Category: News Feeds

You
almost
have
to
admire
the
speed.

Less
than
24
hours
after
a
gunman
was
tackled
outside
the
ballroom
at
the
Washington
Hilton
during
the
White
House
Correspondents’
Dinner,
the
Department
of
Justice
had
already
drafted
a
letter
addressed
to
Greg
Craig
of
Foley
Hoag
demanding
the
firm
drop
its
case
against
the
administration
for
redesigning
the
White
House
without
any
congressional
approval.
Acting
AG
Todd
Blanche
subsequently

posted
this
letter
to
X
with
the
six-word
summary:
“It’s
time
to
build
the
ballroom.”

That’s…
a
lot
of
hustle
for
a
Sunday
morning.

To
be
clear
about
what
actually
happened

Saturday
night:
the
suspect,
a
California
teacher
and
engineer,
rushed
a
security
checkpoint
and
ran
toward
the
ballroom
where
the
black-tie
dinner
was
being
held,
armed
with
a
shotgun,
handgun,
and
knives.
He
exchanged
gunfire
with
law
enforcement
and
was
tackled
to
the
ground.
One
Secret
Service
agent
was
hit
in
his
bulletproof
vest,
treated,
and

released.

No
one
was
killed.
The
shooter
was
arrested.
A
scary
incident,
genuinely,
and
one
that
could
have
been
catastrophically
worse.
We
can
all
agree
on
that.

But
the
Trump
administration
did
not
wait
to
agree
on
that
and
move
on.
Instead,
Assistant
AG
Brett
Shumate
fired
off
a
letter
to
the
National
Trust
for
Historic
Preservation’s
outside
counsel
demanding
the
Trust
voluntarily
dismiss

its
lawsuit
against
the
White
House
ballroom
by
9
a.m.
Monday,
or
the
DOJ
would
move
to
dissolve

Judge
Richard
Leon’s
injunction
and
kill
the
case
itself.
“Your
lawsuit
puts
the
lives
of
the
president,
his
family,
and
his
staff
at
grave
risk,”
Shumate
wrote.
“Enough
is
enough.
Your
client
should
voluntarily
dismiss
this
frivolous
lawsuit
today
in
light
of
last
night’s
assassination
attempt
on
President
Trump.”

The
letter
then
argued
that
the
shooter
targeting
Trump
“at
the
Washington
Hilton,
the
only
ballroom
in
Washington,
D.C.,
suitable
to
host
large
gatherings
for
the
President”
proved
the
White
House
ballroom
was
“essential
for
the
safety
and
security
of
the
President,
his
family,
his
cabinet,
and
his
staff.”

Strong
language…
just
a
few
not-so-minor
details
that
prevent
it
from
landing.
Like
how
the
White
House
Correspondents’
Dinner
is

not
a
White
House
event,
but
rather
hosted
by
the
White
House
Correspondents’
Association.
And
that
attending
is
a
presidential
choice
—
indeed
Trump
has
skipped
out
on
every
other
Correspondents’
Dinner
he
was
invited
to.
Plus
the
administration
did
not
even
designate
the
event
as
a
National
Special
Security
Event,
a
classification
that
would
have
required
a
higher
threshold
of
security
measures.

So…
Trump
voluntarily
attended
a
non-White
House
event,
the
Secret
Service
chose
to
skimp
on
security
measures,
and
because
something
bad
happened
there
—

that
the
Secret
Service
still
successfully
thwarted
—
the
president
should
be
afforded
unilateral
authority
to
throw
a
tumorous
ballroom
onto
a
national
landmark?
Maybe
we
shouldn’t
be
surprised,
the
administration

has
been
calling
everything
a
national
security
necessity
since
the
East
Wing
came
down
(Judge
Leon
already
had
occasion
to
note
that
“national
security
is
not
a
blank
check
to
proceed
with
otherwise
unlawful
activity”).
It’ll
be
interesting
to
see
how
Judge
Leon
—
the
same
George
W.
Bush
appointee
who
has
been
watching
this
administration
make

increasingly
strained
arguments
for

the
better
part
of
a
year
—
reacts
to
this
one.

The
DOJ
letter
is
also,
to
put
it
charitably,
in
significant
tension
with
the
position
this
administration
has
staked
out
in
every
other
gun-related
tragedy
in
recent
memory.
When
children
are
murdered
in
their
classrooms,
the
answer
from
this
crowd
is
invariably:
thoughts
and
prayers,
mental
health,
it’s
too
soon
to
talk
about
policy.
But
shots
fired
in
the
vicinity
of
GOP
politicians
and
suddenly
something
needs
to
be
done
by
9
a.m.
Monday?
The
whiplash
would
be
funny
if
it
weren’t
so
grotesque.

And
then
there’s
the
part
that
the
administration
has,
seemingly,
not
thought
through
at
all:
the
optics
of
this
move
are
doing
absolutely
nothing
to
tamp
down
the
false
flag
speculation
that
immediately
erupted
online
after
the
shooting.
Now,
to
be
clear,
there
is
no
credible
evidence
this
was
a
false
flag.
The
suspect
sent
his
family
a
note
about
10
minutes
before
the
attack
apologizing
to
his
parents,
colleagues,
and
students
for
what
he
was
about
to
do,

writing,
“I
don’t
expect
forgiveness.”
That
is
not
the
behavior
of
a
government
plant.
The
shooter
appears
to
be
exactly
what
he
appears
to
be.

But
false
flag
theories
don’t
survive
and
thrive
on
evidence.
They’re
built
on
the

appearance
of
suspicious
opportunism.
And
the
DOJ
—
less
than
24
hours
after
the
shooting
—
publicly
calling
on
the
plaintiff’s
attorney
to
drop
a
specific
ongoing
lawsuit
that
directly
benefits
the
president,
using
language
like
“I
hope
yesterday’s
narrow
miss
will
help
you
finally
realize
the
folly”
of
your
lawsuit…
is
not
a
great
look
for
an
administration
trying
to
project
good
faith.

---

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
Bluesky @Kathryn1

For
lawyers,
understanding
AI
is
not
just
about
the
latest
technology;
it’s
about
remaining
relevant
in
a
rapidly
evolving
legal
landscape.

Legal
professionals
need
to
be
aware
of
the
ethical
ramifications
of
AI,
so
they
can
confidently
leverage
AI
tools
to
improve
their
firms
and
shift
their
focus
to
solving
complex
problems
and
high-value
client
counseling.

It’s
a
tall
order,
but
we
have
you
covered
with
everything
you
need
to
know
so
you
don’t
fall
behind
while
successfully
leveraging
AI
for
your
practice.

This
28-page
guide
from
our
friends
at
Clio
provides
an
overview
of
AI,
its
applications
in
law,
and
the
ethical
considerations
lawyers
must
keep
in
mind.

Download
it
to
explore: 

• The
  benefits,
  ethics,
  and
  risks
  of
  AI
  use
• The
  MODES
  framework
  (Manipulate,
  Optimize,
  Draft,
  Explain,
  Summarize)
  for
  your
  workflow
•  Practical
  AI
  use
  cases
  such
  as
  E-discovery,
  due
  diligence,
  and
  litigation
  analysis 
•  A
  step-by-step
  tutorial
  and
  10
  tips
  for
  writing
  effective
  prompts 
•  An
  essential
  AI
  glossary
  for
  legal
  professionals 

Fill
out
the
form
to
get
your
free
copy!

  

Trump’s
plan
to
fleece
American
taxpayers
ran
into
a
tiny
speed
bump
on
Friday
thanks
to
Judge
Kathleen
Williams
of
the
Southern
District
of
Florida.
Williams
is
saddled
with
Trump’s
preposterous

trollsuit
against
the
IRS
for
the
wrongful
disclosure
of
his
tax
returns
by
a
contractor
in
2020
…
but
perhaps
not
for
much
longer.

The
suit
is

defective
in
every
respect,
particularly
the
$10
billion
damage
demand.
Trump
insists
he’s
entitled
to
$1,000
for
every
click
on
a

New
York
Times
article
about
the
leaked
returns
—
despite
the
fact
that
the
law
specifies
that
the
disclosure
must
be
by
an
“officer
or
employee
of
the
United
States,”
i.e.,

not
a
journalist.
It’s
also
time-barred,
since
the
relevant
statute
requires
the
victim
to
file
within
two
years
of
discovering
the
breach.

Trump
claims
he
didn’t
find
out
about
the
disclosure
until
January
of
2024
when
the
leaker,
Charles
Littlejohn,
was
sentenced.
This
is
somewhat
undercut
by
his
sparklemagic
lawyer
Alina
Habba’s
appearance
at
a

plea
hearing
in
October
of
2023,
where
she
announced
that
she
was
“here
on
behalf
of
President
Trump
who
was
a
victim,
as
we
just
heard,
of
this
atrocity.”
See
also:
all
those
New
York
Times
stories
about
his
family’s
finances
that
ran
in
2020
and
2022.

But
dissecting
the
complaint’s
deficiencies
risks
stepping
into
a
world
of
make
believe
where
this
is
an
actual
civil
action,
rather
than
a
lawsuit-shaped
pretext
to
allow
the
president
to
loot
the
Treasury.
Indeed,
Trump
himself
acknowledged
as
much
just
days
after
he
filing
his
complaint.

“I’m
supposed
to
work
out
a
settlement
with
myself,”
he

babbled
to
reporters,
adding
that
“We
could
make
it
a
substantial
amount,
nobody
would
care
because
it’s
going
to
go
to
numerous
very
good
charities.”

Whether
“nobody
would
care”
is
an
open
question.
On
April
17,
counsel
for
Trump
and
attorneys
for
the
DOJ
—

but
I
repeat
myself!
—
filed
a

joint
motion
to
stay
proceedings
for
90
days
“while
the
Parties
engage
in
discussions
designed
to
resolve
this
matter
and
to
avoid
protracted
litigation.”
Just
as
they
did
in
Michael
Flynn’s
moribund
tort
claim
over
the
Russia
investigation,
the
government
is
telegraphing
its
intent
to
cut
the
president
a
check
he
could
never
collect
in
court.

But
Judge
Williams
refuses
to
lend
her
judicial
imprimatur
to
what
is
effectively
the
bank
teller
opening
the
till
and
pocketing
the
cash
—
or
at
least,
not
yet.

Noting
that
no
lawyer
for
the
government
has
even
bothered
to
enter
an
appearance
and
“the
only
scheduled
event
at
issue
is
Defendants’
response
to
the
Complaint,”
she
instead

instructed
the
parties
to
explain
how
the
court
has
jurisdiction
over
a
matter
in
which
there’s
no
actual
dispute.
Because
judges
derive
their
authority
from
the
Constitution,
and
Article
III
limits
them
to
adjudicating
actual
cases
or
controversies.
And
kayfabe
where
the
president
connives
with
his
employees
to
pillage
government
coffers
and
then
demands
judicial
blessing
for
naked
corruption

don’t
cut
it.

“Typically,
adverseness
is
found
in
a
situation
where
one
party
is
asserting
its
right
and
the
other
party
is
resisting,”
Judge
Williams
wrote,
observing
that
no
president
in
history
has
been
more
clear
that
he
exerts
personal
control
over
every
employee
in
every
branch
of
the
federal
government
—
particularly
employees
at
supposedly
independent
agencies
like
the
Justice
Department.

“[T]he
Attorney
General,
has
a
statutory
obligation
to
defend
the
IRS
when
it
is
hailed
into
court,
but
then
is
ostensibly
required
by
executive
mandate
to
adhere
to
the
President’s
opinion
on
a
matter
of
law
in
such
a
case,”
she
continued.
“This
raises
questions
over
whether
the
Parties
here
are
truly
antagonistic
to
each
other.”

In
plain
English,
the
court
is
ordering
the
parties
to
explain
how
there
can
be
adversity
when
Trump
is
both
the
plaintiff
and
defendant.
As
she
points
out,
even
as
Trump
insists
he’s
suing
in
his
personal
capacity,
the
case
is
captioned
“President
Donald
J.
Trump”
and
refers
to
him
by
his
official
title
throughout.

In
the
past,
conservatives

decried
so-called
“sue-and-settle”
agreements
as
a
tool
to
enact
environmental
policy
via
sham
lawsuits
without
buy-in
from
Congress.
But
once
they
took
the
House,
Senate,
and
White
House,
they
changed
their
tune.
Two
weeks
ago,
the
FTC
simultaneously
“sued”
various
advertising
trade
groups
for
violating
antitrust
law
by
advocating
for
brand
safety
standards
that
make
Elon
Musk
mad
(light
paraphrase)
and
docketed
a

stipulated
settlement.
In
June,
the
Justice
Department

sued
Texas
over
its
policy
of
providing
in-state
tuition
to
undocumented
immigrants.
Just
six
hours
later,
Judge
Reed
O’Connor
approved
a
“settlement”
zeroing
out
a
duly
enacted
provision
of
Texas
state
law.

Both
of
these
cases
were
filed
in
the
Northern
District
of
Texas,
guaranteeing
they’d
draw
conservative
judges
who
have
become
an
effective
rubber
stamp
for
Trump
DOJ
shenanigans.
The
ploy
works
less
well
in
other
courtrooms,
even
those
presided
over
by
his
own
appointees.
In
the
Eastern
District
of
Texas,
the
Trump
administration

hoped
to
nullify
the
Johnson
Amendment,
which
bars
churches
from
political
endorsements
as
a
condition
of
maintaining
their
tax-exempt
status.
The

complaint
was
filed
in
the
waning
days
of
the
Biden
administration,
but
once
back
in
the
White
House,
Trump’s
DOJ
moved
quickly
to
grant
the
plaintiffs’
wish
—
effectively
transforming
it
into
a
sue-and-settle
case.
But
Judge
J.
Campbell
Barker
rejected
the
ploy,

dismissing
the
complaint
for
lack
of
jurisdiction,
since
there’s
no
actual
dispute
when
both
parties
are
on
the
same
side
and
agree
on
the
remedy.

It
would
appear
that
Judge
Williams
is
preparing
to
do
the
same.
She’s
given
the
government
and
Trump
until
May
20
to
explain
how
they’re
actually
adverse.
And
if
there’s
no
justiciable
conflict,
then
the
court
can’t
approve
a
“settlement.”

By
the
logic
of
such
a
ruling,

any
lawsuit
filed
by
the
sitting
president
against
his
own
government
is
definitionally
non-justiciable.
Or,
at
the
very
least,

this
president
can’t
sue
the
government,
since
he’s
burned
down
every
firewall
and
insisted
that
he
has
the
right
to
control
every
organ
of
the
executive
branch.
If
Trump

is
the
government,
he
can’t
sue

himself
and
claim
that
the
lawsuit
is
anything
other
than
a
sham.

But
getting
tossed
out
of
court
can’t
ultimately
preclude
a
settlement.
Trump
could
simply
order
the
IRS
to
cut
him
a
check,
as
he
seems
likely
to
do
with
the
administrative
claim
he
filed
demanding
$230
million
for
“abuses”
he
suffered
during
the
stolen
documents
and
election
interference
cases.
The
only
question
is
whether
he’ll
have
the
fig
leaf
of
a
federal
judge
blessing
his
settlement
with
himself.
The
cost
to
the
taxpayer
is
the
same,
but
this
way
would
at
least
spare
the
judiciary
from
sullying
itself
with
his
flagrant
self-dealing.

Or,
if
Judge
Williams
dismisses
the
case,
Trump
can
always
refile
it
in
the
Northern
District
of
Texas
and
get
one
of
his
buddies
to
sign
the
permission
slip.

---

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!

Last
week
I
spoke
at
the New
York
State
Permanent
Commission
on
Access
to
Justice
2026
Annual
Law
School
Conference with Matthew
Diller (Fordham), Aziz
Huq (Chicago), David
Udell (National
Center
for
Access
to
Justice)
and Carolyn
Coffey (Mobilization
For
Justice)
where
we
discussed
“Lawyering
in
Complex
Times:
Access
to
Justice
and
the
Rule
of
Law
as
Foundations
of
Professional
Identity.”
Program
materials
and
a
recording
of
the
full
conference
should
be
available
soon
at
this link.

It
was
a
busy
week
in
the
world
of
legal
ethics,
so
you
get
fifteen
headlines
instead
of
the
usual
ten.

Highlights
from
Last
Week
–
Top Ten Fifteen
Headlines


#1
“A.I.
‘Hallucinations’
Created
Errors
in
Court
Filing,
Top
Law
Firm
Says.” From The
New
York
Times: “Sullivan
&
Cromwell apologized
for
submitting
a
court
document
that
had
fake
citations
created
by
artificial
intelligence.”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#2
“U.S.
Law
Schools
Have
Diverse
Takes
on
DEI.
The
Body
That
Accredits
Them
Has
None
—
Our
Standards
are
Silent
on
the
Subject.” From Daniel
Theis (Accreditation
Council)
in The
Wall
Street
Journal: “As
chairman
of
the
body
that
accredits
law
schools—the
Council
of
the
American
Bar
Association
Section
of
Legal
Education
and
Admissions
to
the
Bar—I’d
like
to
clarify
a
few
points
relevant
to
your
editorial
‘How
the
ABA
Spreads
DEI
in
Law
Schools’
(April
17).
The
law
school
accreditation
standards
are
silent
on
DEI,
and
have
been
since
February
2025.
As
you
note,
the
council
suspended
Standard
206
on
diversity
and
inclusion
at
that
time.
Looking
forward,
the
council—which
has
the
final
say
on
the
content
of
the
accreditation
standards—has
proposed
a
permanent
repeal
effective
as
soon
as
this
August.”
Read
more here (gift
link).
[Full
disclosure:
I
am
an
elected
member
of
the
Accreditation
Council
for
the
ABA
Section
on
Legal
Education
and
Admission
to
the
Bar.]

#3
“The
Inside
Story
of
Five
Days
that
Remade
the
Supreme
Court.” From The
New
York
Times: “Secret
memos
obtained
by
The
New
York
Times
illuminate
the
origins
of
the
court’s
now-routine
‘shadow
docket’
rulings
on
presidential
power.”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#4
“Court
Leaks
and
Attorney-Journalists.” From Divided
Argument: “The
recent leak
of
internal
Supreme
Court
memoranda
to
the New
York
Times,
discussed
earlier
by Will
Baude—as
well
as
by Jonathan
Adler, Josh
Blackman,
and Jack
Goldsmith elsewhere—was
plainly
a
serious
violation
of
the
Court’s
confidentiality
obligations.
But
it
may
also
reflect
serious
legal-ethics
violations
by
one
of
the Times article’s
coauthors, Adam
Liptak,
whom
I
understand
to
be
a
licensed
attorney
in
New
York
and
subject
to
that
state’s
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct.”
Read
more here.

#5 “What
We
Learned
From
a
Secret
Deposition
of
Ken
Paxton.” From The
Wall
Street
Journal: “Previously
hidden
document
sheds
new
light
on
ethical
questions
surrounding
the
GOP
Senate
candidate
and
Texas
attorney
general.”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#6
“The
Hyperlink
Rule.” From Oliver
Roberts on LinkedIn: “The
Hyperlink
Rule
could
have
prevented
the
AI
hallucination
incident
in
California,
where
a
judge
issued
an
order
with
fake
citations
last
month.
…
Had
the
court
required
use
of
the
Hyperlink
Rule,
meaning
that
cited
authorities
had
to
be
hyperlinked
to
real
sources
(e.g.,
Lexis
or
Westlaw),
there
would
have
been
an
immediate
three-part
safeguard,
and
any
one
of
those
checkpoints
likely
would
have
flagged
the
problem
before
it
resulted
in
wasted
briefing
and
judicial
time
on
appeal.
First,
if
the
drafting
attorney
had
been
required
to
hyperlink
each
cited
source,
counsel
likely
would
have
realized
that
the
cited
authorities
did
not
correspond
to
real
sources
and
therefore
could
not
be
linked.
Second,
opposing
counsel
could
have
simply
clicked
the
hyperlinks
in
the
proposed
order
to
confirm
that
the
authorities
actually
existed.
Third,
the
judge
could
have
done
the
same
before
signing
the
order.
…
The
Hyperlink
Rule
should
become
commonplace
in
courts.”
Read
more here.

#7
“Civil
Rights
Groups
Condemn
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center’s
Indictment
and
Prepare
for
Legal
Fights.” From The
Washington
Post: “The
criminal indictment
of
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center
this
week was
met
with
much
outrage
but
little
surprise
from
civil
rights
leaders,
who
have
for
more
than
a
year
prepared
for
heightened
legal
scrutiny
from
the
Trump
administration,
and
how
to
mount
a
coordinated
response.
In
rounds
of
calls
immediately
following
the
indictment,
advocates
discussed
how
to
support
the
SPLC,
a
Montgomery,
Alabama-based
civil
rights
group
founded
in
1971
that
has
tracked
white
supremacist
groups
and
been
outspoken
on
voting
rights,
immigration
and
policing.
Organizers
on
one
call
agreed
that
winning
in
the
court
of
public
opinion
would
be
crucial
as
judicial
proceedings
began,
leading
to
dozens
of
public
statements
of
support
and
planned
rallies.”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#8
“A
Group
of
Residents
is
Banding
Together
to
Defend
Judges
Facing
Threats
and
Violence.” From National
Public
Radio: “Boston-area
residents
have
formed
a
group
to
support
federal
judges
facing
hostile
rhetoric
and
violent
threats.”
Read
more
and
listen here.

#9
“The
Eight-Figure
Talent
Race
for
Supreme
Court
Lawyers.” From The
Wall
Street
Journal: “Firms
are
dangling
large
pay
packages
to
lure
stars
who
can
elevate
their
stature.”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#10
“Former
Texas
Chief
Justice
on
the
Importance
of
Court
Transparency.” From The
Brennan
Center
for
Justice: “Wallace
B.
Jefferson joined
the
Supreme
Court
of
Texas
in
2001
and
served
as
chief
justice
from
2004
until
he
left
the
court
in
2013.
As
chief
justice,
he
successfully
lobbied
to
allow
live
video
of
high
court
oral
arguments,
which
launched
in
2007.
In
an
interview,
Jefferson
addressed
the
importance
of
court
transparency,
including
why
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
should
allow
cameras
at
oral
arguments
and
Texas’s
policy
—
which
Jefferson
noted
is
outside
the
norm
for
most
high
courts’
policies
—
of
allowing
state
supreme
court
clerks
to
sit
in
on
the
justices’
conferences.”
Read
more here.
[Full
disclosure:
Wallace
is
my
wonderful
husband.]

#11
“EEOC
Chair
Violated
Attorney
Ethics
Code,
Bar
Complaint
Says.” From Bloomberg
Law: “EEOC
Chair
Andrea
Lucas should
be
investigated
for
using
her
position
to
advance
‘personal
and
political
objectives’
that
violate
her
duties
to
enforce
federal
discrimination
law,
a
legal
accountability
group
told
the
Virginia
State
Bar.
The
Legal
Accountability
Center filed
the
bar
complaint earlier
this
week
citing
a
series
of
actions
the
commission
has
taken
under
Lucas’s
leadership
that
includes
halting
investigations
of
charges
dealing
with
transgender
bias
and
charges
based
on
solely
on
unintentional
discrimination
claims.
It
also
cited
letters
to
law
firms
signed
by
Lucas
asking
for
information
about
their
diversity
initiatives.”
Read
more here.

#12
“California
High
Court
Proposes
Tougher
Ethics
Rules
on
False
Statements
by
Attorneys.” From Law.com: “California’s
Supreme
Court
justices
on
Thursday rejected proposed
changes
to
ethics
rules
targeting
attorneys
who
lie
or
spread
misleading
statements
about
judges,
choosing
instead
to
draft
their
own
tougher
language.
…
The
state
Supreme
Court
revised
a
proposed
ethics
rule
to
warn
that
lawyers
who
make
false
statements
could
be
disciplined
even
if
they
‘reasonably’
disagree
with
a
judge’s
ruling.”
Read
more here.

#13
“When
Judges
are
Targeted,
the
Legal
Profession
Must
Respond.” From ABA
President Michelle
Behnke in
the Las
Vegas
Sun: “Judges
in
the
United
States
are
under
a
sustained,
coordinated
attack.
Their
photographs
have
been
posted
online
by
senior
government
officials.
The
president
has
disparaged
them
by
name.
Their
rulings
have
been
met
not
with
appeals
but
with
calls
for
impeachment
and,
in
some
cases,
with
outright
defiance.
This
pressure
on
judges
is
personal,
targeted
and
designed
to
undermine
a
justice
system
that
should
work
for
everyone.
This
is
not
a
partisan
concern.
It
is
a
structural
one.
Judicial
independence
is
not
a
privilege
of
the
judiciary
—
it
is
a
safeguard
for
everyone
who
might
one
day
need
a
court
to
stand
between
them
and
power.”
Read
more here.

#14
“Republican
Ohio
Supreme
Court
Makes
Ohio
First
in
Nation
to
Allow
Political
Endorsements
From
Judges.” From
the Ohio
Capital
Journal: “You
read
that
right.
Ohio’s
highest
court
issued
an
out-of-the
blue ruling with
profound
implications
for
an
even
more
partisan
judiciary
in
the
state.
In
a
5-1
Republican
majority
opinion,
the
justices
made
Ohio
a
complete
outlier
in
the
country
by
ending
a
decades-old
ban
on
state
judges
and
judicial
candidates
openly
endorsing
(or
opposing)
a
candidate
for
another
public
office.”
Read
more here.

#15
“Former
Texas
Supreme
Court
Justice
Hecht
Addresses
Judicial
Independence
at
UH
Law
Sondock
Lecture.” From
the University
of
Houston
Law
Center: “Complaints
about
the
judiciary
aren’t
new. Nathan
L.
Hecht,
27th
chief
justice
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Texas,
cited
examples
dating
back
to
the
era
of Thomas
Jefferson as
he
delivered
the 2026
Justice
Ruby
Kless
Sondock
Jurist-in-Residence
Lectureship
in
Legal
Ethics
at
the
University
of
Houston
Law
Center.
But,
Hecht
warned,
that
doesn’t
mean
today’s
criticism
of
judicial
decisions
–
from
the
highest
levels
of
government
to
the
person
caught
up
in
an
eviction
case
–
aren’t
a
serious
concern.
He
outlined
several
steps
that
judges,
the
legal
system
and
society
at
large
could
take
to
ensure
people
believe
the
courts
are
impartial.
…
Sondock
is
a
pioneering
lawyer
and
jurist
who
graduated
as
valedictorian
and
one
of
just
five
women
in
the
UH
law
school
class
of
1962.
She
became
the
first
female
state
district
court
judge
in
Harris
County
when
she
was
appointed
to
the
bench
in
1977
and
was
appointed
to
the
state
Supreme
Court
in
1982.
Sondock
was
in
the
audience
for
this
year’s
lecture,
which
was
held
just
a
week
before
her
100th
birthday.”
Read
more here.
Happy
100th
Birthday
Justice
Sondock!

---

Get
Hired


Did
you
miss
the
500+
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


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!

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. 

*
Public
confidence
in
the
Supreme
Court
falls,
which
is
significant
because
it
didn’t
seem
like
it
could
go
lower.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Losing
key
appellate
lawyers
unlikely
to
impact
firm
profits.
[American
Lawyer]

*
DOJ
asks
plaintiffs
to
drop
the
ballroom
construction
challenge
in
light
of
Correspondence
Dinner.
[WSJ]

*
AI
is
taking
over
ERISA
cases.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
CFTC
sues
New
York
for
attempting
to
regulate
gambling
websites
that
Trump’s
son
collects
money
from.
[Law360]

*
US
agrees
to
allow
Venezuela
to
pay
for
Maduro’s
lawyer.
[Reuters]

*
Federal
authorities
still
haven’t
returned
the
car
that
they
murdered
Renee
Good
in.
[Courthouse
News
Service]

The
Streisand
Effect
Finds
Its
Spirit
Animal:

The
Atlantic
published
an
article
based
on
multiple
insider
accounts
of
Kash
Patel’s
drinking
prompting
the
FBI
Director
to
promise

swift
legal
retaliation.
He
made
good
on
that
pledge
with

a
flimsy
$250
million
defamation
complaint
(possibly

drafted
by
AI),
that
only
managed
to

look
weaker
the
more
he
talked
about
it.

DOJ
Does
A
Solid
For
The
KKK:
Acting
AG
Todd
Blanche
and
FBI
Director
(for
the
moment…)
Kash
Patel
announced

criminal
charges
against
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center
for
its
work
gathering
intelligence
on
known
hate
groups.
But
apparently
no
one
bothered
to
double-check
the
charging
documents,
because

the
indictment
fails
to
allege
a
whole
element.

S&C’s
Letter
To
The
Court,
Translated:
‘Please’:

Sullivan
&
Cromwell
submitted
an
emergency
filing
asking
a
federal
court
not
to
sanction
the
firm
after
discovering
their
filings
were
riddled
with
AI
hallucinations.

Powell
Pwns
Pirro:

Adding
to
the
DOJ’s
woes
this
week,
Jeanine
Pirro
tried
to
quietly
extricate
the
Justice
Department
from
its
phony
case
against
Federal
Reserve
Chair
Jerome
Powell.

Freedom
Of
Religion
Means
Everyone
Is
Free
To
Worship
The
Way
The
Fifth
Circuit
Tells
You:

The
Fifth
Circuit
embarked
on
some
quirky
mental
gymnastics
to
explain
why
Texas
can
demand
public
schools
post
the
Ten
Commandments
in
every
classroom
is
not
“establishment
of
religion.”

When
The
Law
Is
On
Your
Side,
Pound
The
Law;
When
The
Facts
Are
On
Your
Side,
Pound
The
Facts;
When
You
Have
Neither,
Pound
The
Leak:

Uncovered
memos
reveal
Chief
Justice
Roberts’s
deeply
cynical
role
in
inventing
the
Supreme
Court’s
new
hyperactive
shadow
docket
as
a
policy
instrument.

Ranking
Law
Schools:
By

buildings,

real
estate,

practical
training,
and

Biglaw
job
prospects.

Law
Professor’s
Love
Letter
To
Hungarian
Authoritarianism:

Jonathan
Turley
is
just
a
Republican
talking
points
pullstring
toy
at
this
point,
but
his
lament
over
the
fall
of
Viktor
Orban
is
conspiracy
theory
stuff.

It’s
10
p.m.
Do
You
Know
Where
Your
Partners
Are?:

Because
the
lateral
market
keeps
churning,
with
Paul
Weiss
losing
prominent
appellate
partner
to
Davis
Polk.

Corporate
Clients
Memory
Hole
DEI:

Corporate
legal
departments,
which
once
loudly
demanded
diversity
commitments
from
outside
counsel,
are
now
quietly
letting
those
commitments
expire,
in
what
we
in
the
journalism
business
call
“a
pattern.”

The
Federalist
Society’s
Extremely
Normal
Evening:

A
Federalist
Society
event
intended
to
present
the
legal
case
for
DHS
immigration
operations
as
something
other
than
what
they
are
encountered
mild
friction
when
the
protesters
outside
declined
to
pretend
otherwise.