> From The New York Times:<\/strong> \u201cA Supreme Court decision and ethics opinions give judges room to speak their minds.\u201d Read more here<\/a><\/strong> (gift link).<\/p>\n

#7 \u201cFormer House Speaker Asks AG to Probe UNH Law Judicial Ethics Conference.\u201d<\/strong> From the Manchester Herald:<\/strong> \u201cRep. William O\u2019Brien<\/strong> claims the event scheduled for Nov. 10 provides improper aid to Democratic candidates ahead of the governor\u2019s race.\u201d Read more here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#8 \u201cDozens of Past U.S. Judges Defend Minnesota Bench Against Federal Ethics Complaint.\u201d<\/strong> From The Minnesota Star Tribune:<\/strong> \u201cThe Department of Justice filed the complaint alleging misconduct by Minnesota federal judges. A group of their former colleagues from across the U.S. say it\u2019s baseless.\u201d Read more here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#9 \u201cTexas Judge\u2019s Racial Comments to Lawyer Sparked Investigation.\u201d<\/strong> From Bloomberg Law:<\/strong> \u201cA lawyer\u2019s misconduct complaint against US District Judge Ada Brown<\/strong> stemmed from a hearing during which she repeatedly directed racial insults at him, according to documents reviewed by Bloomberg Law.\u201d Read more here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#10 \u201cTrump Administration Unlawfully Fired Maurene Comey, Judge Rules<\/strong>.<\/strong><\/em>\u201d<\/strong> From The New York Times:<\/strong> \u201cA Manhattan judge on Monday ruled that Maurene Comey,<\/strong> a former federal prosecutor and the daughter of one of Mr. Trump\u2019s best-known critics, was unlawfully fired last year. In a 55-page ruling, Judge Jesse M. Furman<\/strong> of Federal District Court in Manhattan wrote that the Justice Department violated the separation of powers, federal administrative law and Ms. Comey\u2019s due process rights when it fired her in July 2025.\u201d Read more here<\/a><\/strong> (gift link).<\/p>\n

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

\u201cThe Ethics of Trademark Policing\u201d<\/strong> by Jon Lee<\/strong> (Oklahoma). From the abstract:<\/p>\n

\n

Aggressive policing of trademark rights, often called \u201ctrademark bullying,\u201d is widely seen as a significant problem that impacts both the targets of bullying and the public\u2019s interest in fair competition. Accordingly, we might assume that lawyers who advise or assist their clients in such enforcement efforts must be acting unethically. Is that true? And, if so, why has nothing been done about it?<\/p>\n

This Article comprehensively examines the ethics of engaging in trademark policing, given the competing obligations that lawyers owe to clients, third persons, and tribunals. The Article demonstrates that, in most instances, actions that might be considered \u201ctrademark bullying\u201d do not run afoul of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, even if they may produce undesirable consequences. In fact, a lawyer at times must carry out these enforcement efforts to fulfill their ethical obligations to clients. This counterintuitive proposition stems from three sources: trademark doctrine, which encourages trademark holders to police their own marks; the uncertainties of trademark litigation, which make it nearly impossible to know when a claim of infringement or dilution is frivolous; and the Model Rules, which set such a low bar for avoiding disciplinary intervention.<\/p>\n

Yet there are limits. In certain situations, aggressive trademark policing may cross ethical lines. The Article explains why courts and state disciplinary agencies are not equipped to regulate this type of misconduct when it occurs, and it suggests an alternative solution that leverages the authority and expertise of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.<\/p>\n

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

\u201cThe Duty to Disobey Unethical Orders: Lawyers and the Rule of Law\u201d<\/strong> by Ray Brescia<\/strong> (Albany). From the abstract:<\/p>\n

\n

Members of the legal profession have an affirmative duty to refuse unethical directives and report professional misconduct, a responsibility analogous to the military\u2019s obligation to disobey illegal orders. This duty is premised on the fact that lawyers function as fiduciaries, not just for their clients, but for the legal system itself. This Article outlines the legal profession\u2019s obligation to adhere to two \u201cimperatives,\u201d what it calls the \u201crule-of-law imperative\u201d and the \u201cindependence imperative,\u201d embedded within the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and associated professional obligations that require that lawyers reject instrumental manipulations of the law that subvert democratic institutions. The Article examines three case studies to illustrate the fragility of these professional obligations in the face of political pressure: the whistleblowing and subsequent termination of DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, who refused to sign a frivolous brief or support the Trump Administration\u2019s willful defiance of court orders regarding mass deportations; recent instances of private law firm capitulation, describing how such firms, under threat of executive retribution against them and their clients, entered into settlement agreements that restricted their future practice and compromised their independence; and the advocacy on the part of several lawyers who sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election. This Article views these case studies in light of the rule-of-law and independence imperatives and proposes a reform agenda designed to promote both.<\/p>\n

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

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

Did you miss the 600+ job postings from previous weeks? Find them all\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Associate Director of Assessment Development, National Conference of Bar Examiners \u2014 Madison, WI.<\/strong> From the posting: \u201cThe Associate Director of Assessment Development oversees the creation of content and the construction of assessment forms for one or more of NCBE\u2019s assessment programs, with a main focus on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination.\u201d Salary range from $127,000 \u2013 $158,000. Learn more and apply here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/a><\/p>\n

Conflicts Attorney, Ashurst Perkins Coie \u2014 Multiple Locations.<\/strong> From the posting: \u201cThe Conflicts Attorney will independently review, research, and resolve conflicts issues related to firm new business and staff personnel and ensure compliance with ethical standards in all jurisdictions as well as firm policies.\u201d Salary range from $158,120 to $322,710 depending on location. Learn more and apply here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/a><\/p>\n

Office of General Counsel \u2013 Conflicts and Ethics, Latham & Watkins \u2014 Chicago and Other Locations.<\/strong> From the posting: \u201cThis role will be responsible for resolving professional ethics conflicts and related compliance issues by applying legal ethics rules, professional responsibility principles, Latham & Watkins policies, and practical judgment to lateral clearances, new business matters, outside counsel guidelines, engagement terms, waivers, ethics walls, and related risk-management issues, while coordinating with partners, Ethics Committee Members, and other stakeholders to resolve conflicts issues, communicating status updates and following through until the matter is resolved or appropriately escalated.\u201d Salary range from $170,000 \u2013 $200,000. Learn more and apply here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/a><\/p>\n

Professional Responsibility Counsel, Foley & Lardner \u2014 Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, New York, Washington DC.<\/strong> From the posting: \u201cThe Professional Responsibility Counsel (\u201cPRC\u201d) is a staff lawyer who facilitates the firm\u2019s compliance with ethics and regulatory requirements. The PRC is a member of the administrative management team and is a practicing lawyer whose sole client is the firm. A successful candidate will have demonstrated understanding of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct; understanding of conflicts of interest rules, including the ability to identify conflicts and determine appropriate resolution; and strong legal research and writing skills with an ability to translate legal requirements into operational process.\u201d Salary range from $130,900 to $235,700, depending on location. Learn more and apply here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/a><\/p>\n

Keep in Touch \ud83d\udcdd<\/h3>\n