Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Renee
Knake
Jefferson
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
Legal
Ethics
Roundup, here.
Welcome
to
what
captivates,
haunts,
inspires,
and
surprises
me
every
week
in
the
world
of
legal
ethics.
Happy
Monday!
I’m
writing
you
from
New
Orleans
while
attending
the
Association
for
American
Law
Schools
Annual
Meeting.
It
was
wonderful
to
see
many
LER
readers
at
the
standing-room-only
panel
I
moderated
on
Thursday
— “The
Law
Professor’s
Role
in
Protecting
Our
Legal
System” —
with
speakers Scott
Cummings (UCLA), Matthew
Diller (Fordham), Rachel
Lopez (Temple),
and Milan
Markovic (Texas
A&M).
It
was
also
great
to
hear
an
outstanding
jazz
performance
by Ingrid and Christine
Jensen at Snug
Harbor
Jazz
Bistro.
Harbor
Jazz
Bistro,
New
Orleans
(photo
by
Renee
Jefferson)
This
week
I’m
teaching
a
(new
to
me)
course
at
the
University
of
Houston
Law
Center,
a
one-week
intensive
called
Legal
Methods,
and
next
week
I
begin
the
regular
semester
teaching
Professional
Responsibility.
With
the
start
of
a
new
year
and
a
new
semester,
I’ve
been
reflecting
on
why
I
keep
writing
the
Legal
Ethics
Roundup.
Later
this
week
I’ll
be
sharing
a
Bonus
Content
post
to
explain
more,
but
for
now
I’ll
say
this.
The
LER
was
inspired
as
I
watched
questions
of
lawyer
and
judicial
ethics
move
from
the
margins
to
the
center
of
our
legal
and
democratic
life—and
I
was
struck
by
how
hard
it
had
become
to
see
the
full
picture.
Developments
were
unfolding
quickly,
across
jurisdictions,
and
often
without
context
or
synthesis.
Even
people
who
cared
deeply
about
institutional
integrity
were
trying
to
piece
things
together
on
their
own.
What
emerged
through
this
Substack
is
not
really
a
newsletter
in
the
usual
sense.
The
LER
is
closer
to
a
public-service
legal
ethics
intelligence
brief
—
a
place
to
step
back
from
the
noise
and
understand
what
is
happening,
why
it
matters,
and
how
today’s
decisions
may
shape
tomorrow’s
institutions.
Now
for
your
headlines.
Highlights
from
Last
Week –
Top
Ten
Headlines
#1
“Impeachment:
Holding
Rogue
Judges
Accountable.” Last
Wednesday
the Senate
Judiciary
Committee held
hearings
about
so-called
“rogue
judges.”
Witnesses
included Will
Chamberlain (Article
III
Project), Rob
Luther (George
Mason),
and Stephen
Vladeck (Georgetown).
Watch
the
hearings
and
read
their
testimony here.
Highlights
from
each
follow
below:
Chamberlain: “Impeachments
of
judges
are
relatively
rare
throughout
our
nation’s
history,
to
insulate
the
judicial
process
from
politics
and
protect
the
rule
of
law. Judge
Boardman’s case,
however,
is
the
rare
one
where
a
judicial
impeachment
would
vindicate
the
integrity
of
the
judiciary
and
protect
judges
from
improper
influence. Nicholas
Roske tried
and
failed
to
assassinate Justice
Kavanaugh.
The
evidence
presented
at
sentencing
demonstrated
that
he
did
so
because
he
wanted
to
change
the
Supreme
Court’s
jurisprudence
on
abortion.13
Judge
Boardman’s
slap
on
the
wrist
for
Mr.
Roske,
if
left
to
stand,
will
only
encourage
others
upset
with
judicial
decisions
to
try
similar
tactics.”
Luther: “The
cloak
of
judicial
independence
does
not
shroud
a
judge
from
accountability-before
this
body
or
the
public.
For
facilitating
violations
of
the
U.S.
Constitution
and
federal
statutory
law
with
respect
to
Members
of
this
Congress
and
for
pursuing
a
vengeful
contempt
expedition
into
the
highest
echelon
of
our
national
security
officials, Judge
Boasberg must
be
held
accountable.”
Vladeck: “I
would
have
welcomed
an
opportunity
to
explore
with
you
how
Congress
can
better
promote
[judicial
accountability]
across
the
entire
federal
judiciary—including,
in
particular,
with
respect
to
the
Supreme
Court.
Unfortunately,
today’s
hearing
is
focused
on
something
else
altogether—an
effort
to
vilify,
and
perhaps
muster
support
for
the
impeachment
of,
two
highly
regarded
federal
district
judges
because
some
members
of
this
Subcommittee
disagree
with
some
of
their
rulings.
As
someone
who
spends
a
lot
of
time
disagreeing
with
judicial
decisions,
I
can
certainly
relate
to
that
impulse.
But
in
my
testimony
today,
I
respectfully
submit
that
the
Subcommittee’s
efforts
are
deeply
misguided—for
at
least
three
reasons.”
#2
“Law
School
Student
Groups
Ask
ABA
to
Review
Accelerated
Associate
Recruiting
Timelines.” From Law.com: “Student
associations
and
governments
from
18
top-tier
law
schools
signed
a
joint
letter
that
asserts
‘accelerated
timelines
have
also
begun
to
undermine
legal
education,
student
and
staff
well-being,
and
the
recruitment
market.’”
Read
more here.
#3
“Advocacy
Group
Accuses
US
Appeals
Court
Judge
of
Mistreating
Law
Clerks.” From Reuters “A
non-profit
organization
that
advocates
on
behalf
of
law
clerks
…
filed
a
judicial
misconduct
complaint
accusing
a
federal
appeals
court
judge
of
mistreating
her
clerks
and
creating
a
‘workplace
climate
characterized
by
fear,
oppressive
control,
intimidation,
humiliation,
and
bullying.’ The
Legal
Accountability
Project alleged
that U.S.
Circuit
Judge
Sarah
Merriam of
the
New
York-based
2nd
U.S.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
has
maintained
a
‘culture
of
fear’
in
her
chambers
despite
previously
pledging
to
improve
workplace
conditions
following
an
earlier
complaint
by
a
clerk.”
Read
more here.
#4
“Texas
Becomes
First
State
to
End
American
Bar
Association
Oversight
of
Law
Schools.” From Houston
Public
Media: “The
Texas
Supreme
Court
on
Tuesday
finalized
a
tentative
opinion
issued
in
September
that
no
longer
requires
soon-to-be
lawyers
to
attend
a
law
school
accredited
by
the
American
Bar
Association.
The
power
to
approve
those
law
schools
now
rests
with
the
state’s
highest
civil
court.”
Read
more here.
#5
“Judge
Who
Allegedly
Kept
‘Book
of
Grudges’
Faces
Misconduct
Charges.” From
the ABA
Journal: “A
Pennsylvania
judge
who
allegedly
kept
a
‘Book
of
Grudges’
and
a
sexually
explicit
calendar
in
her
office
violated
judicial
conduct
standards,
according
to
formal charges
filed
Wednesday.
The
Judicial
Conduct
Board
of
Pennsylvania
also
accused Lehigh
County
Magisterial
District
Judge
Amy
L.
Zanelli of
excessive
tardiness
and
absences.
She
was
elected
to
her
position
in
2021.
Zanelli
allegedly
described
a
local
attorney
as
‘just
a
d-
–
-’
in
the
‘Book
of
Grudges’
and
made
notes
that
were
critical
of
another
person
who
appeared
in
her
court
in
landlord-tenant
matters.
She
placed
the
‘Book
of
Grudges’
in
a
general
work
area
in
the
office
accessible
to
her
staff
to
add
notations
to
it
if
they
wished,
according
to
the
complaint.”
Read
more here.
#6
“Texas
Judicial
Ethics
Rules
Permit
Same-Sex
Wedding
Refusal.” From Bloomberg
Law: “A
Texas
judge’s
refusal
to
marry
same-sex
couples
for
religious
reasons
while
still
marrying
opposite-sex
couples
is
permitted
under
the
state’s
judicial
ethics
code,
the
Texas
Supreme
Court
said
Friday,
offering
clarity
in
two
high-profile
disputes.
Answering
a
certified
question
from
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Fifth
Circuit,
the
justices
said
it’s
not
a
violation
to
refrain
from
performing
a
wedding
ceremony
based
upon
a
sincerely
held
religious
belief.”
Read
more here.
#7
“One
Person
at
a
Time:
Lawyers
and
Legal
Legitimacy
in
a
Shifting
World.” From Melissa
Mortazavi (Oklahoma) in Jotwell reviewing Hannah
Haksgaard’s (South
Dakota) The
Rural
Lawyer:
How
to
Help
Incentivize
Rural
Law
Practice
and
Help
Small
Communities
Thrive: “While
there
is
a
growing
body
of
research
on
rural
lawyering
and
rural
access
to
justice,
none
approaches
the
subject
with
the
level
of
detail
and
care
to
individual
experiences
that
Professor
Hannah
Haksgaard
does
in
her
quietly
landmark
work, The
Rural
Lawyer:
How
to
Incentivize
Rural
Law
Practice
and
Help
Small
Communities
Thrive.
She
sets
out
the
book’s
seemingly
modest
goal
with
a
humility
that
mirrors
the
project
she
describes
so
lovingly,
as
an
‘analysis
of
how
a
program
can
help
new
rural
lawyers.’
(P.
8.)
However,
this
deeply
intimate
account
detailing
the
successes
(and
failures)
of
South
Dakota’s
Rural
Attorney
Recruitment
Program,
does
far
more
than
that:
this
book
interrogates
the
relationship
between
communities,
legal
practice,
lawyer
to
lawyer
mentorship,
and
law
itself.
In
doing
so,
it
provides
vital
insights
for
our
turbulent
times.”
Read
more here.
#8
“4
Developments
That
Defined
The
2025
Ethical
Landscape.” From Law360: “The
legal
profession
spent
2025
at
the
edge
of
its
ethical
comfort
zone
as
courts,
firms
and
regulators
confronted
how
fast-moving
technologies
and
new
business
models
collide
with
long-standing
professional
duties.
A
surge
of
sanctions
tied
to
improper
artificial
intelligence
use,
a U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Ninth
Circuit YouTube dissent,
rapid
expansion
of
management
services
organizations
and
alternative
business
structures,
and
the
Trump
administration’s
pressure
campaign
against
major
firms
dominated
the
legal
ethics
docket.
Below
is
a
breakdown
of
four
developments
that
shaped
this
year’s
ethics
conversation
—
and
what
they
signal
for
2026.”
Read
more here.
#9
“Legal
Ethics
Year
in
Review:
2025.” From Brad
Wendel’s (Cornell) Legal
Ethics
Stuff
Substack: “To
my
mind
the
biggest
legal
ethics
story
of
2025
by
a
long
shot
was
the
attempt
by
the
Trump
administration
to
use
executive
orders
to
destroy
law
firms
who
either
hired
lawyers
who
angered
the
president
(like Marc
Elias at Perkins
Coie or
lawyers
at WilmerHale who
had
worked
on
the
Special
Counsel
investigations
of
Trump)
or
represented
clients
in
causes
the
president
deemed
inimical
to
the
national
interest.”
Read
more here.
#10
“Attorney
Conduct
Cases
Coming
to
a
Head
in
2026.” From Reuters: “The
new
year
kicks
off
with
the
scheduled
trial
of
a
top
U.S.
Supreme
Court
lawyer,
and
pivotal
rulings
for
one
of
the
president’s
legal
allies
as
well
as
for
a
law
firm
accused
of
profiting
from
a
judicial
conflict
of
interest.
Here
are
three
cases
testing
the
boundaries
of
attorney
conduct
and
professional
ethics
in
2026.”
Read
more here.
Get
Hired
Did
you
miss
the
400+
job
postings
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.
Upcoming
Ethics
Events
&
Other
Announcements
️
Did
you
miss
an
announcement
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.
Keep
in
Touch
News
tips?
Announcements?
Events? A
job
to
post? Reading
recommendations? Email [email protected] –
but
be
sure
to
subscribe
first,
otherwise
the
email
won’t
be
delivered.
Renee
Knake
Jefferson
holds
the
endowed
Doherty
Chair
in
Legal
Ethics
and
is
a
Professor
of
Law
at
the
University
of
Houston.
Check
out
more
of
her
writing
at
the Legal
Ethics
Roundup.
Find
her
on
X
(formerly
Twitter)
at @reneeknake or
Bluesky
at legalethics.bsky.social.