Another
virtual
Vigil
today
continues
our
protest
against
the
human
rights
abuse
and
lack
of
democracy
in
Zimbabwe.
Events
and
Notices:
Next
Vigil
meeting
outside
the
Zimbabwe
Embassy.
Saturday
7th
February
2026
from
2
–
5
pm.
We
meet
on
the
first
and
third
Saturdays
of
every
month.
On
other
Saturdays
the
virtual
Vigil
will
run.
The
Restoration
of
Human
Rights
in
Zimbabwe
(ROHR)
is
the
Vigil’s
partner
organisation
based
in
Zimbabwe.
ROHR
grew
out
of
the
need
for
the
Vigil
to
have
an
organisation
on
the
ground
in
Zimbabwe
which
reflected
the
Vigil’s
mission
statement
in
a
practical
way.
ROHR
in
the
UK
actively
fundraises
through
membership
subscriptions,
events,
sales
etc
to
support
the
activities
of
ROHR
in
Zimbabwe.
The
Vigil’s
book
‘Zimbabwe
Emergency’
is
based
on
our
weekly
diaries.
It
records
how
events
in
Zimbabwe
have
unfolded
as
seen
by
the
diaspora
in
the
UK.
It
chronicles
the
economic
disintegration,
violence,
growing
oppression
and
political
manoeuvring
–
and
the
tragic
human
cost
involved.
It
is
available
at
the
Vigil.
All
proceeds
go
to
the
Vigil
and
our
sister
organisation
the
Restoration
of
Human
Rights
in
Zimbabwe’s
work
in
Zimbabwe.
The
book
is
also
available
from
Amazon.
Facebook
pages:
Vigil
:
https
://www.facebook.com/zimbabwevigil
The
Vigil,
outside
the
Zimbabwe
Embassy,
429
Strand,
London
meets
regularly
on
Saturdays
from
14.00
to
17.00
to
protest
against
gross
violations
of
human
rights
in
Zimbabwe.
The
Vigil
which
started
in
October
2002
will
continue
until
internationally-monitored,
free
and
fair
elections
are
held
in
Zimbabwe.
Some
of
these
incidents
—
in
a
rational
world
—
would
incur
criminal
liability.
But
in
a
post-Trump
v.
United
States
world,
the
executive
branch
enjoys
actual
or
practical
absolute
immunity
for
all
manner
of
lawlessness.
And
that’s
before
Trump
inevitably
pardons
the
whole
legal
team
on
his
way
out
the
door.
Qualified
immunity
and
a
legal
system
actively
hostile
to
civil
liability
for
constitutional
violations
will
protect
them
from
everything
else.
There’s
only
one
avenue
for
realistically
holding
any
of
these
lawyers
accountable.
State
licensing
authorities
don’t
have
to
respect
contrived
immunities
or
federal
pardons.
The
only
concern
of
professional
licensing
is
fitness
to
practice
the
profession.
Trump’s
lawyers
are
engaged
in
professional
misconduct
at
scale
and
authorities
don’t
have
to
let
them
keep
their
licenses.
As
attorneys,
we
all
have
an
obligation
to
the
profession
and
the
public
to
make
sure
these
people
never
work
as
lawyers
again.
So
far,
bar
authorities
have
whiffed
on
their
duties.
Lindsey
Halligan,
the
insurance
lawyer
who,
until
recently,
pretended
to
be
the
“Interim”
U.S.
Attorney
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia,
kept
signing
documents
after
a
judge
pointed
out
that
she
had
no
legal
authority.
When
a
second
judge
asked
why
she
continued
to
defy
the
court’s
orders,
Halligan’s
bosses,
AG
Pam
Bondi
and
Deputy
AG
Todd
Blanche,
responded
in
a
filing
filled
with
more
vitriol
than
legal
support.
A
professional
ethics
watchdog
flagged
Halligan’s
behavior
for
bar
authorities
in
Virginia
who
brushed
it
off
as
none
of
their
business.
Even
the
judge
who
called
out
Halligan
refused
to
refer
her
for
discipline
noting
her
“inexperience.”
Not
for
nothing,
but
the
duty
of
competence
makes
taking
on
a
legal
task
without
sufficient
expertise
an
ethical
violation
all
of
its
own!
Rather
than
letting
her
off
the
hook,
her
inexperience
should
just
get
added
to
the
heap
of
potential
ethical
violations
stemming
from
turning
in
an
indictment
without
running
it
by
the
grand
jury
and
discussing
confidential
aspects
of
an
ongoing
investigation
with
a
reporter
in
a
failed
effort
to
craft
a
PR
narrative.
“Whether
criminal
indictments
were
obtained
through
material
misrepresentations
of
fact
and
done
for
political
purposes
falls
within
the
authority
of
the
court
to
determine
and
not
this
office,”
Virginia’s
last
line
of
defense
against
professional
misconduct
wrote
at
the
time.
That
is,
to
put
it
charitably,
complete
horseshit.
Bar
authorities
exist
precisely
because
unethical
conduct
often
doesn’t
rise
to
the
level
of
court
intervention.
The
whole
point
of
professional
discipline
is
to
address
behavior
that
renders
someone
unfit
to
practice
law.
It’s
not
about
criminality,
it’s
about
fitness
to
practice.
Should
the
public
trust
a
lawyer
who
lied
to
a
court
in
an
attempt
to
ramrod
a
federal
criminal
case
against
someone
on
the
president’s
enemies
list?
Judge
James
Boasberg
found
“probable
cause”
to
hold
the
government
in
criminal
contempt
after
DOJ
lawyer
Drew
Ensign
told
him
deportation
flights
weren’t
taking
off
when
they
absolutely
were.
Ensign
later
had
to
admit
in
another
case
that
the
government
falsely
claimed
Guatemalan
children’s
parents
had
requested
their
return
when,
in
fact,
“none
of
these
children’s
parents
had
asked
for
them
to
be
sent
back.”
It’s
hard
to
believe
this
amounts
to
Ensign’s
own
incompetence
either.
Before
securing
a
lifetime
appointment
to
the
Third
Circuit,
Emil
Bove
allegedly
told
DOJ
lawyers
to
tell
courts
“fuck
you,”
if
judges
tried
to
put
the
brakes
on
illegal
deportations.
DOJ
whistleblower
Erez
Reuveni
says
he
was
pressured
to
make
false
assertions
to
courts
and
was
fired
for
refusing
to
lie.
Text
messages
show
DOJ
lawyers
reacting
to
the
Ensign’s
representations
to
the
court
with
“Oh
shit.
That
was
just
not
true.“
Model
Rule
3.3
could
not
be
clearer:
“A
lawyer
shall
not
knowingly
make
a
false
statement
of
fact
or
law
to
a
tribunal.”
Model
Rule
8.4
prohibits
conduct
“involving
dishonesty,
fraud,
deceit,
or
misrepresentation”
and
conduct
“prejudicial
to
the
administration
of
justice.”
If
these
allegations
are
remotely
true,
these
aren’t
even
particularly
close
calls.
If
the
behavior
is
already
in
spitting
distance
of
a
judge
putting
a
lawyer
in
a
jail
cell,
then
it’s
more
than
enough
to
suspend
licenses.
Immediately
after
ICE
agents
shot
and
point
blank
killed
VA
nurse
Alex
Pretti,
Pam
Bondi
wrote
Minnesota
governor
Tim
Walz
representing
that
the
administration
would
remove
its
agents
—
who
are,
to
date,
responsible
for
two
of
the
three
total
homicides
in
the
state
of
Minnesota
in
2026
—
if
Minnesota
agreed
to
hand
over
voter
information
to
the
federal
government
in
violation
of
applicable
law.
Using
a
prosecutorial
office
to
extort
officials
to
break
state
laws
seems,
well,
not
particularly
ethical.
This
is
assembly
line
professional
misconduct.
If
lying
to
federal
judges
about
your
premediated
plan
to
ignore
court
orders
doesn’t
warrant
discipline,
what
does?
If
using
the
threat
of
criminal
charges
or
law
enforcement
action
to
exact
political
concessions
doesn’t
cross
the
line,
where
exactly
is
the
line?
There
are
more
than
enough
rules
to
cite.
Competence,
candor,
special
prosecutorial
duties,
extrajudicial
communications,
general
misconduct…
spin
the
wheel
and
throw
a
dart
and
a
serious
disciplinary
counsel
should
find
ample
evidence
to
back
an
investigation.
Even
with
a
well-greased
revolving
door
between
government
service
and
lucrative
private
sector
work,
one
might
think
law
firms
would
hesitate
to
hitch
their
reputations
to
lawyers
involved
in
public
misconduct.
But
if
2025
taught
us
anything,
it’s
that
there
will
be
employers
willing
to
compromise
their
principles
to
appease
the
people
backing
this
administration.
The
only
guarantee
that
these
people
face
any
accountability
instead
of
sliding
into
cushy,
lucrative
positions
disgracing
the
legal
profession
from
a
corner
office
involves
professional
discipline.
Local
bars
and
disciplinary
authorities
must
treat
these
cases
as
what
they
are:
serious,
documented
violations
of
core
ethical
duties.
If
state
bar
authorities
lack
the
courage
to
enforce
professional
rules,
they
should
be
replaced.
The
profession
belongs
to
us.
Protecting
its
reputation
from
those
dragging
it
through
the
mud
is
on
us,
or
it’s
on
no
one.
If
a
jurisdiction
doesn’t
give
members
a
path
to
replace
disciplinary
authorities
falling
down
on
the
job,
then
launch
campaigns
to
oust
whoever
does.
With
the
Supreme
Court
potentially
poised
to
invalidate
recent
tariffs,
organizations
face
a
confusing
scenario.
Having
clear
visibility
into
contract
terms
—
such
as
price
adjustments
and
renegotiation
provisions
—
is
essential
to
navigating
this
volatility.
Come
join
us
on
at
1
p.m.
ET
on
Jan.
27
for
this
CLE-approved
webinar,
where
we’ll
discuss
the
current
state
of
the
tariff
conundrum
and
explore
strategies
for
achieving
contract
visibility
with
the
latest
AI
innovations.
In
this
session,
you’ll
learn
how
to:
How
to
find
the
tariff-related
contractual
answers
you
need
quickly
and
easily
just
by
asking
questions.
How
to
continuously
rank,
classify,
and
summarize
financial
terms
—
without
even
having
to
ask.
Strategies
to
mitigate
supply
chain
disruptions
and
cost
volatility
with
negotiated
terms.
Real-world
examples
of
businesses
leveraging
AI-powered
contract
data
to
overcome
challenges.
Learn
how
contract
intelligence
can
help
you
confidently
navigate
uncertainty
and
protect
your
bottom
line.
Last
week
the
Justice
Department
threw
a
giant
hissy
fit
because
it
wasn’t
allowed
to
tweet
out
an
image
of
Don
Lemon
in
handcuffs.
Prosecutors
demanded
that
a
federal
appeals
court
sign
an
arrest
warrant
so
they
could
perp
walk
a
Black
journalist
and
turn
him
into
a
meme.
And
they
did
it
while
working
overtime
to
keep
all
trace
of
the
DOJ’s
tantrum
off
the
public
docket.
The
incident
began
on
January
18,
when
protesters
disrupted
worship
at
Cities
Church
in
Saint
Paul,
where
one
of
the
pastors
is
a
regional
director
for
ICE.
Don
Lemon,
an
independent
journalist
familiar
to
Americans
from
his
years
on
CNN,
embedded
with
the
protesters
and
livestreamed
the
event,
interviewing
parishioners,
clergy,
and
participants.
The
action
enraged
conservatives,
and
the
DOJ
promised
to
prosecute
everyone
involved.
Harmeet
Dhillon,
head
of
what
remains
of
the
DOJ’s
Civil
Rights
Division,
immediately
went
on
air
with
rightwing
podcaster
Benny
Johnson
to
warn
the
godless
heathens
that
vengeance
was
coming.
Assistant
DOJ
Attorney
General
for
Civil
Rights
Harmeet
Dhillon:
“The
people
on
the
left
we’re
talking
about,
they’re
not
familiar
with
what
goes
on
in
a
house
of
worship.
A
lot
of
them
are
godless
people.”
“Everyone
in
the
protest
community
needs
to
know
that
the
fullest
force
of
the
federal
government
is
going
to
come
down
and
prevent
this
from
happening
and
put
people
away
for
a
long,
long
time,”
she
vowed.
The
very
next
day,
her
office
filed
a
criminal
complaint
against
Lemon
and
seven
others,
alleging
deprivation
of
civil
rights
under
both
the
Klan
Act
and
the
Freedom
of
Access
to
Clinic
Entrances
(FACE)
Act.
They
literally
charged
Armstrong,
a
Black
reverend,
for
violating
a
Reconstruction
Era
statute
meant
to
protect
the
right
to
vote
on
MLK
day.
But
Magistrate
Judge
Douglas
Micko
refused
to
issue
an
arrest
warrant
for
five
of
the
eight,
including
Lemon
and
his
producer.
And
for
the
remaining
three,
the
judge
crossed
out
the
FACE
Act
charge,
for
which
he
found
no
probable
cause
— presumably
because
that
law
requires
“force
or
threat
of
force
or
by
physical
obstruction,”
which
no
one
has
alleged.
Attorney
General
Bondi
and
DHS
Secretary
trumpeted
the
arrests
of
Nekima
Levy
Armstrong,
Chantyll
Allen,
and
William
Kelly
on
social
media,
blasting
out
their
pictures
with
the
arresting
officers’
faces
blurred.
But
that
wasn’t
cruel
enough
to
satisfy
the
edgelord
regime.
The
White
House
actually
altered
Armstrong’s
picture
to
make
it
appear
that
she
was
weeping
in
terror,
not
strong
and
defiant.
When
reporters
noted
the
forgery,
White
House
press
“professionals”
snarked
that
“the
memes
will
continue.”
At
the
same
time
the
White
House
was
mocking
the
very
idea
of
objective
reality,
the
DOJ
was
in
court
insisting
that
its
own
unsubstantiated
representations
be
treated
like
gospel
truth.
First
it
demanded
that
a
district
court
judge
review
Judge
Micko’s
finding
of
no
probable
cause
against
Lemon
and
the
other
four
putative
coconspirators.
The
case
landed
on
the
docket
of
Chief
Judge
Patrick
Schiltz,
who
said
he’d
never
heard
of
such
a
thing,
no
other
judge
in
the
Eighth
Circuit
had
ever
heard
of
such
a
thing,
and
he
would
need
a
few
days
to
discuss
it
with
the
other
judges
in
the
district
before
setting
a
new,
precedential
standard.
Prosecutors
insisted
that
Judge
Schiltz
had
to
act
immediately,
for
“national
security.”
They
mumbled
vaguely
about
“serious,
credible
threats
of
another
attack
this
upcoming
weekend”
against
Cities
Church
and
insisted
that
the
only
way
to
protect
it
was
to
arrest
Don
Lemon
ASAP.
Judge
Schiltz
effectively
called
the
bluff,
noting
that
the
DOJ
was
free
to
beef
up
the
complaint
and
present
it
again,
or
try
its
luck
with
a
grand
jury.
But
the
government
had
zero
intention
of
subjecting
its
crackpot
theories
to
further
scrutiny.
After
dozens
of
no-bills
and
embarrassing
acquittals
in
Chicago
and
DC,
the
DOJ
knows
that
Minnesota
jurors
are
likelier
to
pelt
them
with
snowballs
than
to
return
an
indictment.
The
only
“win”
for
the
White
House
here
is
to
wheedle
an
arrest
warrant
out
of
a
magistrate
and
use
the
perp
walk
for
content.
And
so
on
Friday
morning
it
went
nuclear,
stomping
into
the
Eighth
Circuit
with
a
petition
for
mandamus,
demanding
that
the
appeals
court
order
Judge
Schiltz
to
sign
warrants
for
Lemon
and
the
other
four
“coconspirators.”
“The
Government
is
aware
of
serious
credible
threats
of
repeated
action
by
the
same
group
against
the
same
church
this
weekend,”
prosecutors
wrote,
without
explaining
why
arresting
Lemon
et
al
would
have
a
greater
deterrent
effect
than
parading
Armstrong,
Allen,
and
Kelly
across
social
media.
The
appellate
docket
was
originally
sealed,
as
is
much
of
the
trial
docket.
And
yet
the
panel
ordered
Judge
Schiltz
to
respond
in
a
couple
of
hours
to
a
petition
he
couldn’t
read.
The
five
people
whom
the
government
seeks
to
arrest
are
accused
of
entering
a
church,
and
the
worst
behavior
alleged
about
any
of
them
is
yelling
horrible
things
at
the
members
of
the
church.
None
committed
any
acts
of
violence.
The
leaders
of
the
group
have
been
arrested,
and
their
arrests
have
received
widespread
publicity.
There
is
absolutely
no
emergency.
The
government
could
have
sought
indictments
from
a
grand
jury
on
Tuesday,
January
20,
Wednesday,
January
21,
or
Thursday,
January
22,
but
chose
not
to
do
so.
The
government
can
still
take
its
case
to
a
grand
jury
any
time
it
wishes.
Instead,
the
government
is
insisting
that
I
do
something
that,
as
best
as
I
can
tell,
no
district
judge
in
the
history
of
the
Eighth
Circuit
has
done.
I
have
told
the
government
that
I
will
discuss
its
request
with
my
fellow
judges
on
Tuesday
and
give
it
a
decision
Tuesday
afternoon.
If
the
mystery
petition
filed
by
the
government
seeks
an
order
from
the
Eighth
Circuit
forcing
me
to
decide
today-instead
of
Tuesday-whether
to
issue
arrests
warrants
for
the
five
protestors,
I
respectfully
suggest
that
the
petition
is
frivolous.
Of
course
the
petition
is
frivolous!
They’re
trying
to
arrest
a
well-known
journalist
for
wandering
around
during
a
newsworthy
event
and
interviewing
people
on
camera.
It’s
also
wildly
out
of
order,
and
so
the
Eighth
Circuit
denied
it
later
that
afternoon.
Only
Judge
Steven
Grasz,
a
Trump
appointee
unanimously
rated
unqualified
by
the
ABA
Standing
Committee
for
“temperament
issues,
particularly
bias
and
lack
of
open-mindedness,”
piped
up
to
offer
his
opinion
that
“the
Complaint
and
Affidavit
clearly
establish
probable
cause
for
all
five
arrest
warrants.”
But
finding
that
“the
government
has
failed
to
establish
that
it
has
no
other
adequate
means
of
obtaining
the
requested
relief,”
he
concurred
in
the
denial.
Of
course,
the
predicted
“assault”
on
Cities
Church
did
not
materialize
on
Sunday,
even
with
Don
Lemon
and
his
microphone
on
the
loose.
Instead
ICE
shot
a
Alex
Pretti,
an
ICU
nurse,
in
the
street.
Rather
than
a
fun
weekend
shitposting
AI
slop
mocking
a
Black
reporter,
the
Trump
administration
had
to
explain
how
a
white
nurse
who
worked
at
the
VA
deserved
to
die
because
he
carried
a
licensed
firearm
in
public.
Tune
in
this
week
to
see
what
the
DOJ’s
“credible”
sources
come
up
with
to
convince
Judge
Schiltz
that
he
absolutely,
positively
must
let
the
DOJ
perp
walk
Don
Lemon
on
national
television.
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
hope
this
finds
you
warm
amidst the
national
polar
vortex.
At
the
University
of
Houston,
classes
are
cancelled
at
least
for
today.
Stay
safe
out
there,
my
friends.
2026
Polar
Vortex
(Source:
Screenshot
WHAS11)
Now
for
your
headlines.
Highlights
from
Last
Week –
Top
Ten
Headlines
#1
“How
the
American
Legal
Profession
Can
Regain
Its
Dignity.” From Judges
Shira
A.
Scheindlin
and
John
Jones
III in The
New
York
Times:
…
As
federal
judges
who
have
retired
after
more
than
five
combined
decades
on
the
bench,
we
have
no
such
professional
concerns.
But
we
have
seen
firsthand
how
fragile
the
rule
of
law
is,
and
how
powerful
the
pressure
from
the
federal
government
can
be.
We
have
joined
together
with dozens
of
retired
federal
district
and
appellate
judges who
were
appointed
by
presidents
of
both
parties
to
defend
the
legal
profession.
Today,
we
offer
a
set
of
principles
of
legal
independence,
a
reaffirmation
of
values
and
obligations
designed
to
guide
and
to
strengthen
law
firms,
bar
associations,
law
schools,
businesses
and
nonprofits.
…
The
principles,
which
we
have posted
in
full online,
call
on
lawyers
and
their
organizations
to
reinforce
the
most
basic
professional
commitments. That
starts
with
something
that
federal courtshavealreadyaffirmed: Representing
clients,
donating
to
causes
they
support,
and
expressing
beliefs
regarding
the
value
of
equal
opportunity
are
activities
protected
by
the
First
Amendment.
We
have
a
right
to
pursue
them
free
from
government
coercion
or
retaliation.
Beyond
that,
the
principles
declare
that
lawyers
and
their
organizations
have
a
duty
to
challenge
government
actions
when
clients’
interests
require
it.
We
have
a
duty
to
help
individuals
or
groups
that
can’t
afford
counsel
—
and
donating
our
services
to
wealthy
and
powerful
clients
does
not
count.
We
must
work
to
promote
public
confidence
in
the
integrity
of
the
legal
process
through
all
our
actions,
including
being
both
truthful
and
candid.
And
we
must
refuse
demands
that
would
require
us
to
violate
any
of
these
obligations.
#2
“Georgia
High
Court
Wants
Tougher
Discipline
for
Lawyer
Who
Took
Part
in
Jan.
6.” From
the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution: “The
Georgia
Supreme
Court
rejected
recommendations
that
a
Middle
Georgia
attorney
be
publicly
reprimanded
for
his
actions
during
the
Jan.
6,
2021,
U.S.
Capitol
riot
and
suggested
that
he
be
disbarred
instead.
In
a
unanimous
opinion
released
Wednesday,
the
justices
wrote
that William
McCall
Calhoun knew
he
was
breaking
the
law
when
he
joined
the
first
wave
of
supporters
of President
Donald
Trump who
forced
their
way
into
the
Capitol.
His
actions
on
that
day,
many
of
which
Calhoun
posted
in
messages
and
videos
to
social
media,
were
‘very
serious’
and
‘reflect
adversely
on
his
fitness
as
a
lawyer.’
The
State
Bar
of
Georgia
suggested
to
the
court
that
a
public
reprimand
would
be
enough
punishment
for
Calhoun,
but
the
justices
thought
otherwise.
They
concluded
‘it
is
hard
for
us
to
see
how
anything
less
than
disbarment
can
be
accepted
here.’”
Read
more here.
#3“ABA
Formal
Opinion
520
Re:
Disclosure
of
Information
in
a
Motion
to
Withdraw
from
a
Representation.” From American
Bar
Association: “The
American
Bar
Association
Standing
Committee
on
Ethics
and
Professional
Responsibility
released
a
formal
opinion
that
provides
guidance
on
when
a
lawyer
is
required
to
respond
to
requests
for
information
from
former
clients
or
successor
counsel
in
certain
limited
circumstances
when
doing
so
is
necessary
to
protect
client
interests
and
reasonably
practicable
under
Model
Rule
1.16(d). Formal
Opinion
520 says
that,
while
lawyers
often
completely
fulfill
their
obligations
under
Model
Rule
1.16(d)
to
protect
client
interests
upon
termination
of
the
representation
by
surrendering
the
file
upon
request
and
refunding
unearned
advanced
fees
and
unexpended
costs,
there
are
limited
situations
where
a
lawyer
must
comply
with
requests
for
information
from
successor
counsel
or
a
former
client.”
Read
more here.
#4
“Florida’s
Rule
Is
Subtly
Pushing
Back
on
Non-Lawyer
Ownership.” From Bloomberg
Law: “The
Florida
Supreme
Court
quietly amended Rule
4-8.6
of
the
Rules
Regulating
the
Florida
Bar,
expanding
authorized
business
entities,
including
certain
not-for-profit
structures.
The
changes
also
clarify
governance
limits
and
reinforce
that
only
licensed
lawyers
may
direct
legal
judgment
in
Florida.
But
beneath
the
procedural
language
sits
a
question
the
legal
profession
can
no
longer
avoid.
Is
Florida
drawing
a
line
in
the
sand
against
alternative
business
structures,
or
is
it
merely
borrowing
time
in
a
transition
that
is
already
underway
nationwide?”
Read
more here.
#5
“Elvis
Has
Left
the
Courthouse:
Presley-Loving
Judge
Ousted
by
State
Supreme
Court.” From
the ABA
Journal: “A
Missouri
judge
known
for
dressing
up
as
Elvis
Presley
in
the
courtroom
has
been
removed
from
office
by
the
Missouri
Supreme
Court,
ending
a
nearly
two-decade
judicial
career
amid
concerns
that
his
behavior
undermined
the
integrity
of
the
judiciary.”
Read
more here.
#6
“Trump
Picks
Appeals
Judges’
Children
for
Courts
in
Their
Circuit.” From Bloomberg
Law: “President
Donald
Trump has
nominated
two
children
of
judges
on
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Eighth
Circuit
who
would
sit
on
courts
within
their
jurisdiction,
a
rarity
for
the
federal
judiciary. Judge
Duane
Benton presides
in
Missouri,
and Judge
Bobby
Shepherd serves
in
Arkansas.
Benton’s
daughter, Megan,
is
Trump’s
pick
for
the
Western
District
of
Missouri.
Shepherd’s
son, John,
has
been
tapped
for
the
Western
District
of
Arkansas.
A federal
statute, amended
in
1998,
prevents
family
members
from
serving
on
the
same
court.
Though
‘it
does
not
preclude
family
members
from
serving
on
different
courts,
even
those
within
the
same
circuit,’
said John
P.
Collins,
a
George
Washington
law
professor
who
researches
judicial
nominations.”
Read
more here.
#7
“Halligan
Leaves
as
U.S.
Attorney
After
Mounting
Pressure
From
Judges.” From The
New
York
Times: “Lindsey
Halligan,
tapped
by President
Trump to
prosecute
his
enemies,
has
left
the
U.S.
attorney’s
office
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia, Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi said
late
Tuesday,
after
a
judge
called
Ms.
Halligan’s
bid
to
remain
in
office
a
‘charade.’”
Read
more here (gift
link).
#8
“Complaint
Accuses
Trump’s
Criminal
Attorney
of
‘Blatant’
Crypto
Conflict
in
His
Role
at
DOJ.” From Salon
: “An
ethics
watchdog
group filed
a
complaint
Thursday seeking
an
investigation
into
whether President
Donald
Trump’s criminal
defense
attorney
—
now
the
No.
2
at
the
Justice
Department
—
broke
federal
conflict-of-interest
law
when
he
issued
a
new
prosecution
policy
that
benefits
the
cryptocurrency
industry.
The
complaint
comes
after
a
ProPublica
investigation
revealed
last
month
that Todd
Blanche owned
at
least
$159,000
worth
of
crypto-related
assets
when
he
ordered
an
end
to
investigations
into
crypto
companies,
dealers
and
exchanges
launched
during
President
Joe
Biden’s
term.
Blanche,
the
deputy
attorney
general,
issued
the
order
in
an
April
memo
in
which
he
also
eliminated
an
enforcement
team
dedicated
to
looking
for
crypto-related
fraud
and
money-laundering
schemes.”
Read
more here.
#9
“Legal
Updates
for
Lawyers’
Professional
Liability.” From JDSupra: “More
and
more,
judges
are
referring
attorneys
to
the
bar
for
discipline
for
lapses
in
professional
conduct
when
using
generative
artificial
intelligence
to
perform
legal
research
without
verifying
the
caselaw
cited
to
the
court.
Recently,
the
Second
District
Court
of
Appeal
in
Florida
referred
appellate
counsel
to
the
Florida
Bar
for
citing
imaginary
legal
authorities
as
if
they
were
law.”
Read
more here.
#10
“France
Formally
Adopts
Legal
Privilege
for
Consultations
by
In-House
Lawyers.” From Cleary
Gottleib: “On
January
14,
2026,
the
French
Senate
approved
a
bill
extending
the
scope
of
legal
privilege
to
consultations
of
in-house
lawyers
for
the
first
time.
This
landmark
reform
will
make
France
one
of
a
handful
of
EU
Member
States
to
extend
legal
privilege
to
in-house
lawyers,
and
marks
the
end
of
a
long-standing
debate
in
France
regarding
the
scope
of
legal
privilege.”
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.
Do
you
have
colleagues
who
care
about
legal
ethics? Please
share
the
Roundup
with
them.
I’d
love
to
see
our
community
continue
to
grow!
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.
At
recent
trade
shows,
AI
panels
have
been
the
most
highly
attended
events
—
and
there’s
a
good
reason
why.
While
just
about
every
lawyer
is
thinking
about
incorporating
artificial
intelligence
into
their
work,
many
are
struggling
to
get
started
on
turning
the
theoretical
into
the
practical.
There
is
no
one
right
way
to
use
generative
AI
for
legal
research,
but
there
are
many
wrong
ways.
“I
always
say
that
it’s
like
a
really
fantastic
assistant
that
truly
wants
to
help
you,”
Niki
said
in
a
recent
webinar,
“that
sits
on
your
shoulder
but
also
has
a
pathological
lying
problem.”
Lawyers
have
all
seen
the
headlines
about
case
hallucinations
—
and,
hopefully,
the
ethics
rules
around
confidentiality.
As
a
result,
legal-specific
tools,
which
can
minimize
these
types
of
risks,
are
recommended
for
legal
research.
To
get
started,
lawyers
can
just
dive
into
a
tool’s
interface
and
simply
ask
questions.
Prompts
don’t
have
to
be
perfect
because
AI
tools
can
iterate
to
get
to
your
ideal
answer.
In
fact,
Niki
noted,
holding
out
for
the
perfect
prompt
can
actually
be
a
roadblock
to
getting
started.
“You’ll
also
find
yourself
asking
the
same
questions,
for
the
same
task,
over
and
over
again,
and
then
you’ll
realize
that
you’re
typing
the
same
thing
over
and
over
again,”
she
said.
“And
then
you’ll
have
organically
created
the
perfect
prompt
for
that
particular
task.”
AI
tools
will
save
the
prompt
history
of
their
subscribers,
allowing
experienced
users
to
have
their
most
effective
prompts
one
click
away.
This
setup
will
guide
them
to
their
answers
even
more
efficiently,
as
your
returns
on
investment
grow
with
your
experience.
Getting
Clients
Marketer
Nancy
Myrland
has
developed
The
Relationship
Continuum™,
a
framework
for
keeping
relationships
strong
through
every
stage
of
communication.
It’s
organized
into
three
stages
—
the
written
word,
the
spoken
word,
and
the
visual
word
—
and
AI
tools
can
help
with
each.
The
written
word
includes
things
like
blog
posts,
where
lawyers
can
showcase
their
expertise
without
selling.
Generative
AI
has
obvious
uses
here,
Nancy
notes,
like
refining
and
brainstorming
ideas.
AI
tools
can
also
help
you
generate
short
posts
for
social
media
and
other
venues
based
on
audio
podcasts
and
video
webinars,
advancing
the
spoken
word
and
visual
word
as
well.
“AI
is
here
to
help
you
work
smarter,”
she
writes,
“and
not
to
be
an
absentee
content
creator
or
strategist
who
is
not
involved
in
the
process
of
communicating
with
your
clients
and
referral
sources.”
Non-Legal
Documents
Niki,
meanwhile,
sees
myriad
uses
for
generative
AI
throughout
a
law
firm.
Why
In-House
Teams
Keep
Running
Into
The
Same
Friction In-house
lawyers
are
swimming
in
best
practices.
Every
vendor
offers
them.
Every
consultant
references
them.
Every
policy
framework
promises
alignment
with
them.
Yet
in
the
daily
work
of
partnering
with
product,
engineering,
risk,
or
operations,
something
doesn’t
line
up.
The
guidance
that
looks
solid
on
paper
often
collapses
when
applied
to
real
decisions
inside
a
fast-moving
business.
Most
best
practices
were
designed
for
an
environment
that
moved
slowly.
They
assume
stable
processes,
predictable
systems,
quarterly
release
cycles,
and
long
planning
horizons.
That
world
is
gone.
Today’s
companies
ship
continuously.
They
integrate
AI
into
everything
from
customer
interactions
to
internal
workflows.
They
operate
in
regulatory
conditions
that
shift
every
few
months.
And
they
manage
risks
that
don’t
look
anything
like
the
static
models
we
learned
earlier
in
our
careers.
This
mismatch
creates
friction
that
no
one
talks
about
directly.
Legal
is
asked
to
uphold
standards
that
no
longer
map
to
how
the
business
works.
Product
teams
try
to
comply
with
guidance
that
feels
both
rigid
and
outdated.
Leaders
think
they
are
aligning
with
norms,
only
to
discover
those
norms
were
built
for
a
different
era.
How
‘Best
Practices’
Quietly
Become
Legacy
Practices The
trouble
with
best
practices
is
that
once
they
earn
the
label,
organizations
treat
them
as
settled.
They
become
permanent
fixtures
in
policies,
playbooks,
and
approval
workflows.
They
stop
evolving.
And
the
more
static
they
become,
the
more
out
of
sync
they
get
with
what
the
company
actually
needs.
Even
strong
legal
teams
fall
into
this
trap.
They
rely
on
best
practices
because
they
feel
defensible.
They
simplify
decisions.
They
reduce
the
burden
of
reinventing
guidance
when
the
environment
changes.
But
over
time,
these
practices
harden
into
a
kind
of
institutional
muscle
memory.
Everyone
follows
them
because
they
exist,
not
because
they
still
make
sense.
The
result
shows
up
in
subtle
ways.
A
template
that
once
protected
the
company
now
slows
teams
down.
A
policy
that
once
clarified
accountability
now
hides
it.
A
process
built
for
a
lower-risk
era
now
introduces
new
risk
because
it
blinds
the
organization
to
emerging
signals.
No
one
intends
this
to
happen.
It
happens
because
static
guidance
rarely
survives
a
dynamic
system.
Why
Next
Practices
Offer
A
More
Realistic
Path
Forward Next
practices
are
not
the
opposite
of
rigor.
They
are
a
recognition
that
rigor
only
works
when
it
reflects
reality.
Instead
of
treating
guidance
as
fixed,
next
practices
treat
it
as
living.
They
acknowledge
that
technology,
markets,
and
behaviors
shift
faster
than
policy
cycles.
They
aim
to
keep
legal
aligned
with
what
the
company
is
actually
facing,
not
what
it
used
to
face.
For
in-house
lawyers,
this
is
not
an
abstract
concept.
It
is
a
practical
one.
Next
practices
help
you
evaluate
whether
the
assumptions
under
your
current
frameworks
still
fit.
They
help
surface
where
your
templates,
intake
forms,
or
decision
paths
reflect
a
world
your
business
no
longer
operates
in.
And
they
help
you
spot
where
outdated
“good
standards”
are
creating
risk
instead
of
managing
it.
This
is
work
that
happens
quietly
in
the
background
of
every
modern
in-house
function.
It
is
the
work
that
keeps
legal
relevant.
Where
Legal
Teams
Feel
The
Gap
Most
Strongly The
gap
between
best
practices
and
next
practices
is
easiest
to
see
in
places
where
the
environment
is
changing
fast.
AI
governance.
Adaptive
products.
Global
data
flows.
Rapid
sales
cycles.
Third-party
risk.
User
consent.
Automated
decision
systems.
The
topics
may
differ,
but
they
all
share
the
same
pattern.
The
guidance
that
worked
last
year
doesn’t
quite
fit
anymore.
The
underlying
assumptions
have
shifted.
And
the
more
tightly
teams
cling
to
“proven”
standards,
the
more
mismatched
the
work
becomes.
This
is
not
a
failure
of
the
team.
It
is
a
signal
that
the
environment
has
evolved.
In-house
lawyers
feel
this
mismatch
first
because
they
bridge
the
gap
between
business
ambition
and
operational
reality.
When
the
friction
grows,
it’s
usually
a
cue
that
the
team
is
relying
on
best
practices
that
no
longer
reflect
the
company’s
actual
needs.
Why
I
Created
A
Next
Practices
Resource
for
Legal
Leaders I
authored
the
resource
“Next
Practice
Instead
of
Best
Practice”
because
I
kept
seeing
the
same
pattern
across
legal
teams
I
advise,
partner
with,
or
lead.
Smart,
thoughtful
lawyers
were
doing
everything
“right,”
yet
their
frameworks
did
not
hold
up
under
the
weight
of
modern
product
cycles
or
emerging
tech
shifts.
They
weren’t
doing
anything
wrong.
They
were
using
guidance
built
for
a
different
world.
The
resource
is
meant
to
help
in-house
lawyers
examine
where
their
current
materials
may
no
longer
reflect
reality
and
where
evolution
is
overdue.
It
is
not
about
throwing
out
structure.
It
is
about
making
sure
the
structure
still
maps
to
what
the
business
needs
today.
If
you
want
to
explore
it,
you
can
find
it
here.
Next
Practices
Are
Not
Optional
For
The
Modern
GC Whether
you
support
product,
privacy,
operations,
risk,
or
corporate
strategy,
your
guidance
will
eventually
drift
out
of
alignment
if
it
stays
static.
The
pace
of
technology
guarantees
it.
The
only
question
is
whether
your
frameworks
evolve
with
the
business
or
lag
behind
it.
Next
practices
help
you
stay
in
sync.
They
help
you
recognize
when
to
update
assumptions,
when
to
revise
templates,
and
when
to
retire
norms
that
no
longer
serve
the
company.
They
help
legal
become
a
partner
in
navigating
change
rather
than
a
steward
of
outdated
advice.
And
they
strengthen
the
GC’s
voice
in
executive
conversations
where
the
company
needs
clarity,
not
historical
standards.
A
Quiet
but
Powerful
Shift
In
In-House
Practice The
companies
that
navigate
emerging
technology
well
share
a
common
trait.
Their
legal
teams
stay
grounded
in
reality,
not
nostalgia.
They
align
their
guidance
with
what
they
are
actually
seeing,
not
with
what
was
once
predictable.
They
anchor
decisions
in
judgment,
not
old
frameworks.
They
build
guidance
that
moves
with
the
business.
This
shift
doesn’t
require
fanfare.
It
requires
awareness.
If
the
idea
of
next
practices
helps
you
revisit
where
your
guidance
may
have
gone
stale,
it
has
already
done
its
job.
In-house
leaders
do
not
need
more
rules.
They
need
frameworks
that
move
with
them.
Best
practices
were
built
for
the
world
we
had.
Next
practices
are
built
for
the
world
we
are
entering.
Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
CEO
of
TermScout,
where
she
builds
legal
systems
that
make
contracts
faster
to
understand,
easier
to
operate,
and
more
trustworthy
in
real
business
conditions.
Her
work
focuses
on
how
legal
rules
allocate
power,
manage
risk,
and
shape
decisions
under
uncertainty.A
serial
CEO
and
former
General
Counsel,
Olga
previously
led
a
legal
technology
company
through
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
She
teaches
at
Berkeley
Law
and
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
the
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics.She
has
authored
several
books
on
legal
innovation
and
technology,
delivered
six
TEDx
talks,
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
VentureBeat,
TechCrunch,
and
Above
the
Law.
Her
work
treats
law
as
essential
infrastructure,
designed
for
how
organizations
actually
operate.
The
insurer
witnesses
included
Stephen
Hemsley,
CEO
of
UnitedHealth
Group;
David
Joyner,
president
and
CEO
of
CVS
Health;
Gail
Boudreaux,
president
and
CEO
of
Elevance
Health;
David
Cordani,
president,
CEO
and
chairman
of
the
board
of
The
Cigna
Group;
and
Paul
Markovich,
president
and
CEO
of
Ascendiun
(parent
of
Blue
Shield
of
California).
Ellen
Allen,
executive
director
of
West
Virginians
for
Affordable
Healthcare,
also
testified
to
the
Energy
and
Commerce
Committee,
while
ReShonda
Young,
an
Iowa
resident
and
small
business
owner,
testified
to
the
Ways
and
Means
Committee.
Here
are
four
key
takeaways
from
the
hearings:
1.
Everyone
agrees
healthcare
affordability
is
a
problem:
Across
both
hearings,
lawmakers
emphasized
that
healthcare
has
become
too
expensive
and
that
Americans
are
struggling
with
rising
premiums,
deductibles
and
out-of-pocket
costs.
For
example,
Rep.
Morgan
Griffith
(R-Virginia),
chairman
of
the
Energy
and
Commerce
Committee,
argued
that
a
“lack
of
competition
and
consolidation
within
the
insurance
marketplace
has
led
us
to
higher
healthcare
costs
as
a
whole.”
Ranking
Member
Rep.
Diana
DeGette
(D-Colorado)
stated
that
“Americans
know
that
healthcare
is
far
too
expensive,
as
it
takes
up
a
greater
percentage
of
our
economy
than
any
other
developed
country.”
The
health
insurance
CEOs
agreed
that
healthcare
costs
are
a
major
issue.
“Our
healthcare
system
is
bankrupting
and
failing
us,”
Markovich
said
in
his
opening
statement.
“It’s
way
too
expensive,
it’s
too
impersonal.
It
doesn’t
cover
everybody.
It
has
inferior
quality
scores
relative
to
other
countries,
and
it’s
mistrusted
by
far
too
many
Americans.
This
is
unacceptable.”
2.
Everyone
has
different
ideas
for
addressing
the
affordability
problem:
While
there
is
broad
agreement
that
healthcare
is
too
expensive,
consensus
quickly
falls
apart
on
how
to
fix
it.
Republicans
largely
blamed
a
lack
of
competition,
consolidation
and
the
structure
of
the
Affordable
Care
Act
for
healthcare
costs.
Democrats
pointed
to
the
need
to
extend
ACA
enhanced
premium
tax
credits,
which
expired
at
the
end
of
2025.
This
divide
was
exemplified
during
the
opening
statements
of
the
Ways
and
Means
Committee
hearing.
Chairman
Rep.
Jason
Smith
(R‑Missouri)
criticized
Democrats
for
failing
to
address
affordability
and
accused
them
of
protecting
insurance
corporations
and
enabling
market
consolidation.
“After
15
years
of
a
Democrat-created
health
system
under
Obamacare,
prices
have
only
gone
up,
not
down,”
he
said.
“They
have
only
gone
up.
I’d
also
like
to
remind
my
Democrat
colleagues
that
these
same
corporations
have
exploited
market
power
and
vulnerabilities
in
federal
programs
to
consolidate
control,
steer
patient
care
and
maximize
revenue.”
Ranking
Member
Rep.
Richard
Neal
(D‑Massachussetts)
turned
the
blame
back
on
Republicans
for
allowing
the
ACA
tax
credits
to
expire.
“Our
Republican
friends
have
no
interest
in
strengthening
healthcare
or
protecting
patients.
…
They’ve
refused
to
extend
the
tax
credits
that
we’ve
asked
for
time
and
again,
causing
millions
to
forgo
health
coverage
this
year,
and
they’ve
been
silent
as
the
Trump
administration
wages
an
all
out-war
on
public
health
and
yes,
on
science
as
well,”
Neal
said.
Insurers,
meanwhile,
largely
pointed
to
hospitals
and
pharma
for
rising
costs.
“The
cost
of
healthcare
insurance
fundamentally
reflects
the
cost
of
healthcare
itself,”
Hemsley
said.
“It
is
more
an
effect
than
a
cause.
If
insurance
costs
are
going
up
even
as
we
compete
aggressively
against
other
companies,
it
signals
rising
costs
of
health
services,
drugs
and
rising
volumes
of
care
activity.
And
it
is
a
fact,
hospital
and
drug
spending
has
soared
at
three
times
the
rate
of
inflation
since
before
2000.”
3.
Vertical
integration:
Insurers
faced
a
lot
of
questions
from
both
sides
of
the
aisle
about
their
vertical
integration
with
PBMs,
pharmacies
and
clinics.
During
the
Ways
and
Means
Committee
hearing,
Rep.
Greg
Murphy
(R-North
Carolina)
stated
that
vertical
integration
“has
destroyed
competition
in
this
country.”
“I
don’t
agree
with
Mark
Cuban
often,
but
we
do
agree
that
what
needs
to
happen
is
that
you
guys
need
to
be
broken
up.
…
If
I
had
my
way,
I’d
turn
all
of
you
guys
into
dust.
We’d
start
back
from
scratch.
We’d
have
competition,”
he
said.
Rep.
Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez
(D-New
York)
focused
her
questioning
on
CVS
Health,
noting
that
the
company
owns
the
insurer
Aetna,
the
PBM
CVS
Caremark
and
medical
clinics
Oak
Street
Health.
She
asked
Joyner
if
he
would
agree
that
this
is
“quite
a
bit
of
market
concentration,”
to
which
he
responded
that
he
doesn’t
agree
and
that
it’s
a
“model
that
works
really
well
for
the
consumer.”
4.
Prior
authorization
and
denials:
Insurers
were
also
grilled
about
their
prior
authorization
practices
and
denial
rates.
A
key
moment
came
during
the
Energy
and
Commerce
Committee
hearing,
in
which
Rep.
Buddy
Carter
(R-Georgia),
who
practiced
pharmacy,
asked
Hemsley
if
he
ever
looked
a
patient
in
the
eye
and
explained
why
UnitedHealthcare
denied
their
medication.
Hemsley
responded
that
he
has
looked
patients
in
the
eyes
many
times,
but
doesn’t
recall
whether
it’s
regarding
prior
authorization.
“I’m
the
one
who
had
to
look
the
patient
in
the
eye,”
Carter
countered.
“I’m
the
one
who
had
to
tell
them
that,
on
your
behalf,
it’s
not
fun.”
He
went
on
to
give
a
story
about
a
single
mother
in
Kentucky
who
was
diagnosed
with
cancer
and
is
being
denied
her
medication
by
UnitedHealthcare.
*
Prime
suspect
in
massive
jewelry
heist
takes
advantage
of
ICE
and
gets
himself
deported…
to
escape
trial!
Get
ready
with
that
Ocean’s
11
sequel
script.
[The
Guardian]
*
Minnesota
District
Chief
Judge
delivers
blistering
response
after
Eighth
Circuit
allows
DOJ
to
file
end
run
mandamus
over
insufficient
arrest
warrant.
[One
First]
*
More
voices
calling
for
local
prosecutions
against
ICE
agents.
[NY
Times]
*
Should
California
create
its
own
bar
exam?
Despite
the
real
risk
that
the
state’s
professional
leaders
would
throw
the
baby
out
with
the
bath
water
following
last
year’s
disastrous
experiment,
it
seems
the
majority
still
understand
it’s
the
right
path
forward.
[ABA
Journal]
*
Retired
NY
Supreme
Justice
Arthur
Engoron
reflects
on
his
career.
[New
York
Law
Journal]
*
Disgraced
former
administration
lawyer
Jenna
Ellis
criticizes
White
House
for
public
relations
screening
First
Lady’s
documentary
immediately
after
ICE
murdered
a
man
in
Minnesota.
[Daily
Beast]
*
Kyle
Cheney
of
Politico
collected
over
2300
cases
of
federal
judges
growing
increasingly
frustrated
at
the
lawlessness
from
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security.
[Twitter]
