Category: News Feeds

Last
week,
we
covered
Georgetown
Law
students’
valiant
effort
to
stop
ICE
from
showing
up
to
their
career
fair.
There
are
many
reasons
to
do
so,
but
the
most
obvious
is
that
it
cuts
against

the
school’s
tradition
of
trying
to
be
on
the
right
side
of
history.
It
was
a
joint
effort
with
George
Washington
Law
to
keep
abductors
off
their
campus.
There’s
good
praxis
in
recognizing
that
things
don’t
immediately
go
full
tilt
fascist
overnight
—
you
make
a
few
appeals
to
diversity
of
thought,
throw
in
a
few
handshakes
and
jobs,
until
you
suddenly
find
yourself
sitting
in
a

Nazi
bar.
And
while
the
law
students
did
see
victory,
it
was
only
partial.

GW
Hatchet
has
coverage:

Students
condemned
GW
Law
officials’
decision
not
to
revoke
U.S.
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement’s
invitation
to
a
public
interest
career
fair
on
Friday
after
more
than
1,000
students
signed
a
petition
calling
on
officials
to
bar
them
over
concerns
about
its
immigration
enforcement
practices.

Students

petitioned
to
disinvite
two
ICE
divisions
from
GW
Law
and
Georgetown
University
Law
Center’s
joint

annual
virtual
Public
Sector
Recruiting
Program
last
week,
gathering
over
1,200
signatures
and
gaining
a
meeting
on
Wednesday
with
Dean
Dayna
Bowen
Matthew,
who
ultimately
chose
not
to
bar
the
organization,
citing
free
expression,
University
policy
and
accreditation
rules.

…

Though
ICE’s
Office
of
the
Principal
Legal
Advisor
pulled
out
of
the
program,
the
second
participating
ICE
division,
the
Human
Rights
Violators
and
War
Crimes
Center,
continued
to
participate,
students
said.

The
Human
Rights
Violators
division?
Isn’t
that
just
ICE
proper?

And
as
nice
as
it
is
that
Dean
Matthew
can
throw
her
hands
up
and
explain
away
letting
ICE
set
up
camp
as
“free
expression,”
it
is
worth
noting
that
ICE
is
exactly
the
sort
of
arrested
expression
organization
that
could
decide
to
punish
her
if
she
said
otherwise:

The
minimizing
response
is
to
say
that
all
of
this
is
blown
out
of
proportion
because
the
unobjectionable
prong
of
ICE
fighting
human
rights
violations
and
war
crimes
isn’t
as
bad
as
the
one
killing
people
in
broad
daylight.
But
that’s
the
trick:
it
starts
well
meaning
and
unobjectionable
until
it
doesn’t
stay
that
way.
ICE
on
campus
is
ICE
on
campus.
And
according
to
GW
Hatchet,
at
least
20
employers
withdrew
from
the
career
fair
in
response
to
ICE’s
invitation
not
being
rescinded.

Both
GW
and

Georgetown
students
voiced
disappointment
in
their
schools
sitting
on
their
hands
despite
the
1,000+
students
who
signed
a
petition
asking
them
to
get
off
their
asses.
The
next
time
either
of
these
schools
reads
off
some
boilerplate
language
about
how
much
their
students’
voices
matter
to
the
administration,
they
should
be
summarily
booed.
Respect
to
the
students
and
employers
who
stood
on
their
principles
enough
to
do
something,
especially
when
the
schools
were
too
inept
to
change
course.
GULC’s
dean,
Joshua
Teitelbaum,
told
the
student
body
that
the
PSRP
has
never
disinvited
an
employer
before,
and
that
he
did
not
believe
this
was
an
appropriate
time
to
deviate
from
that
policy.
Makes
you
wonder
what
the
threshold
of

dead
soccer
moms
and

ICU
nurses
and

rising
deaths
in
custody
and

Germans
calling
out
Nazi
shit
for
looking
like
Nazi
shit
or
“giving
your
heart
out”
gestures
and

white
supremacist
dog
whistles
in
recruitment
ads
it
would
take
to
be
an
“appropriate
time
to
deviate”
from
the
policy.
Reads
like
complicity
to
me,
but
what
do
I
know?
I’m
not
a
law
school
dean.

Students
Blast
GW
Law
For
Declining
To
Disinvite
ICE
From
Public
Interest
Career
Fair
[GW
Hatchet]

Earlier:

Georgetown
Law
Students
Petition
To
Keep
Their
School
From
Becoming
An
ICE
Recruitment
Center

Georgetown
Law
Student
Group
Calls
Skadden
Cowards,
Opts
Out
Of
Recruitment
Event

Law
School
Arms
Students
With
Anti-ICE
Hotline
To
Protect
The
Community

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day.

There
is
nothing
to
panic
about.
It
is
just
that
Cravath
is
not
immune
to
all
the
market
forces
that
are
affecting
every
other
top
firm.
Cravath
has
an
amazing
franchise.
None
of
the
luster
is
lost.
Their
brand
is
solid
and
sustainable.
There
is
no
vaccine
that
will
immunize
law
firms
from
the
new
fight
for
talent.

— Alisa
Levin,
principal
and
founder
of
recruiting
firm
Greene-Levin-Snyder,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
concerning
recent
lateral
partner
departures
from
Cravath,
a
firm
long
known
to
hold
onto
attorney
talent
from
the
cradle
to
the
grave.
“This
isn’t
a
Cravath
story,”
a
Biglaw
partner
told
Am
Law.
“It’s
a
[Biglaw]
story.”

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.

Representing
celebrity
clients
is
likely
to
catapult
your
name
into
the
news
and
turn
your
business
into
a
household
topic
of
conversation.
Maybe
that’s
one
of
the
many
reasons
why
you’re
so
interested
in
pursuing
a
career
in
entertainment
law.
Attorneys
who
practice
in
the
field
of
entertainment
law
have
worked
with
some
of
the
most
celebrated
—
and
sometimes
reviled
—
clients
in
the
country
(or
the
world),
and
that’s
exactly
the
kind
of
career
experience
you
envision
for
yourself.

The National
Jurist’s
preLaw
magazine recently
released
its
specialty
ranking
of
the
best
law
schools
for
entertainment
law
on
its
Entertainment
Law
Honor
Roll,
highlighting
schools
for
the
strength
of
their
programs.
Here’s
the
methodology
that
was
used:

preLaw
magazine
grades
law
schools
based
on
the
breadth
of
their
curricular
offerings.
The
scores
are
figured
as
follows:
30%
for
a
concentration,
24%
for
a
clinic,
12%
for
a
center,
12%
for
an
externship,
9%
for
a
journal,
8%
for
a
student
group,
5%
for
a
certificate
and
added
value
for
additional
offerings.

Without
further
ado,
according
to
preLaw
magazine,
these
are
the
law
schools
that
earned
A+,
A,
and
A-
grades
for
their
entertainment
law
programs
(listed
in
grade
and
alphabetical
order):

• Benjamin
  N.
  Cardozo
  School
  of
  Law,
  Yeshiva
  University
  (A+)
• Southwestern
  Law
  School
  (A+)
• UCLA
  School
  of
  Law
  (A+)
• Chapman
  University
  Fowler
  School
  of
  Law
  (A)
• Oklahoma
  City
  University
  School
  of
  Law
  (A)
• Thomas
  Jefferson
  School
  of
  Law
  (A)
• UC
  Berkeley
  School
  of
  Law
  (A)
• Fordham
  University
  School
  of
  Law
  (A-)
• Texas
  A&M
  University
  School
  of
  Law
  (A-)
• Villanova
  University
  Charles
  Widger
  School
  of
  Law
  (A-)

Click here to
read
all
about
the
programs
highlighted
in
this
specialty
Honor
Roll.

Congratulations
to
all
of
the
law
schools
that
made
the
cut
for
this
important
ranking.

Specialties
Honor
Roll:
Entertainment
Law
[preLaw
magazine
/
National
Jurist]

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.

The
threat
environment
for
federal
judges
is
pretty
awful
right
about
now.
For
federal
judges
—
ones
appointed
by Democrats
and
Republicans alike
—
who
have
presented
speed
bumps
to
Donald
Trump‘s
authoritarian
takeover,
the
GOP
responded
with name-calling and
articles
of impeachment.
And
House
Speaker
Mike
Johnson
just
poured
gasoline
on
the
fire.

Despite
previously
putting
the
pause
on

impeachment
talk
around
judges
who
rule
against
the
Trump
administration,

last
week
Johnson
changed
his
tune.
When
asked
about
impeachment
efforts
against
judges,
he
didn’t
even
pretend
this
was
a
bad
idea
in
theory
but
impractical
in
reality.
He
said,
plainly,
“I’m
for
it.”

To
be
sure,
Johnson
offered
a
little
in
the
way
of
throat-clearing.
Impeachment
would
be
“an
extreme
measure,”
he
acknowledged,
adding
“we’ll
see
where
it
goes.”
Seems
like
that
whole
we-don’t-have-67-votes
issue
is
rearing
its
head.

But
then
he
doubled
down,
suggesting
that
some
judges
have
strayed
“so
far
outside
the
bounds
of
where
they’re
supposed
to
operate”
that
Congress
should
“lay
down
the
law”
and
“make
an
example
of
some
of
the
egregious
abuses.”

That
rhetoric
might
play
well
on
right-wing
cable
news,
but
it’s
also
profoundly
dangerous.
There’s
a
sharp
increase
in
threats
against
federal
judges
— up
327% in
the
Trump
II
era.

Bullying
judges has
become
a
mainstream
tactic
that
Johnson
is
playing
into,
floating
impeachment
casually
and
often
without
any
plausible
allegation
of
impeachable
conduct.
That
casualness
is
precisely
the
problem.
When
leaders
normalize
the
idea
that
judges
should
fear
reprisal
for
doing
their
jobs,
the
most
unhinged
actors
hear
permission,
not
caution.

And

that
is
what’s
happening.
The
relevant
backdrop
against
which
the
Speaker
of
the
House
is
publicly
endorsing
impeachment
as
a
response
to
unfavorable
rulings
is
a
spike
in
death
threats,
a
record
numbers
of
investigations
by
the
U.S.
Marshals,
increased
security,
and
judges
with
a
genuine
fear
for
themselves

and
their
families.

Impeachment
is
not
a
tool
for
correcting
legal
error.
It
is
not
a
substitute
for
appellate
review.
But
we
have
the
Speaker
of
the
House
publicly
musing
about
“making
an
example”
of
judges.
Threatening
impeachment
because
you
don’t
like
the
outcome
is
intimidation,
and
it’s
a
warped
view
of
accountability
to
suggest
otherwise.

This
is
the
modern
GOP
game
plan.
Sustained
pressure.
Delegitimization.
The
steady
drumbeat
of
consequences
for
disobedience.
And
powerful
politicians
arguing
that
judges
who
rule
the
“wrong”
way
deserve
what’s
coming.

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].

Trump
administration
lawyers
have
crossed
ethical
lines
that
would
sink
any
other
practitioner.

They’ve

lied
to
courts

repeatedly.
They’ve

supported
others
lying
under
oath.
They’re
driving
career
prosecutors
out
of
work
but

turning
the
Justice
Department
into
a
vector
for
corrupt
dealmaking.
They
tried
to

launch
a
criminal
probe
of
a
woman
they
killed
even
though
you
can’t
file
criminal
charges
against
a
dead
person.
And
they
go
out
in
public
to

cheer
on
violent
threats
against
judges.
Politico
collected

over
2,300
federal
court
decisions
where
law
enforcement
illegally
detained
people…
there
are
lawyers
behind
each
of
these.

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.

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

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.

Register
today!

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.

“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.

Which
he
did!

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.

Just
kidding
…
that
docket
will
be
sealed.

Subscribe
to
read
more
at
Law
and
Chaos….

Liz
Dye produces
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast. You
can
subscribe
by
clicking
the
logo:

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.

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 courts have already affirmed: 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.

Read
more here (gift
link).

#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!