BULAWAYO
–
Two
zebras
that
caused
a
stir
after
being
spotted
roaming
the
Bulawayo
central
business
district
have
been
safely
captured
and
are
now
under
care
at
the
Free
to
Be
Wild
sanctuary
in
Burnside.
The
animals
were
located
early
on
Sunday
morning
following
tip-offs
from
members
of
the
public
who
spotted
them
moving
through
the
city
streets.
Wildlife
conservationist
Baye
Pigors,
who
runs
the
sanctuary,
said
the
zebras
were
found
around
7AM
on
Joshua
Mqabuko
Street,
before
being
safely
secured.
She
believes
the
animals
may
have
wandered
into
the
city
after
being
disturbed
by
poachers.
“We
suspect
they
received
pressure
from
dog
poachers
on
the
outskirts
of
the
Bulawayo
region,
which
is
how
and
why
they
were
pushed
into
town.
Confused
and
disoriented,
they
didn’t
know
how
to
escape,”
she
said.
The
unexpected
appearance
of
the
zebras
briefly
turned
Bulawayo’s
CBD
into
a
wildlife
spectacle,
with
residents
sharing
photos
and
videos
on
social
media.
Pigors
said
the
animals
are
now
safe
and
being
monitored
at
the
sanctuary
as
arrangements
are
made
for
their
long-term
care.
I
suspect
that
we
have
already
seen
most
of
the
direct
effects
that
we
are
going
to
see
in
terms
of
departures
and
client
responses.
I
don’t
think
the
deals
will
have
a
big
impact
on
recruiting
in
2026.
The
exception
might
be
Paul
Weiss,
which
may
find
that
it
does
not
attract
applicants
with
the
same
attitudes
and
interests
as
it
might
have
in
the
past.
No
one
expected
Paul
Weiss
to
settle
so
quickly.
In
doing
so,
it
signaled
that
it
was
OK
for
other
firms
to
do
the
same.
I
think
Paul
Weiss
drew
a
lot
of
the
anger
and
disappointment
about
the
decision
because
lawyers
felt
that
the
firm
had
not
only
betrayed
its
own
values,
but
the
values
of
the
legal
profession.
Rather
than
stand
up
to
the
executive,
it
capitulated.
—
Leslie
Levin,
a
legal
ethics
professor
at
the
University
of
Connecticut
Law
School,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
concerning
the
fate
of
the
law
firms
that
settled
with
the
Trump
administration
—
and
that
of
Paul,
Weiss,
in
particular
—
rather
than
litigate
against
the
president’s
retaliatory
law
firm
executive
orders. Scott
Cummings,
a
legal
ethics
professor
at
UCLA
School
of
Law,
thinks
that
the
“verdict
is
still
out”
for
firms
that
capitulated,
saying,
“The
blowback
from
the
legal
profession
is
incredibly
strong.”
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
If
there’s
one
figure
in
American
history
who
would
not
stand
for
any
of
the
present
nonsense,
it’d
be
Thomas
Paine.
The
revolutionary
pamphleteer
hated
the
idea
of
monarchs
trampling
on
people
behind
the
veil
of
absolute
immunity
so
much
that
he
followed
up
the
American
Revolution
by
rolling
over
to
France
and
getting
elected
to
the
revolutionary
government
without
knowing
how
to
speak
French.
Then
he
languished
in
prison
as
an
opponent
of
the
Robespierre
administration
and
came
home
to
write
letters
bashing
George
Washington.
Thomas
Paine
had
exactly
zero
tolerance
for
executive
bullshit.
So,
obviously,
the
author
of
Trump
v.
United
States
invoked
Paine
as
a
political
mascot
to
gaslight
the
American
people
into
thinking
any
of
this
is
normal.
Roberts
will
discuss
none
of
those
topics.
While
not
as
far
afield
as
his
2023
report,
which
devoted
several
pages
to
the
advent
of
typewriters,
the
2025
Annual
Report
provides
an
equally
empty
Temu
history
lesson,
with
Roberts
hiding
behind
the
sort
of
phony
portrait
of
Thomas
Paine’s
life
and
work
that
only
a
true
#Originalist
could
concoct.
Two
hundred
fifty
years
ago
this
week,
a
recent
immigrant
to
Britain’s
North
American
colonies
put
the
finishing
touches
on
a
manuscript
in
which
he
hoped
to
express
“plain
truths”
about
his
newly
adopted
home.
Immigrants
get
the
job
done,
eh?
Thomas
Frank
wrote
an
essay
in
the
Baffler
back
in
the
90s
suggesting
that
the
problem
with
protest
art
is
that
it’s
aesthetic
qualities
will
always
end
with
it
getting
repurposed
to
support
the
status
quo.
It’s
why
Donald
Trump
is
celebrating
dropping
bombs
on
Venezuela
to
the
tune
of
Fortunate
Son
—
a
song
explicitly
about
rich
people
sending
regular
folks
to
die
in
wars
for
their
own
personal
enrichment.
The
sad
legacy
of
Hamilton
will
almost
assuredly
be
its
cooptation
into
the
sort
of
“good
immigrant”
mythologizing
that
guys
like
Roberts
cite
while
simultaneously
nodding
gravely
at
the
unfortunate
necessity
of
Kavanaugh
stops
to
round
up
everyone
by
skin
color.
Common
Sense
was,
quite
literally,
a
screed
against
a
monarch
who
believed
he
could
do
whatever
he
wanted.
Roberts
has
spent
the
last
year
rubber-stamping
the
worldview
that
King
George’s
only
crime
was
not
replacing
William
Pitt
with
Stephen
Miller.
Against
that
backdrop,
the
2025
year-end
report
is
fascinating
for
its
subtleties.
Reading
between
the
lines,
one
can
find
the
Chief
Justice
of
the
United
States
standing
up
for
immigrants;
extolling
the
continuing
aspirations
of
the
Declaration
of
Independence;
and
reiterating
the
importance
of
judicial
independence—three
messages
that
are
certainly
welcome
as
we
look
ahead
to
the
second
year
of
the
second
Trump
administration.
The
problem,
though,
is
that
one
has
to
read
between
the
lines
to
find
those
takeaways.
Given
the
year
that
just
transpired—not
just
the
substantive
behavior
of
the
executive
branch
but
its
unprecedented
hostility
toward,
threats
against,
and
defiance
of
federal
judges—this
would’ve
been
a
golden
opportunity
for
Chief
Justice
Roberts
to
make
the
kind
of
statement
that
might’ve
resonated
across
the
political/ideological
spectrum.
By
opting
for
subtlety,
it
seems
worth
asking
exactly
who
the
Chief
Justice
views
as
his
audience
these
days.
Not
only
am
I
increasingly
unsure
of
the
answer,
but,
far
more
importantly,
I
wonder
if
he
might
be,
too.
It
would
be
nice
if
Roberts
were
just
too
weak
and
subtle
to
meet
the
moment.
But
Chuck
Schumer
already
has
that
job.
Where
Vladeck
sees
positive
signals,
I
see
the
ongoing
effort
to
recast
American
history
to
support
the
contemporary
right-wing
political
project
that
Roberts
has
worked
to
impose
on
the
country.
Paine
is
a
prop.
This
report
is
filled
with
props.
When
James
Clavell
wasn’t
writing
thousand-page
doorstops
about
feudal
Japan,
he
put
out
a
short
story
about
the
path
to
fascism
being
paved
by
rituals
like
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance.
Tyrants
can’t
just
roll
in
and
make
people
forget
what
their
country
is
all
about,
but
they
can
systematically
repurpose
symbols
when
they’ve
become
deified
by
unquestioning
masses.
Paine
—
a
hero!
—
inspired
the
Declaration
of
Independence.
Everyone
knows
that
the
Declaration
of
Independence
is
“good,”
right?
But
before
anyone
tries
to
draw
any
broad
conclusions
about
the
Framers
opposing
occupying
troops
flooding
the
streets,
remember
the
Declaration,
for
all
its
“good”-ness,
is
merely
ancillary.
This
may
come
as
a
surprise
to
some
readers.
But,
as
Justice
Scalia
observed,
the
Declaration
consists
of
“aspirations”
and
“philosophizing”
that
do
not
lend
themselves
well
to
prescription
or
enforcement.
When
rights
are
inconvenient,
they
always
become
“aspirational.”
But
Roberts
does
acknowledge
the
Reconstruction
Amendments
for
attempting
to
convert
the
Declaration’s
promises
into
something
concrete.
That
work
began
with
the
Thirteenth
Amendment
abolishing
slavery.
Lincoln
lived
to
see
that
amendment
pass
both
the
Senate
and
the
House,
though
it
was
not
ratified
until
after
his
assassination.
As
the
British
philosopher
John
Stuart
Mill
observed,
with
the
adoption
of
the
Thirteenth
Amendment,
“the
opening
words
of
the
Declaration
of
Independence”
would
no
longer
be
“a
reproach
to
the
nation founded
by
its
authors.”
The
Fourteenth
and
Fifteenth
Amendments
soon
followed,
guaranteeing
due
process
and
equal
protection
of
the
law
and
granting
the
right
to
vote
to
Black
men.
Note
how
the
abolition
of
slavery
gets
top
billing
and
the
“actual
promise
of
equality
and
the
right
to
vote”
are
relegated
to
afterthoughts.
That’s
a
feature
not
a
bug
for
the
guy
who
declared
racism
a
thing
of
the
past
while
gutting
the
Voting
Rights
Act.
This
is
another
juncture
where
I
hope
optimists
like
Vladeck
are
right,
but
suspect
they
are
not.
Roberts
isn’t
sending
a
coded
message
that
this
Court
will
respect
the
promises
of
the
Reconstruction
Amendments,
he’s
telling
us
that
this
Court
“respects”
those
constitutional
principles
and
anyone
who
suggests
otherwise
misunderstands
the
line
between
aspiration
and
reality.
It’s
Clavell’s
Pledge
of
Allegiance
all
over
again:
you
know
we
believe
in
the
Fifteenth
Amendment…
so
when
we
say
it
means
the
executive
branch
can
purge
state
voter
rolls
based
on
race
it’s
only
because
we
believe
in
it
so
much.
Roberts
closes
the
report
by
assuring
us
that
the
Constitution
and
Declaration
“remain
firm
and
unshaken,”
quoting
Great
Depression
architect
Calvin
Coolidge.
This
is
framed
as
offering
solace
to
the
public,
but
it’s
the
opiate.
The
fixed
stars
of
the
American
constellation
are
firm
and
unshaken
because
it’s
un-American
to
question
whether
political
operatives
using
the
Court
to
erase
a
century
—
or
more
—
of
precedent
might
shake
those
foundations.
Joyce
Vance
noted
that
the
report
opens
with
a
photo
of
an
empty
room,
an
appropriate
choice
for
a
report
casting
American
legal
history
as
empty
signifiers
to
be
filled
in
by
his
majority.
Maybe
that’s
not
what
he’s
trying
to
say.
But
if
it’s
not,
he’s
invited
to
drop
the
subtlety
and
write
something
straightforward
and
principled.
Like
Tom
Paine
would’ve.
Zohran
Mamdani
announced
new
appointments
to
his
administration,
including
Steven
Banks
as
the
city’s
top
lawyer.
(Photo
by
Selcuk
Acar/Anadolu
via
Getty
Images)
New
York
City’s
Law
Department
is
about
to
get
a
serious
(and
overdue)
reboot.
New
York
City
Mayor
Zohran
Mamdani
announced
last
week
that
Steven
Banks
will
take
the
helm
as
Corporation
Counsel,
pairing
the
appointment
with
an
ambitious
plan
to
expand
the
department
by
at
least
200
lawyers.
Mamdani
didn’t
mince
words
about
the
current
state
of
affairs.
“There’s
a
clear
need
for
a
few
hundred
additional
lawyers
at
the
Law
Department,
just
from
the
beginning
of
it,”
he
said,
pointing
to
the
growing
need
for
legal
services
for
immigrant
New
Yorkers.
He
added
that
the
Law
Department,
once
“on
the
front
lines
of
equal
rights
across
the
country,”
has
been
“hollowed
out”
in
recent
years.
His
goal?
A
Law
Department
that
is
fully
staffed,
assertive,
and
unapologetically
engaged
in
advancing
the
administration’s
agenda.
Enter
Banks,
whose
résumé
reads
like
a
blueprint
for
exactly
that
kind
of
transformation.
Banks
spent
three
decades
at
the
Legal
Aid
Society,
building
a
career
around
public
service
and
impact
litigation.
Banks
spent
eight
years
in
NYC
government
too,
as commissioner
of
the
New
York
City
Department
of
Social
Services
under
Mayor
Bill
de
Blasio.
Most
recently,
he
led
the
pro
bono
department
at
Paul,
Weiss,
where
he
was
responsible
for
steering
one
of
Biglaw’s
most
powerful
institutional
resources
toward
public-interest
work.
And
then
came
the
Trump
deal.
Banks
didn’t
quietly
shuffle
along
when
Paul,
Weiss
capitulated
to
Donald
Trump,
striking
a
deal
that
promised
the
president
$40
million
in
pro
bono
services.
Instead,
he
very
publicly
quit
in
a
move
that
spoke
volumes
about
his
professional
priorities.
In
a
legal
market
that
too
often
treats
“principles”
as
optional
when
powerful
interests
come
calling,
Banks
made
it
clear
that
his
weren’t
for
sale.
That
makes
him
a
fitting
choice
to
lead
a
Law
Department
that
Mamdani
wants
back
on
offense.
“I
know
firsthand
the
key
role
that
the
staff
of
the
Law
Department
can
play
in
supporting
[Mamdani’s]
vision
and
agenda
for
transformative
change,”
Banks
said,
emphasizing
that
the
job
is
ultimately
about
helping
New
Yorkers.
In
an
era
when
too
many
institutions
are
shrinking
back,
cutting
deals,
or
retreating
into
defensive
crouches,
New
York
City
is
signaling
something
different.
With
Steven
Banks
at
the
helm,
the
Law
Department
looks
poised
to
become
a
legal
engine
for
the
public
good.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Who
am
I
to
buck
a
trend?
I
have
one
very
specific
(and
extended)
prediction.
My
prediction
begins
with
the
Supreme
Court
seeing
an
opportunity
in
the
pending
litigation
involving
President
Donald
Trump’s
tariffs.
Trump’s
“liberation
day”
tariffs
are
probably
unlawful. If
the
Supreme
Court
were
to
strike
down
the
tariffs,
that
decision
would
have
the
benefit
of
following
the
law. That’s
good,
for
starters.
But
a
decision
striking
down
the
tariffs
would
do
much
more
than
follow
the
law. Invalidating
the
tariffs
would
also
allow
the
Supreme
Court
to
show
that
it’s
independent,
occasionally
willing
to
defy
Trump. That
would
help
the
court. Invalidating
the
tariffs
also
doesn’t
hurt
Trump
too
much
because
Trump
has
fallback
mechanisms
for
reimposing
similar
tariffs
under
other
laws
if
he’s
dead-set
on
maintaining
tariffs.
Also,
because
Trump
can
reimpose
tariffs,
he’s
unlikely
to
ignore
the
court’s
order,
creating
a
constitutional
crisis.
Instead,
he’ll
use
a
different
route
to
reimpose
the
tariffs. Finally,
striking
down
the
tariffs
would
probably
benefit
Trump
politically: The
tariffs
have
increased
certain
prices
in
the
United
States
and
decreased
employment
(by
creating
uncertainty,
which
reduces
business
investment). By
striking
down
the
tariffs,
the
Supreme
Court
would
probably
be
helping
the
economy.
That’s
not
really
the
way
the
Supreme
Court
thinks.
The
court
actually
does
more
law
and
less
politics
than
I
do,
but
you
see
what
I’m
driving
at.
The
Supreme
Court
will
strike
down
Trump’s
tariffs,
which
might
well
improve
the
economy
and
strengthen
the
Republicans’
hand
in
the
midterm
elections
in
November.
The
court
would
be
doing
Trump
a
favor.
The
next
question
is
whether
Trump
would
accept
the
gift.
I
think
not.
Trump
has
loved
tariffs
his
entire
life. He’s
called
“tariffs”
his favorite
word (although
in
the
1980s
he
wanted
to
impose
tariffs
on
Japan,
rather
than
China). Trump’s
an
old,
stubborn
guy;
I
suspect
he
won’t
change
his
thinking
now.
Trump
also
does
not
like
to
admit
defeat,
as
the
events
of
January
6,
among
other
things,
have
demonstrated. If
the
Supreme
Court
strikes
down
Trump’s
tariffs,
he’ll
choose
another
route
to
reimpose
them. To
do
otherwise
would
be
to
admit
that
the
Supreme
Court
thwarted
him,
and
Trump
could
never
stomach
that.
Trump
also
like
tariffs
for
personal
reasons. Tariffs
give
Trump
the
power
to
rule
the
world. Brazil
is
prosecuting
Jair
Bolsonaro? Impose
tariffs! India’s
buying
Russian
oil? Impose
tariffs! Mexico
and
Canada
aren’t
doing
enough
to
stop
the
flow
of
fentanyl
into
the
United
States? Impose
tariffs!
Unilateral
discretion
to
impose
tariffs
lets
Trump
reward
friends
and
punish
enemies
internationally,
a
vast
expansion
of
his
personal
power. I’m
sure
he
likes
that.
Tariffs
also
make
domestic
companies
come
to
heel. Trump
can
authorize
exemptions
from
tariffs
on
an
individual
basis. Apple
doesn’t
want
tariffs
to
apply
to
its
iPhones? Voila! Apple
just
has
to
cooperate
with
Trump,
and
iPhone
components
are
exempted
from
tariffs.
Trump
loves
the
idea
of
using
government
policy
(tariffs)
as
a
racket
for
extorting
money
from
U.S.
companies. He
won’t
sacrifice
that
power
lightly.
So
Trump
will
use
alternate
routes
to
reimpose
many
of
the
tariffs
that
the
Supreme
Court
strikes
down.
What’s
the
last
piece
of
my
prediction?
Reimposing
tariffs
will
continue
to
hurt
the
economy,
raising
prices
and
decreasing
business
investment. Voters
will
notice
a
stumbling
economy. And
the
Republicans
will
lose
their
majority
in
the
House
of
Representatives
this
November
in
part
because
Trump
will
look
a
gift
horse
in
the
mouth. Instead
of
accepting
defeat
on
the
tariff
issue
and
winning
the
midterms,
he’ll
insist
on
a
tariff
victory
and
thus
suffer
an
electoral
defeat.
Trump
will
win
the
tariff
war,
but
lose
the
House
of
Representatives. A
stable
genius
indeed.
Nearly
2,000
votes
were
cast,
so
it’s
fair
to
say
our
2025
holiday
card
contest
was
a
great
success.
This
year’s
competitors
were
incredibly
strong,
and
with
37%
of
the
vote,
our
top
contender
was
separated
from
the
second-place
finisher
by
15
percentage
points.
Our
newest
winner
joins
the
company
of
previous
holiday
card
contest
winners:
Congratulations
to…
Lowenstein
Sandler!
The
New
Jersey-based
firm
managed
to
clinch
the
2025
crown with
its
take
on
the
use
—
or
misuse
—
of
artificial
intelligence
when
it
comes
to
holiday
greetings.
You
can
check
out
Lowenstein’s
winning
submission
by clicking
here.
Congrats
to
all
the
worthy
finalists,
and
thanks
to
everyone
who
nominated
a
card
or
voted
in
the
contest.
We
can’t
wait
to
see
what
cleverness
comes
our
way
in
2026.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn.
Earthjustice
seeks
a
Senior
Attorney
to
join
the
Fossil
Fuels
Program.
We
use
the
power
of
the
law
to
challenge
the
onslaught
of
new
oil
and
gas
infrastructure
development
that
threatens
climate,
communities,
and
the
environment.
This
position
will
focus
on
oil
and
gas
infrastructure
and
related
projects
in
the
U.S.
Gulf
region,
particularly
Louisiana
and
Texas.
The
attorney
in
this
position
will
be
place-based
in
the
New
Orleans’
satellite
office
space
shared
with
other
Fossil
Fuel
Program
staff
New
Orleans,
Louisiana.
Earthjustice
is
the
nation’s
leading
environmental
law
organization.
We
wield
the
power
of
law
and
the
strength
of
partnership
to
protect
people’s
health,
preserve
magnificent
places
and
wildlife,
advance
clean
energy,
and
combat
climate
change.
We
are
here
because
the
Earth
needs
a
good
lawyer.
On
December
4,
2025,
the
Justice
Department
announced
that
it
had
finally
arrested
the
one
January
6
criminal
they
care
about:
Brian
Cole,
Jr.,
the
alleged
DNC
pipe
bomber.
On
the
dais
for
the
half-hour
victory
rally
were
FBI
Director
Kash
Patel
and
his
then-deputy
Dan
Bongino,
two
former
podcasters
who
previously
claimed
that
the
bombs
were
planted
by
Biden
allies
to
distract
from
a
“stolen”
election.
Asked
about
this
discrepancy
by
Fox
News’s
Sean
Hannity,
Bongino
sulked
that
“I
was
paid
in
the
past
for
my
opinions.
One
day
I
will
be
back
in
that
space
but
that’s
not
what
I’m
paid
for
now.”
At
the
press
conference,
Bongino
blustered
that
“this
is
what
it’s
like
when
you
work
for
a
president
who
tells
you
to
go
get
the
bad
guys
and
stop
focusing
on
other,
extraneous
things,
not
related
to
law
enforcement.”
According
to
the
Wall
Street
Journal,
the
break
in
the
case
came
when
someone
at
the
FBI
wrote
a
code
to
unscramble
a
cache
of
damaged
cell
tower
data.
There’s
zero
indication
that
this
code
went
unwritten
for
five
years
because
the
FBI
was
in
mandatory
DEI
training,
and
the
Journal
reports
that
agents
expressed
“resentment
over
FBI
Director
Kash
Patel,
who
has
suggested
that
they
didn’t
work
doggedly
on
the
probe
until
Trump
administration
leadership
arrived.”
But
that
may
wind
up
being
the
high
water
mark
for
this
case,
which
has
been
prosecuted
in
truly
shambolic
fashion
since
being
handed
off
to
Jeanine
Pirro,
the
US
Attorney
for
DC.
Calendars
are
hard
On
December
3,
the
DOJ
filed
a
criminal
complaint
alleging
that
Cole,
a
30-year-old
man
living
with
his
mother
in
Virginia,
traveled
to
DC
on
the
eve
of
the
Capitol
Riot
and
planted
crudely
constructed
pipe
bombs
outside
the
RNC
and
DNC.
But
a
criminal
complaint
is
not
an
indictment;
it
merely
allows
the
government
to
seek
detention
of
a
suspect
and
starts
a
30-day
clock
to
charge
him.
Under
Federal
Rule
of
Criminal
Procedure
5.1,
a
magistrate
judge
must
also
hold
a
preliminary
hearing
within
21
days
to
establish
probable
cause
that
the
defendant
committed
the
crime.
But
that
almost
never
happens
because
a
competent
prosecutor
will
go
to
a
grand
jury
and
secure
an
ex
parte
indictment
rather
than
participating
in
an
adversarial
hearing
where
the
defendant
gets
to
present
evidence
and
interrogate
the
government’s
witnesses.
No
preliminary
hearing
was
calendared
here
because
all
parties,
including
Magistrate
Judge
Matthew
Sharbaugh,
assumed
that
the
DOJ
would
proceed
expeditiously
to
a
federal
grand
jury
and
seek
an
indictment.
But
for
whatever
reason,
they
didn’t.
On
Christmas
Eve,
with
no
indictment
on
the
horizon,
Cole’s
lawyers
started
tapping
their
watches
and
asking
the
DOJ
what
it
planned
to
do
about
its
obligations
under
Rule
5.1.
On
December
29,
Assistant
US
Attorney
Charles
Jones
admitted
that
there
were
no
grand
juries
sitting
in
the
US
District
Court
for
DC
between
December
19,
2025
and
January
5,
2026,
and
thus
there
would
be
no
federal
indictment.
Jones
proposed
scheduling
the
probable
cause
hearing
for
January
6
or
7,
i.e.,
never,
since
by
then,
he’d
have
presumably
managed
to
get
an
indictment.
Cole’s
lawyers
responded
that
the
government
had
to
hold
the
probable
cause
hearing
on
December
30,
or
let
him
go
home.
Before
Judge
Sharbaugh
could
rule,
the
DOJ
showed
up
on
December
29
with
an
indictment
returned
by
a
grand
jury
sitting
in
DC
Superior
Court.
Po-tay-to,
po-tah-to?
In
the
infinite
wisdom(?)
of
our
nation’s
founders,
our
seat
of
government
is
located
in
no
state.
And
because
DC
is
a
non-state
municipality,
the
US
Attorney
prosecutes
crimes
in
DC
Superior
Court
(the
analog
to
state
courts)
as
well
as
in
the
US
District
Court
for
DC.
In
the
past,
indictments
returned
by
DC
Superior
Court
grand
juries
have
occasionally
been
accepted
by
federal
judges.
But
Pirro’s
office
ran
into
trouble
recently
when
it
used
the
local
grand
jury
as
an
end-run
around
the
federal
grand
jury.
On
September
26,
after
a
federal
grand
jury
no-billed
an
indictment
of
DC
resident
Kevontae
Stewart
for
gun
possession,
Pirro’s
office
successfully
shopped
the
case
to
a
Superior
Court
grand
jury
instead.
Magistrate
Judge
Zia
Faruqui,
who
had
expressed
outrage
at
the
DOJ
for
charging
and
then
dropping
so
many
garbage
cases,
refused
to
accept
the
indictment.
After
extensive
briefing,
he
ruled
that
indictments
from
DC
Superior
Court
are
not
valid
in
federal
court.
The
DOJ
appealed,
and
Chief
Judge
James
Boasberg
ordered
Judge
Faruqui
to
accept
the
Stewart
indictment.
But,
noting
that
“the
public
interest
lies
in
letting
the
Court
of
Appeals
decide
this
issue
before
the
Government
moves
forward
both
on
this
case
and
in
similar
fashion
on
other
cases,”
he
stayed
the
case
pending
Stewart’s
appeal
to
the
DC
Circuit.
On
December
30,
Magistrate
Judge
Sharbaugh
asked
for
briefing
on
whether
he
should
accept
the
DC
Superior
Court
indictment
of
Brian
Cole
in
light
of
Judge
Boasberg’s
ruling
in
the
Stewart
case.
Sensing
that
the
best
defense
was
a
good
offense,
Jones
indignantly
protested
that
the
cock-up
was
all
the
defendant’s
fault.
“In
good-faith
reliance
on
the
representations
of
defense
counsel
of
record,
the
government
chose
not
to
secure
an
early
indictment
in
this
case
on
or
before
December
19,
2025,
the
last
date
on
which
grand
jury
panels
would
be
sitting
in
the
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia
until
January
6,
2026,”
he
whined.
“The
government
would
have
sought
such
an
early
indictment
from
a
federal
grand
jury
panel
had
there
been
any
indication
that
the
defense,
contrary
to
all
indications,
intended
to
pursue
a
preliminary
hearing
on
December
30,
2025.”
To
be
clear:
This
indictment
is
not
“early.”
The
defendant
agreed
to
postpone
the
detention
hearing
and
allow
the
government
a
few
more
days
to
get
in
front
of
a
grand
jury.
That’s
not
an
agreement
to
forego
a
preliminary
probable
cause
hearing.
But
the
government
pinky-promised
that
it
would
get
a
federal
grand
jury
to
bless
this
thing
on
January
6,
and
that
was
good
enough
for
Judge
Sharbaugh.
Based
on
“the
government’s
confirmation
that
it
does
not
intend
to
use
the
Superior
Court
grand
jury
as
an
ultimate
end-run
around
a
federal
grand
jury
empaneled
by
this
Court,”
he
accepted
the
indictment
in
a
one-paragraph
minute
order,
obviating
the
need
for
a
probable
cause
hearing.
Out
of
the
frying
pan
…
After
the
indictment
—
or
“indictment,”
depending
on
your
perspective
—
the
case
was
assigned
to
Judge
Amir
Ali,
ending
Sharbaugh’s
involvement.
Landing
on
the
docket
of
a
former
civil
rights
litigator
who
argued
multiple
Supreme
Court
cases
on
behalf
of
criminal
defendants
was
either
a
lucky
break
or
a
potential
disaster
—
again,
depending
on
your
perspective.
Cole’s
lawyers
promptly
filed
an
emergency
motion
to
un-accept
the
indictment
and
release
their
client
because
he
never
got
his
preliminary
hearing.
They
characterized
Judge
Sharbaugh’s
ruling
as
“conditional”
and
argued
that
his
brief
minute
order
“avoid[s]
any
legal
analysis
of
the
dispositive
issue,
which
is
whether
a
valid
indictment
has
been
returned
in
this
case.”
Judge
Ali
ordered
the
government
to
respond
by
5
p.m.
on
Monday,
January
5.
Presumably
prosecutors
will
race
into
the
grand
jury
room
on
Tuesday
morning
and
try
to
get
a
federal
indictment
before
Judge
Ali
rules
on
Cole’s
motion.
Maybe
that
will
moot
the
issue,
and
this
prosecution
can
proceed
normally.
But
it
won’t
change
the
fact
that
the
DOJ
spent
three
weeks
flailing
around
because
Pirro’s
office
couldn’t
be
bothered
to
present
this
high-profile
case
to
a
federal
grand
jury
before
wandering
off
for
vacation.
And
right
on
time,
the
US
Attorney
is
stumbling
in
to
make
it
worse.
In
posts
on
Facebook
and
X,
she
wrote
that
Cole
“gave
a
detailed
confession
to
the
charged
offenses,
telling
law
enforcement
he
was
frustrated
with
both
political
parties.”
My
office
has
filed
court
documents
that
Brian
Cole,
Jr.,
accused
of
placing
pipe
bombs
outside
the
RNC
and
DNC
has
admitted
that
he
was
responsible
for
the
devices
and
gave
a
detailed
confession
to
the
charged
offenses,
telling
law
enforcement
he
was
frustrated
with
both…
This
is
a
ham-fisted
effort
to
obscure
the
fact
that
Cole,
who
is
on
the
autism
spectrum,
did
what
he
did
because
he
believed
Trump’s
lies
about
a
stolen
election
—
lies
that
Pirro
herself
was
pulled
off
the
air
for
fomenting.
It
will
also
feature
prominently
in
an
upcoming
motion
for
a
gag
order
to
stop
DOJ
from
poisoning
the
jury
pool.
If
we
didn’t
know
better,
we’d
think
the
DOJ
was
deliberately
trying
to
tank
this
prosecution.
Guess
we’ll
have
to
wait
for
Dan
Bongino
to
get
back
to
podcasting
and
connect
the
dots
for
us.
WASHINGTON
—
The
surprise,
complex
operation
to
capture
Venezuelan
President
Nicolas
Maduro
was
the
result
of
long-term
planning
between
the
US
military
and
its
intelligence
agencies,
Chairman
of
the
Joint
Chiefs
Gen.
Dan
Caine
said
today.
“The
word
integration
does
not
explain
the
sheer
complexity
of
such
a
mission,
an
extraction
so
precise
it
involved
more
than
150
aircraft
launching
across
the
western
hemisphere
in
close
coordination,
all
coming
together
in
time
and
place
to
layer
effects
for
a
single
purpose,
to
get
an
interdiction
force
into
downtown
Caracas
while
maintaining
the
element
of
tactical
surprise,”
he
said.
“Failure
of
one
component
of
this
well-oiled
machine
would
have
endangered
the
entire
mission.”
Speaking
after
President
Donald
Trump
announced
the
results
of
what
was
termed
“Operation
Absolute
Resolve,”
Caine
laid
out
details
of
the
operation
while
noting
he
would
only
speak
in
generalities
because
“there
is
always
a
chance
that
we’ll
be
tasked
to
do
this
type
of
mission
again.”
For
several
months,
the
US
has
been
building
up
its
military
capacity
in
the
region.
The
biggest
arrival
came
in
mid-November,
when
the
USS
Gerald
Ford
carrier
strike
group
arrived
in
the
region.
By
“early
December,”
Caine
said,
the
intel
community
had
provided
enough
information
—
including
details
on
Maduro’s
daily
habits
down
to
the
names
of
his
pets
—
that
the
Pentagon
felt
it
could
execute
the
operation
when
called
upon.
However,
the
weather
proved
to
be
a
factor,
which
delayed
launching
the
effort.
However,
the
weather
cleared
enough
that
at
10:46
pm
ET
last
night,
Trump
gave
the
go
order.
At
that
point,
aircraft
began
launching
from
20
different
bases
around
the
Western
Hemisphere,
Caine
said.
“In
total,
more
than
150
aircraft
— bombers,
fighters,
intelligence,
reconnaissance,
surveillance
[aircraft],
rotary
wing
—
were
in
the
air
last
night,”
the
chairman
said.
“Thousands
and
thousands
of
hours
of
experience
were
airborne.
Our
youngest
crew
member
was
20
and
our
oldest
crew
member
was
49.”
Among
those
in
the
air
were
the
extraction
force,
made
of
an
unidentified
number
and
type
of
helicopters
flying
100
feet
above
the
water.
Caine
indicated
non-kinetic
effects
from
US
Space
Command
and
US
Cyber
Command
were
used
to
suppress
Venezuelan
defenses
—
at
least,
ahead
of
kinetic
strikes
from
an
escort
force
began.
“Those
forces
were
protected
by
aircraft
from
the
United
States
Marines,
the
United
States
Navy,
the
United
States
Air
Force
and
the
Air
National
Guard,”
he
said
of
the
helicopters.
The
protection
force
included
F-22s,
F-35s,
F-18
E/As,
B-2s,
B-1s
“and
other
support
aircraft,
as
well
as
numerous
remotely
piloted
drones.”
By
1:01
AM
eastern,
the
helicopter
force
arrived
at
Maduro’s
compound.
The
“apprehension”
team
“descended
into
Maduro’s
compound
and
moved
with
speed,
precision
and
discipline
towards
their
objective,”
Caine
said.
While
Caine
didn’t
dive
into
details
of
what
happened
during
the
capture,
Trump
said
that
he
watched
the
operation
in
real-time
and
said
Maduro
was
attempting
to
flee
to
a
safe
room
when
US
troops
grabbed
him.
While
this
was
going
on,
Caine
said,
“the
helicopters
came
under
fire,
and
they
replied
[to]
that
fire
with
overwhelming
force
and
self-defense.”
One
aircraft
was
hit
but
all
aircraft
involved
in
the
operation
were
able
to
return
home.
That
would
not
be
the
only
exchange
of
fire:
“There
were
multiple
self-defense
engagements
as
the
force
began
to
withdraw
out
of
Venezuela,”
Caine
said.
“The
force
successfully
exfiltrated
and
returned
to
their
afloat
launch
bases,
and
the
force
was
over
the
water
at
3:29
am,
Eastern
Standard
Time,
with
indicted
persons
on
board”
the
USS
Iwo
Jima.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
no
American
personnel
or
vehicles
were
lost
in
the
operation.
Caine
marked
that
down
to
the
joint
training
the
US
force
maintains.
“What
we’ve
witnessed
today
is
a
powerful
demonstration
of
America’s
joint
force.
We
think,
we
develop,
we
train,
we
rehearse,
we
debrief,
we
rehearse
again
and
again,
not
to
get
it
right,
but
to
ensure
that
we
cannot
get
it
wrong,”
Caine
added.
“Our
forces
remain
in
the
region
at
a
high
state
of
readiness,
prepared
to
project
power
[or]
defend
themselves
and
our
interests
in
the
region.”
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
First
Monday! On
the
first
Monday
of
each
month,
you
get
a
longer
version
of
the
Roundup
with
the headlines plus reading
recommendations, job
postings, events,
and
many
other
features.
After
a
month
away,
we
have
much
to
catch
up
on.
Yes,
it
has
been
over
a
month
since
my last
post
in
November! I
wrapped
up
many
writing
deadlines
during
my
December
break
and
spoke
with
a
few
reporters
on
different
matters
including Karen
Zraick at
the New
York
Times about
the
ethics
of
amicus
briefs.
You
can
read
more
about
that
below
at
headline
#1.
I
also
spent
some
quality
time
with
family,
including
a
holiday
on
Anna
Maria
Island.
Off
the
coast
near
Tampa,
it
is
a
charming
beach
town
with
no
stoplights,
high
rises,
or
chain
stores.
I
discovered
it
20
years
ago
thanks
to
this New
York
Times article “Perfecting
the
Fine
Art
of
Doing
Nothing,” and
fortunately
AMI
remains
delightfully
untouched
by
modern
tourism.
But
I
missed
our
weekly
LER
connections.
I’m
so
happy
to
be
back
in
your
inbox!
Sunset
on
Anna
Maria
Island,
Florida
(photo
by
Renee
Jefferson)
If
you’re
attending
the Association
of
American
Law
Schools
Annual
Meeting this
week
in
New
Orleans,
I’d
love
to
say
hello.
You
can
find
me
at
the
Professional
Responsibility
Main
Program
and
Awards
Ceremony
on
Thursday
from
2:35-3:50PM
where
I’ll
be
moderating
a
panel
discussion
on
“The
Law
Professor’s
Role
in
Protecting
our
Legal
System”
with Scott
Cummings (UCLA), Matthew
Diller (Fordham), Rachel
Lopez (Temple)
& Milan
Markovic (Texas
A&M).
For
more
details
about
that,
plus
other
legal
ethics
related
programming
and
NOLA
recommendations,
visit LER
Bonus
Content
Post
No.
21.
Now,
let’s
get
started
with
the
headlines.
You
get
twenty-five(!)
this
week
to
make
up
for
the
December
pause.
(Believe
it
or
not,
that’s
narrowed
down
from
more
than
forty
I
collected.) Don’t
forget
to
keep
scrolling
down
to
the
very
end
for
all
the
“First
Monday”
extra
features,
including
job
postings,
recommended
reading,
legal
ethics
in
pop
culture,
trivia,
and
more. Enjoy!
Highlights
from
the
Past
Month –
Top Ten Twenty-Five
Headlines
#1
“Greenpeace’s
Fight
With
Pipeline
Giant
Exposes
a
Legal
Loophole.” From The
New
York
Times: “Friend-of-the-court
briefs,
or
amicus
briefs,
are
increasingly
being
used
as
a
litigation
tactic
rather
than
for
their
intended
purpose,
said Renee
Knake
Jefferson,
a
law
professor
at
the
University
of
Houston.
The
filings
are
supposed
to
offer
‘additional
concerns
the
court
should
consider,’
but
often
one
party
is
‘going
behind
the
cloak
of
the
amicus
brief
to
continue
its
own
advocacy,’
Ms.
Jefferson
said.”
Read
more here (gift
link).
#2
“‘Indeed
Frivolous’:
Appeals
Court
Upholds
$1
Million
Penalty
Against
Trump
and
His
Lawyer.” From Raw
Story: “A
federal
appeals
court
upheld
a
$1
million
penalty
against President
Donald
Trump and
his
former
lawyer Alina
Habba for
filing
a
‘frivolous’
lawsuit
against Hillary
Clinton, James
Comey and
others.”
Read
more here.
#3
“Ex-DLA
Piper
Partner
Accused
in
Lawsuit
of
Raping
Associate.” From Bloomberg
Law: “A
former
DLA
Piper
partner
is
accused
of
raping
an
associate
he
mentored
after
a
work
dinner
at
the
firm’s
Delaware
office,
according
to
a
lawsuit
filed
Monday.”
Read
more here.
#4
“NYT
Video
Essay:
U.S.
District
Judge
Esther
Salas
on
the
Consequences
of
Partisan
Rhetoric.” From Duke’s
Bolch
Judicial
Institute: “In
a
powerful New
York
Times
video
essay, U.S.
District
Judge
Esther
Salas explains
how
escalating
political
attacks
are
undermining
public
confidence
in
the
federal
judiciary
and
fueling
threats
against
judges.”
Read
more here.
#5
“US
Judge
Found
Guilty
of
Helping
Migrant
Evade
Immigration
Agents.” From
the BBC: “A
judge
in
the
US
state
of
Wisconsin
has
been
found
guilty
of
obstruction
for
trying
to
help
a
Mexican
man
evade
immigration
officials
during
an
arrest
attempt. Milwaukee
County
Circuit
Judge
Hannah
Dugan was
arrested
in
April
after
ushering Eduardo
Flores-Ruiz,
a
Mexican
national
facing
battery
charges,
out
of
her
courtroom
through
a
side
door.”
Read
more here.
#6
“Say
Goodbye
to
the
Billable
Hour,
Thanks
to
AI.” From The
Wall
Street
Journal: “With
AI
taking
over
their
grunt
work,
lawyers
and
other
professionals
may
have
to
charge
for
outcomes
rather
than
time
spent.”
Read
more here (gift
link).
#7
“Ex-Prosecutor
Sues
Over
Arrest
While
Protesting
Law
Firm
Skadden’s
Deal
with
Trump.” From Reuters: “A
retired
prosecutor
has
sued
New
York
City
and
Brookfield
Properties
in
federal
court,
alleging
he
was
wrongfully
arrested
while
protesting
in
a
public
space
against
law
firm
Skadden
Arps
over
its
deal
with President
Donald
Trump to
provide
free
legal
work. David
O’Keefe said
in
his
lawsuit
filed
on
Thursday,
that
he
was
arrested
while
staging
a
solo
protest
in
April
in
a
privately-owned
but
public
space
outside
Skadden’s
Manhattan
office.
He
opposed
Skadden’s
agreement
to
provide
$100
million
in
pro
bono
services
for
Trump-backed
initiatives,
calling
it
a
threat
to
the
rule
of
law.”
Read
more here.
#8
“How
Charlie
Javice’s
Legal
Fees
Hit
$74
Million:
Gummy
Bears
and
Star
Lawyers.” From The
Wall
Street
Journal: “A
list
of
legal
expenses
from
her
lawyers
included
$530
in
gummy
bears,
a
seafood
tower
and
thousands
of
dollars
on
hotel
upgrades,
new
court
documents
reveal.”
Read
more here(gift
link).
#9
“Judges
Who
Ruled
Against
Trump
Say
Harassment
and
Threats
Have
Changed
Their
Lives.” From NBC
News: “More
than
100
pizzas
were
delivered
to
the
homes
of
judges
and
their
families
this
year,
some
with
signs
of
foreign
involvement.
Judges
say
the
message
is
clear:
We
know
where
you
live.”
Read
more here.
#10
“Trump
Suffers
Several
Defeats
in
Effort
to
Punish
Opposing
Lawyers.” From The
Washington
Post: “Since
taking
office
for
the
second
time, President
Donald
Trump has
suffered
multiple
losses
in
his
efforts
to
strip
security
clearances
from
political
opponents
and
prestigious
Washington
law
firms.
…
The
president’s
latest
loss
came
this
week,
when
a
federal
judge
in
Washington
temporarily
blocked
Trump’s
efforts
to
strip
a
security
clearance
from
national
security
attorney Mark
Zaid.”
Read
more here (gift
link).
#11
“He
Was
a
Supreme
Court
Lawyer.
Then
His
Double
Life
Caught
Up
With
Him.” From The
New
York
Times: “Thomas
Goldstein was
a
superstar
in
the
legal
world.
He
was
also
a
secret
high-stakes
gambler,
whose
wild
10-year
run
may
now
land
him
in
prison.”
Read
more here (gift
link).
#12
“Notorious
Crypto
Con
Man
Sam
Bankman-Fried
Has
a
Prison
Passion
Project:
Giving
Legal
Advice
to
Other
Inmates.” From Fortune: “The
founder
of
FTX
has
brought
his
entrepreneurial
spirit
behind
bars.
He
has
advised
several
high-profile
inmates,
like
former Honduran
President
Juan
Orlando
Hernandez and
rapper Sean
Combs,
according
to reporting by
the
New
York
Times.”
Read
more here.
#13
“FTC
Says
ABA
is
a
‘Law
School
Accreditation
Monopoly’.” From Reuters: “The
U.S.
Federal
Trade
Commission
…
called
the
American
Bar
Association’s
accreditation
of
law
schools
a
‘monopoly’
that
increases
the
cost
of
a
law
degree
and
limits
the
supply
of
new
lawyers.
The
agency
made
the
assessment
in
a letterto
the
Texas
Supreme
Court,
which
invited
public
comment
after
saying
in
September
that
it
plans
to
end
the
state’s
reliance
on
the
ABA
for
law
school
oversight.”
Read
more here.
#14
“Judges
Who
‘Unretired’
After
Trump
Win
Didn’t
Breach
Ethics
Code.” From Bloomberg
Law: “Three
federal
judges
who
decided
to
‘unretire’
after President
Donald
Trump won
the
election
didn’t
violate
judicial
ethics
rules,
a
chief
judge
held. Chief
Judge
Debra
Ann
Livingston of
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Second
Circuit
threw
out
the
conservative
Article
III
Project’s
misconduct
complaints
against Judges
James
Wynn
Jr. of
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Fourth
Circuit, Max
Cogburn
of
the
US
District
Court
for
the
Western
District
of
North
Carolina,
and Algenon
Marbley of
the
US
District
Court
for
Southern
District
of
Ohio.”
Read
more here.
#15
“Grand
Jury
Declines
to
Re-Indict
Letitia
James
in
Virginia.” From Fox
News: “The
Department
of
Justice
failed
to
bring
an
indictment
against Letitia
James on
Thursday
after
a
federal
judge
tossed
the
initial
indictment
last
week,
according
to
a
DOJ
source.
The
DOJ
attempted
to
persuade
a
grand
jury
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
to
indict
James
a
second
time,
the
source
said,
after Judge
Cameron
Currie found
that
the
prosecutor
who
brought
the
first
indictment, Lindsey
Halligan,
was
serving
unlawfully
as
interim
U.S.
attorney.
The
revelation
that
a
grand
jury
did
not
indict
James,
one
of President
Donald
Trump’s top
political
foes,
is
a
blow
to
the
DOJ
as
it
is
rare
that
grand
juries
do
not
find
enough
probable
cause
to
bring
charges.”
Read
more here.
#16
“Calif.
Atty
Slams
‘Protectionist’
ABS
Fee-Sharing
Ban.” From Law360: “A
California
attorney
has
pushed
back
on
opposition
from
California’s
attorney
general
and
the
state’s
bar
association
amid
his
efforts
to
block
enforcement
of
a
ban
on
fee
sharing
with
out-of-state
law
firms
owned
by
nonattorneys
arguing
the
new
state
law
is
a
‘protectionist
act,
in
defiance
of
the
constitution.’”
Read
more here.
#17
“Judge
Emil
Bove
Faces
Ethics
Complaint
for
Attending
Trump
Rally.” From The
New
York
Times: “Judge
Emil
Bove
III,
a
federal
appeals
court
judge
who
made
his
career
as
a
stalwart
supporter
of President
Trump,
is
now
facing
a
complaint
over
his
attendance
at
a
campaign-style
rally
held
by
Mr.
Trump
at
a
Pennsylvania
casino
resort
on
Tuesday.
The complaint,
which
was
filed
on
Wednesday
with
the
chief
judge
of
the
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Third
Circuit
and
was
written
by Gabe
Roth,
who
heads
the
advocacy
group
Fix
the
Court,
said
that
Judge
Bove’s
attendance
at
the
rally
violated rules that
prohibit
judges
from
‘the
appearance
of
impropriety’
and
engaging
in
‘political
activity.’”
Read
more here (gift
link).
#18
“North
Dakota
Names
First
Female
Supreme
Court
Chief
Justice.” From
the North
Dakota
Monitor: “Lisa
Fair
McEvers has
been
elected
the
first
female
chief
justice
of
the
North
Dakota
Supreme
Court.
She
earned
about
83%
of
the
vote
by
sitting
justices
and
district
court
judges.
…
North
Dakota
is
the
only
state
where
the
chief
justice
is
elected
by
a
vote
of
the
sitting
justices
and
district
court
judges,
said State
Court
Administrator
Sally
Holewa,
who
led
the
ballot
count.”
Read
more here.
#19
“Why
Lawyers
Buy
So
Many
Billboards.” From The
Hustle: “The
American
Tort
Reform
Association,
a
lobbying
group
that
advocates
for
caps
on
award
damages
and
changes
to
current
civil
liability
laws,
estimates
that
in
2024
attorneys spent$541m+ on
out-of-home
and
outdoor
ads,
a
category
that
includes
billboards
as
well
as
space
on
buses,
subways,
and
other
public
areas.
This
is
an
increase
of
$70m
compared
to
2023
and
nearly
$200m
from
2022.
Morgan
&
Morgan,
the
country’s
largest
personal
injury
firm,
reportedly
spends
a
staggering $350m
annually on
marketing
alone.
So
why
are
so
many
law
firms,
from
single-attorney
practices
to
firms
with
thousands
of
employees,
investing
so
heavily
in
billboards?”
Read
more here.
#20
“Over
200
Ex-Staffers
Decry
Destruction
of
DoJ
Civil
Rights
Arm:
‘America
Deserves
Better’.” From The
Guardian: “More
than
200
former
employees
in
the
justice
department’s
civil
rights
division signed
a
letter released
on
Tuesday
decrying
the
‘near
destruction’
of
the
agency
that
is
supposed
to
enforce
US
civil
rights
laws
and
accused
political
leadership
of
waging
a
campaign
to
purge
career
experts
from
its
ranks.
There
was
a
mass
exodus
of
lawyers
earlier
this
year
after
political
appointees
removed
career
managers,
detailed
employees
to
menial
work,
unilaterally
dropped
cases,
and
made
it
clear
the
division’s
focus
would
be
enforcing
Donald
Trump’s
priorities.
By
1
May
of
this
year,
the
department
had
lost
about
70%
of
its
attorneys
–
a
staggering
number.
”
Read
more here.
#21
“Judicial
Use
of
AI:
Ethical
Issues.” From Reuters: “An
expert
Q&A
on
the
legal,
ethical,
and
practical
considerations
and
emerging
issues
regarding
judicial
use
of
AI,
including
judicial
independence,
appropriate
use
cases,
oversight
obligations,
disclosure
expectations,
and
data
protection.”
Read
more here.
#22
“Inside
the
17-year
Lawsuit
Between
a
Trump
Official
and
His
Interior
Designers.” From The
Washington
Post: “Suing
your
opponent’s
lawyer
because
you
disagree
with
how
they
handled
the
case
is
‘facially
ludicrous,’
said Melissa
Mortazavi,
a
law
professor
at
the
University
of
Oklahoma
who
focuses
on
legal
ethics
and
reviewed
the
docket.
‘That
person
doesn’t
owe
you
a
duty
of
care.
…
It
just,
to
me,
is
a
sign
that
the
person
who
made
the
motion
has
actually
filed
a
frivolous
motion.’”
Read
more here (gift
link).
#23
“Supreme
Costs:
A
Condensed
Version
of
Our
Series
on
the
‘Obscene’
Spending
on
Wisconsin
Justices.” From Wisconsin
Watch: “A
quarter-century
ago,
the
total
cost
of
every
state
Supreme
Court
race
in
the
country
reached
an
unprecedented
$45.6
million,
prompting
the
Brennan
Center
for
Justice
at
New
York
University
to
warn
‘a
new
and
ominous
politics
of
judicial
elections’
posed
a
‘threat
to
fair
and
impartial
justice.’
Yet
in
2025,
spending
on
one
Wisconsin
Supreme
Court
seat
reached
$144.5
million,
even
more
than
the
$100.8
million
spent
on
68
state
high
court
contests
in
the
nation
in
2021
and
2022.”
Read
more here.
#24
“ABA
AI
Task
Force
Report
Examines
Opportunities,
Challenges
for
Legal
Profession.” From
the ABA
Journal: “The
American
Bar
Association’s
Task
Force
on
Law
and
Artificial
Intelligence
released
its
final
report
recently.
The
AI
Task
Force
‘Year
2
Report
on
the
Impact
of
AI
on
the
Practice
of
Law’
focuseson
the
future
of
AI
and
the
law.
…
Recognizing
AI’s
enormous
potential
for
the
legal
profession
and
beyond,
the
task
force
addressed
some
of
the
most
pressing
and
challenging
legal
issues
facing
society
today,
including
the
profound
impact
of
AI
on
the
legal
profession
and
the
rule
of
law,
the
courts,
legal
education,
access
to
justice,
governance
and
risk
management,
as
well
as
challenges
presented
by
generative
AI
and
ethical
dilemmas.”
Read
more here.
#25
“Legal
Ethics:
2025
Year
in
Review.” From Slaw: “As
2025
draws
to
a
close,
this
column
looks
back
on
three
high-profile
areas
of
development
in
Canadian
legal
ethics
and
lawyer
regulation
over
the
past
year.
It
also
flags
several
major
court
cases
and
disciplinary
proceedings
from
2025,
as
well
as
cases
to
watch
for
in
the
year
ahead.”
Read
more here.
Ethics
Reform
Watch
⚖️
The
ABA
issued
a
new
ethics
opinion
in
December
providing
guidance
for
disclosure
and
confidentiality
rules
when
a
lawyer
moves
to
withdraw
from
a
representation
under
Rule
1.16.
Here’s
the
summary
of
Formal
Opinion
519
“Disclosure
of
Information
Relating
to
the
Representation
in
a
Motion
to
Withdraw
From
a
Representation:”
When
moving
to
withdraw
from
a
representation,
a
lawyer’s
disclosure
to
the
tribunal
is
limited
by
the
duty
of
confidentiality
established
by
Rule
1.6(a)
of
the
ABA
Model
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct.
Unless
an
explicit
exception
to
the
duty
of
confidentiality
applies
or
the
client
provides
informed
consent,
the
lawyer
may
not
reveal
“information
relating
to
the
representation”
in
support
of
a
withdrawal
motion.
Disclosure
of
information
relating
to
the
representation
is
not
“impliedly
authorized
in
order
to
carry
out
the
representation”
under
Rule
1.6(a)
or
otherwise
impliedly
authorized
even
when
Rule
1.16(a)
requires
the
lawyer
to
seek
to
withdraw.
If
disclosure
is
permitted
by
an
exception
to
the
duty
of
confidentiality,
such
as
when
disclosure
is
required
by
a
court
order,
it
must
be
strictly
limited
to
the
extent
reasonably
necessary
and,
whenever
possible,
made
through
measures
that
protect
confidentiality
such
as
by
making
submissions
in
camera
or
under
seal.
The
Model
Rules
require
that
any
disclosure
in
support
of
withdrawal
be
narrowly
tailored,
protective
of
the
client’s
interests,
and
undertaken
only
within
the
scope
of
an
applicable
exception.
When
the
client
does
not
give
informed
consent
to
disclosing
information
relating
to
the
representation
in
support
of
a
motion
to
withdraw,
and
there
is
no
applicable
exception
to
the
duty
of
confidentiality,
lawyers
should
proceed
in
stages:
begin
with
a
motion
citing
only
“professional
considerations”
or
employing
similar
language
to
justify
the
motion;
if
the
court
seeks
further
information,
assert
all
non-frivolous
claims
for
maintaining
confidentiality
consistent
with
Rule
1.6(a);
and,
if
ordered
to
disclose
additional
information
relating
to
the
representation,
do
so
in
the
narrowest
possible
manner.
Ultimately,
the
lawyer’s
paramount
duty
is
to
preserve
client
confidentiality,
even
at
the
risk
that
the
tribunal
may
deny
the
motion
to
withdraw.
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
one
book
and
three
law
review
articles.
“The
Pain
Brokers:
How
Con
Men,
Call
Centers,
and
Rogue
Doctors
Fuel
America’s
Law
Suit
Factory” (Simon
&
Schuster
2026)
by Elizabeth
Chamblee
Burch (Georgia).
I
got
to
read
this
one
hot
off
the
press
—
so
hot,
in
fact,
that
you
can’t
buy
it
in
stores
until January
13 but
it
is
available
for pre-order on
Amazon.
(Pre-orders
help
the
author,
so
buy
it
now!)
It’s
the
kind
of
book
that
will
keep
you
up
late
reading,
whether
or
not
you’re
a
legal
ethics
buff,
and
I
can
already
see
it
being
made
into
a
miniseries
(think
Johnathan
Harr’s A
Civil
Action meets
Apple
TV’s Palm
Royaleset
in
2015
instead
of
1969).
Here’s
the
back
cover
summary:
For
decades,
late-night
television
has
blared
a
familiar
refrain:
If
you
or
a
loved
one
has
been
injured
by
X
product…
But
behind
those
ads
lies
a
lesser-known
world
where
elaborate
scams
revictimize
the
injured.
Why
else
would
thousands
of
women
with
health
insurance
take
out
loans
with
astronomical
interest
rates
and
fly
to
south
Florida
to
have
their
pelvic
mesh
surgically
removed
at
a
chiropractor’s
clinic?
The
Pain
Brokers,
by
law
professor
Elizabeth
Burch,
is
a
damning
investigation
of
a
scheme
made
possible
by
a
medical
and
legal
complex
that
too
often
views
women’s
bodies
as
cash
machines
and
fails
to
take
their
pain
seriously.
As
Burch
unfurls
each
level
to
the
scheme,
we
meet
an
enthralling
cast
of
characters,
from
a
world
class
scam
artist
who
reaped
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
at
a
south
Florida
call
center,
to
the
ultimate
white
shoe
power
lawyer
who
defended
Big
Pharma
but
became
an
unlikely
hero,
to
a
newly
minted
small-town
Arkansas
attorney
who
advocated
for
the
unseen
and
unheard.
But
at
the
center
are
three
women,
Jerri,
Barb,
and
Sharon,
whose
lives
were
upended
by
the
very
procedure
they
were
told
would
save
them.
A
page-turning,
urgently
necessary
work
of
public
service
journalism,
The
Pain
Brokers
is
not
only
a
chilling
exposé
of
a
legal
system
gone
awry,
but
a
wake-up
call
to
the
ways
in
which
it
harms
those
it
is
meant
to
help.
“An
Unreliable
Reporter” by Jon
Lee (Oklahoma).
From
the
abstract:
As
part
of
the
legal
profession’s
tradition
of
self-regulation,
attorneys
have
an
ethical
obligation
to
ensure
that
those
within
it
are
fit
to
practice.
Given
the
gravity
associated
with
accusing
another
lawyer
of
misconduct,
it
is
not
surprising
that
many
are
reticent
to
speak
up.
But
what
would
happen
if
attorneys
were
pressured
to
vigorously
pursue
sanctions
against
their
opponents,
even
if
those
sanctions
may
be
unwarranted?
President
Trump’s
recently-issued
memorandum
arguably
does
just
that,
mandating
the
Attorney
General
to
seek
court
and
disciplinary
sanctions
for
lawyers
and
law
firms
that
appear
to
violate
ethics
rules.
This
Essay
explains
how
this
directive
may
put
some
federal
government
attorneys
in
a
conundrum
where
they
will
have
to
choose
between
placating
the
Administration
or
standing
firm,
and
it
explores
the
ethical
and
other
professional
consequences
that
may
follow
from
their
choice.
“Judicial
Regrets” by Yuvraj
Joshi (Brooklyn).
From
the
abstract:
U.S.
Supreme
Court
Justices
have
often
expressed
regret
about
their
most
consequential
rulings
and
opinions.
Chief
Justice
Earl
Warren
lamented
his
1955
Brown
v.
Board
of
Education
opinion
ordering
desegregation
“with
all
deliberate
speed”—ambiguous
phrasing
that
enabled
delays
in
integration.
Justice
Lewis
Powell
recanted
his
1986
opinion
in
Bowers
v.
Hardwick,
which
upheld
a
Georgia
law
criminalizing
same-sex
intimacy.
Justice
Sandra
Day
O’Connor
predicted
in
Grutter
v.
Bollinger
that
affirmative
action
policies
would
no
longer
be
needed
within
twenty-five
years—a
prediction
she
later
acknowledged
was
mistaken.
These
examples,
among
others
discussed
in
this
Article,
illustrate
that
judicial
regret
is
frequent
and
poignant,
spanning
several
areas
of
law.
Judicial
regret
already
influences
legal
development—shaping
judicial
behavior,
informing
legislative
reform,
and
empowering
social
movements—whether
acknowledged
or
not.
Despite
this
significance,
it
remains
largely
unexplored
in
American
legal
scholarship.
This
Article
provides
the
first
systematic
analysis
of
judicial
regret
by
drawing
on
multidisciplinary
research
on
regret,
previously
unpublished
judicial
survey
data,
and
judicial
case
studies.
It
examines
how
the
law
might
better
account
for
judicial
regret
and
underscores
insights
about
law
and
judging
that
stem
from
deeper
understandings
of
it.
Because
such
regret
can
catalyze
legal
reforms,
rectify
past
harms,
and
influence
legal
interpretations,
this
Article
proposes
ways
to
incorporate
it
into
constitutional
interpretation
and
the
treatment
of
precedent.
By
contemplating
the
legal
and
normative
significance
of
this
neglected
judicial
emotion,
this
Article
aims
to
help
the
legal
community
avoid
collectively
discounting
regret.
“Equal
Justice
&
Generative
AI” by Milan
Markovic (Texas
A&M).
From
the
abstract:
The
United
States
has
long
suffered
from
unequal
access
to
justice,
with
countless
low-and
middle-income
Americans
forced
to
navigate
the
legal
system
alone.
Recently,
prominent
judges,
lawyers,
and
scholars
have
seized
on
generative
AI
as
a
potential
corrective.
These
techno-optimists
maintain
that
ChatGPT
and
other
large
language
models
can
demystify
the
law
and
address
unmet
legal
needs.
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
has
proclaimed
that
AI-based
tools
“have
the
welcome
potential
to
smooth
out
any
mismatch
between
available
resources
and
urgent
needs
in
our
court
system.”
…
This
Article
proposes
two
key
reforms
for
integrating
AI
into
the
civil
justice
system.
First,
it
calls
for
the
training
of
justice
tech
workers
to
counsel
unrepresented
individuals
in
the
responsible
use
of
AI-based
legal
tools.
Second,
courts
should
bolster
existing
ethical
requirements
and
mandate
the
reasonable
verification
of
factual
claims
and
legal
authorities
in
proceedings
that
commonly
involve
unrepresented
parties.
Without
these
reforms,
AI
will
only
entrench
and
amplify
longstanding
inequalities
in
the
justice
system.
Legal
Ethics
in
Pop
Culture
—
Kim
Kardashian’s
Bar
Failure
Hasn’t
Kept
Her
From
Playing
Lawyer
Kim
Kardashian announced
in
December
she
failed
the
bar
exam,
again. Max
Raskin (NYU
Law,
Uris
Acquisitions)
argued
it’s
not
about
her
capabilities,
but
instead
“it’s
about
quantity
control.”
From
his
op-ed
in
the Washington
Post:
It’s
easy
to
laugh
at KimKardashian,
who
recently
announced
that
she
failed
the
California
bar
exam,
joining
the
ranks
of
celebrities
such
as Kamala
Harris and Jerry
Brown.
But
Kardashian’s
failure
is
not
a
knock
on
her
—
it’s
an
indictment
of
the
bar,
one
of
the
most
powerful
guilds
in
America.
And
for
the
first
time
in
a
century,
technological
change
may
finally
break
that
cartel’s
grip.
While
she
still
is
not
yet
a
licensed
lawyer,
Kardashian
is
playing
one
on
TV.
Together
with
a
star-studded
cast
including Naomi
Watts, Glenn
Close, Niecy
Nash-Betts,
and Sarah
Paulson,
she
is
a
partner
in
an
all-female
law
firm
in
the
Hulu
series All’s
Fair, which
has
been
called
“one
of
the
worst
shows
of
all
time”
according
to Slate:
And
yet,
for
all
the
hatred
from
critics
(whose
scorn
initially
earned
the
show
a
rare
zero
percent
rating
on
the
aggregator
site
Rotten
Tomatoes,
before
the
series
gasped
its
way
to
its
current
4
percent),
All’s
Fair
has
actually
been
a
ratings
winner
for
Hulu.
It
enjoyed
more
than
3
million
views
in
its
first
three
days
of
streaming—perhaps
thanks,
in
part,
to
its
abysmal
early
reviews—making
it
the
platform’s
most-watched
scripted
series
premiere
in
three
years.
This
result
was
framed
by
some
as
“a
clear
division
between
viewers
and
critics,”
another
data
point
in
the
apparent
declining
cultural
power
that
reviewers
once
enjoyed.
I
will
confess
—
I’m
one
of
the
3
million
viewers.
And
while
I
can’t
say
that
I
recommend
the
show,
it
certainly
isn’t
the
worst
thing
I’ve
ever
seen.
And
it
does
offer
up
a
few
moments
to
teach
legal
ethics.
Check
out
the trailer
for
All’s
Fair
here.
Screenshot
of
All’s
Fair
Trailer
Legal
Ethics
Trivia
里
From
the
Texas
Center
for
Legal
Ethics,
here’s
the
question
of
the
month:
“How
much
do
you
know
about
reporting
attorney
discipline?” Test
yourself
at
this
website where
you
can
read
a
short
hypothetical,
select
an
answer,
and
see
your
results.
So
far,
55%
have
gotten
it
right.
Will
you?
Get
Hired
Did
you
miss
the
400+
job
postings
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.
Assistant
Ethics
Counsel,
North
Carolina
State
Bar
—
Raleigh/Hybrid. From
the
posting:
“This
is
a
unique
opportunity
to
work
at
the
intersection
of
legal
ethics,
public
service,
and
legal
education.
In
this
role,
you’ll
provide
guidance
to
attorneys
on
ethics
issues,
support
the
Ethics
Committee,
and
help
shape
the
ethical
landscape
of
the
legal
profession
in
North
Carolina
by
contributing
to
the
development
of
formal
ethics
opinions
and
amendments
to
the
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct.
You’ll
also
deliver
CLE
presentations,
conduct
legal
research,
and
support
the
State
Bar’s
efforts
in
protecting
the
public
through
the
regulation
of
the
legal
profession.
”
Salary
range
$85,000
to
$110,000
annually.
Learn
more
and
apply here.
Conflicts
Attorney,
Holland
&
Knight
—
Multiple
Locations/Remote. From
the
posting:
”With
the
appropriate
oversight
from
the
firm’s
Professional
Standards
Partner,
the
Conflicts
Attorney
will
assist
with
managing
the
conflict
resolution
process
related
to
new
business
intake,
while
protecting
the
firm
and
its
clients
from
adversity
and
risk.
Periodic
in-person
presence
is
required
for
annual
or
bi-annual
weekend
team
building
events.
”
Salary
range
$136,000
to
$245,000
annually.
Learn
more
and
apply here.
Conflicts
Attorney,
Seyfarth
Shaw—
Multiple
Locations/Remote. From
the
posting:
”As
a
Conflicts
Attorney,
you
will
manage
ethical
and
business
risks
presented
by
potential
new
business
opportunities
for
an
Am
Law
100
firm.
Based
on
your
training
and
experience,
you
will
analyze
conflicts
search
reports
to
identify
potential
conflicts
of
interest
with
potential
new
business
and
in
some
instances
with
prior
and
potential
new
business
for
lateral
hires.
You
will
work
independently
with
attorneys
across
the
Firm
to
detect
conflicts
and
resolve
them,
where
possible,
within
the
guidelines
of
prevailing
ethical
rules
and
Firm
policies
and
procedures.”
Salary
range
$145,000
to
$170,000
annually.
Learn
more
and
apply here.
Senior
Attorney
–
Ethics
&
Advertising,
The
Florida
Bar
—
Tallahassee. From
the
posting:
“The
Senior
Attorney
provides
oral
and
written
ethics
opinions
providing
advice
on
ethics
issues
to
Bar
members,
reviews
attorney
advertising
for
compliance
with
the
Rules
Regulating
The
Florida
Bar,
and
assists
in
working
with
various
bar
committees.”
Salary
starts
at
$87,804.63
annually.
Learn
more
and
apply here.
Senior
Attorney
–
Lawyer
Regulation
Headquarters,
The
Florida
Bar
—
Tallahassee. From
the
posting:
“The
Florida
Bar’s
Lawyer
Regulation
Headquarters-Tallahassee
is
seeking
an
experienced
Trial
Attorney.
The
Senior
Attorney
acts
as
counsel
at
investigative
and
trial
levels
of
processing
grievances
against
attorneys.”
Salary
starts
at
$87,804.63
annually.
Learn
more
and
apply here.
Senior
Attorney
–
Lawyer
Regulation
Tampa
Branch,
The
Florida
Bar
—
Tampa. From
the
posting:
“The
Florida
Bar’s
Lawyer
Tampa
Branch
office
is
seeking
an
experienced
Trial
Attorney.
The
Senior
Attorney
acts
as
counsel
at
investigative
and
trial
levels
of
processing
grievances
against
attorneys.”
Salary
starts
at
$91,316.82
annually.
Learn
more
and
apply here.
Upcoming
Ethics
Events
&
Other
Announcements
️
Did
you
miss
an
announcement
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.
January
6-9.Association
of
American
Law
Schools
Annual
Meeting,
Section
on
Professional
Responsibility
Events. I’ll
be
moderating
the
Section’s
main
program
on
“The
Law
Professor’s
Role
in
Protecting
Our
Legal
System”which
will
be
held
January
8
from
2:35-3:50
PM. Heading
to
AALS
in
New
Orleans?
Here’s
the
Guide
You
Need
– LER
Bonus
Content
No.
21
(01.01.26)
February
7-9.
Association
of
Professional
Responsibility
Lawyers,
Midyear
Meeting,
San
Antonio. Learn
more
and
register here.
October
15-16.
Complex
Litigation
Ethics
Conference,
UC
Law
San
Francisco. The
conference
is
the
fourth
annual
event
addressing
Complex
Litigation
Ethics.
It
will
bring
together
luminaries
in
the
field—judges,
scholars,
lawyers,
and
others—to
discuss
a
cutting-edge
topic
that
is
of
critical
importance
to
our
justice
system.
Learn
more 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.
Kathryn
