Category: News Feeds

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
Law360
Pulse’s 2024
Summer
Associates
Survey
Part
2,
what
percentage
of
respondents
say
the
firm
they
worked
at
provided
fun
programming
for
summers?

Hint:
Those
fun
events
included
retreats,
mock
trial
competitions,
cooking
classes,
trips
to
Disneyland,
baseball
games
and
Broadway
shows.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Our
refreshed
brand
is
dynamic
and
bold,
reflecting
the
entrepreneurial
spirit
of
Freshfields
today
and
our
momentum
as
a
firm.

We
want
our
brand
to
reflect
who
we
are
wherever
people
encounter
us
and
bring
our
strategy
to
life
as
we
continue
our
next
chapter
of
growth.
One
reflection
of
that
is
our
shortened
name
that
embraces
the
reality
of
what
people
call
us
in
the
market
and
how
we
refer
to
ourselves.

—
Freshfields
Senior
Partner

Georgia
Dawson,
in
comments
given
to

Law360
on
the
Magic
Circle
firm’s
decision
to
shorten
its
name
from
Freshfields
Bruckhaus
Deringer
to
Freshfields.
The
firm’s
rebranding
and
renaming
will
occur
in
October
2024.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

“Unusual”
is
a
concerning
adjective
to
read
in
the
results
of
most
medical
assessments,
especially
ones
evaluating
mental
fortitude.
That
is
until
you
remember
that
this
is
Pauline
Newman
we
are
dealing
with.
Despite
the
series
of

initial
cooperation,

long
format
interviews,
and

the
damned
Supreme
Court
affirming
yet
another
of
her
dissents,
the
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Federal
Circuit
has
been
successful
in
strong-arming
her
out
of
her
constitutionally
protected
position
as
a
judge.
The
court
issued
a
year-long
suspension
and
threatened
to
renew
it
so
long
as
Newman
refuses
to
undergo
a
mental
assessment.
She
finally
did
—
and
the
results
show
that
she
is
“[an]
unusually
cognitively
intact
9[7]-year-old
woman.”

NCLA
has
more
information
on
the
results:

Dr.
Aaron
G.
Filler,
MD,
PhD,
JD
confirms
Judge
Newman
is
fully
fit
to
perform
the
duties
of
the
office
to
which
she
has
been
confirmed
by
the
Senate
and
appointed
by
the
President.

…

After
reviewing
Judge
Newman’s
entire
medical
file
dating
back
to
2021,
including
all
information
compiled
by
the
Special
Committee,
Dr.
Filler
concluded:
“There
is
no
evidence
of
any
mild
cognitive
impairment,
dementia
or
other
mental
deterioration.
Instead,
Judge
Newman’s
rapid
efficient
responses
to
the
difficult
questions
posed
demonstrate
an
extraordinarily
high
level
of
cognitive
ability.”
Further,
“there
is
no
medical,
neurological,
or
cognitive
basis
for
requiring
additional
testing;
or,
for
doubt
about
Judge
Newman’s
ability
‘to
discharge
the
duties
of
her
office.’”

There
is
a
growing
tendency
for
judges
to
think
that
they
are
better
poised
to
make
health
evaluations
than
the
specialists
who
actually
managed
to
pass
Orgo
(looking
at
you
in
particular,
Gorsuch).
How
will
the
court
respond
to
this
egg
on
their
face?
Will
they
try
to
discredit
the
doctor’s
credentials?
Kind
of
hard
to
knock
a
world-renowned
neurosurgeon’s
findings.
Will
they
allow
Newman
to
resume
her
spot
on
the
bench
after
jumping
through
their
hoops
with
flying
colors?
Or
will
they
treat
this
like
last
time
and

misread
the
doctor’s
findings
and
ignore
when
they
clap
back?

Pauline
Newman
has
a
long
history
of
dissenting
from
her
colleagues’
legal
conclusions.
She
is
in
good
company
—
all
of
the
doctors
who
have
sat
with
the
facts
of
the
case
dissent
from
the
court’s
assessment
too.

“Judge
Newman
Fit
to
Judge,”
Reports
Harvard-Trained
Neurosurgeon
Expert
[NCLA]

Earlier:

Pauline
Newman
Speaks:
ATL
Interviews
The
Judge
Who’s
Fighting
To
Do
Her
Job

Despite
Her
Cooperation,
Panel
Decides
To
Suspend
Pauline
Newman
For
A
Year

Pauline
Newman’s
Doctor
Has
Some
Choice
Words
For
The
Judicial
Panel
That
Ruled
Against
Her

A
Lifetime-Appointed
Judge
Was
Accused
Of
Not
Being
Able
To
Do
Her
Job.
She
Brought
Receipts.

---

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
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
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.

The
once-secret
relationship
between
former
judge
David
R.
Jones
and
attorney
Elizabeth
Freeman
is
still
causing
reverberations
in
legal
circles.
The
federal
bankruptcy
judge
was
romantically
linked
with
the
bankruptcy
partner
of
a
major
law
firm
—
Jackson
Walker
—
and
continued
to
hear
cases
involving
that
partner/law
firm,
so
there’s
a
lot
of
ethics
issues
to
parse
through.
In
the
immediate
aftermath
of
the
romantic
entanglement
becoming
public,

Judge
Jones
resigned
his
position
on
the
U.S.
Bankruptcy
Court
for
the
Southern
District
of
Texas,
and
Jackson
Walker,
Freeman’s
now
former
firm,
is
still

dealing
with
the
backlash.

Judge
Marvin
Isgur
pulled
no
punches
in
telling
the
world
what
he
thinks
of
Jackson
Walker’s
handling
of
the
ethical
quandary.
Isgur
recently

recused
himself
from
a
fee
dispute
involving
Jackson
Walker
—
part
of
the
fallout
from
the
scandal.
(The
Justice
Department’s
bankruptcy
monitor,
the
U.S.
Trustee,
is
seeking
to
claw
back
$18
million
in
fees
paid
to
Jackson
Walker
in
33
cases
handled
by
Jones
while
he
and
Freeman
were
in
a
relationship.)
Isgur
is
gone
from
that
case,
but
not
before
he
sent
a
biting
letter
to
Chief
Judge
Randy
Crane
of
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
Southern
District
of
Texas
ripping
into
the
firm
and
recommending
discipline.

As

reported
by
Bloomberg
Law,
he
wrote,
“It
appears
that
Jackson
Walker
breached
its
own
ethical
duties
after
it
learned
of
the
relationship.”
Isgur
continued,
“Breaches
by
the
firm
itself
defiled
‘the
very
temple
of
justice.’”
Yikes.
Tell
us
how
you
really
feel.

Jackson
Walker
has

previously
said
that
Freeman
lied
to
the
firm
about
the
extent
of
her
relationship
with
Jones.
They

also
said
Freeman
claimed
the
relationship
was
over
in
2021,
and
they
found
out
otherwise
in
2022.
But
Isgur
slammed
the
firm’s
handling
of
the
information
it
did
have.

Isgur
on
Friday
said
Jackson
Walker
couldn’t
have
ethically
decided
that
the
facts
it
knew
should
be
hidden
from
its
clients.
The
failure
to
disclose
wasn’t
just
a
decision
of
one
lawyer
or
a
practice
group,
but
the
whole
firm,
Isgur
said.

He
called
it
“inconceivable”
that
Jackson
Walker
didn’t
tell
its
clients
of
the
situation.

“I
have
concluded
that
Jackson
Walker’s
deliberate
failure
to
inform
its
clients
was
an
ethical
breach
that
we
cannot
excuse,”
Isgur
said.

Isgur
noted
that
when
Freeman’s
attorney
suggested
Jackson
Walker
disclose
the
relationship,
the
firm
still
didn’t
tell
the
court.
The
firm’s
silence
may
have
violated
Texas
disciplinary
rules
that
require
attorneys
to
assist
judges
from
violating
their
own
duties,
Isgur
said.

“It
is
intolerable
that
Jackson
Walker
protected
the
Jackson
Walker
firm
to
the
exclusion
of
its
inherent
professional
responsibilities,”
Isgur
said.

The
disciplinary
matter
has
been
referred
to
Judge
Lee
H.
Rosenthal
for
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
Southern
District
of
Texas.
Jackson
Walker
has
not
commented
on
the
latest
development
in
the
scandal.

---

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].

That
didn’t
take
long.
Less
than
24
hours
after
Trump
docketed
his

screaming
tantrum
masquerading
an
opposition
to
a
routine
request
to
file
an
overlong
brief,
Judge
Tanya
Chutkan
has
already

batted
it
down.

“For
the
second
time
in
a
week,
Defendant
urges
reconsideration
of
the
current
pretrial
schedule
in
a
brief
intended
to
respond
to
a
separate
issue,
and
without
actually
filing
a
motion
to
that
effect,”
she
wrote
tartly,
adding
that
“For
completeness,
however,
the
court
will
address
more
broadly
Defendant’s
new
and
sundry
arguments
about
the
pretrial
schedule,
none
of
which
articulate
a
cognizable
prejudice.”

First,
she
explained,
as
if
to
a
small
child,
that
criminal
prosecution
is
necessarily
an
adversary
process:

[A]llowing
a
brief
from
the
Government
is
not
“contrary
to
law
procedure,
and
custom,”
as
Defendant
claims,
id.
(citing
no
authority);
it
is
simply
how
litigation
works:
Each
side
presents
arguments
and
proffers
evidence
on
disputed
issues—here,
whether
Defendant’s
charged
conduct
involved
official
acts
and
receives
immunity.
Indeed,
Defendant
appears
to
embrace
a
similar
approach.

Then
she
noted
that
Trump
himself
proposed
briefing
on
the
very
same
topics,
albeit
at
a
glacially
slow
pace
that
deferred
substantive
motions
until
after
the
election.

“Defendant’s
concern
with
the
political
consequences
of
these
proceedings
does
not
bear
on
the
pretrial
schedule,”
she
scoffed.

The
judicial
eye-roll
fairly
wafts
off
the
page
in
a
paragraph
dealing
with
Trump’s
contention
that
it
is
NO
FAIR
to
let
the
special
counsel
file
stuff
when
he
is
still
barred
by
the
gag
order
from
calling
in
troll
storms
on
potential
witnesses.

“[T]he
former
contention
mischaracterizes
the
court’s
order,
and
even
so
identifies
potential
political
consequences
rather
than
legal
prejudice,”
she
wrote
incredulously.
“The
court
likewise
rejects
Defendant’s
unsupported
assertion
that
publicly
docketing
nonsensitive
materials
during
the
immunity
briefing
would
impermissibly
‘impact
potential
witnesses
and
taint
the
jury
pool.’”

Judge
Chutkan
finished
by
swatting
aside
Trump’s
complaint
that,
by
filing
a
brief
under
court
order,
the
special
counsel
will
violate
the
DOJ’s
internal
policy
against
taking
legal
actions
this
close
to
an
election.
(It
doesn’t
—
the
policy
pertains
to
charging
and
investigatory
decisions,
and
Trump
was
indicted
in
2023.)

“Defendant
does
not
explain
how
those
putative
violations
cause
him
legal
prejudice
in
this
case,
nor
how
this
court
is
bound
by
or
has
jurisdiction
to
enforce
Department
of
Justice
policy,”
she
concluded.

It
was
a
vicious
smackdown,
preserving
for
the
record
exactly
how
shitty
and
unserious
Trump’s
arguments
are.
And
so
on
Thursday,
or
shortly
thereafter
depending
on
how
long
it
takes
to
vet
the
redactions,
we’ll
get
the
special
counsel’s
brief
explaining
why
the
amended
indictment
included
the
pressure
campaign
against
Mike
Pence
and
how
that
is
entirely
consonant
with
the
Supreme
Court’s
immunity
ruling.

Which
is
exactly
what
Trump
was
desperate
to
head
off,
since
it
reminds
us
that
the
Republican
nominee
for
president
tried
to
mount
a
coup
less
than
four
years
ago.

US
v.
Trump [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

As
recently
as
2019,
there
were
a
couple
of
things
that
seemed
immutable
about
the
law
school
learning
formula.
Notes
or
even
recordings
are
helpful,
but
you
can’t
compare
that
to
the
magic
that
is
in-person
teaching.

Then
COVID
came
along
and
proved
that
generations
of
lawyers
were
hoodwinked
by
sleight
of
hand.
Thinking
like
a
lawyer
got
forced
online
and
proved
that
not
only
could
most
classes
have
been
a
Zoom
call,
but
that
a
great
deal
of
legal
work
could
have
been
figured
out
from
our
laptops.
After
living
through
seeing
how
law
schools
can
adapt
to
unexpected
learning
conditions,
Wayne
State
University’s
response
to
a
law
student
looking
for
learning
accommodations
doesn’t
really
pass
muster.

Law360
has
coverage:

A
student
at
Wayne
State
University
Law
School
alleges
the
university
violated
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act
by
refusing
to
allow
her
to
attend
class
remotely
or
provide
other
accommodations
due
to
her
disabilities.

According
to
a
15-page
complaint
filed
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Michigan
on
Friday,
Hind
Omar
—
who
is
blind
and
sufferers
from
chronic
mental
illness,
according
to
the
complaint
—
was
told
by
the
university
when
she
asked
to
attend
classes
remotely
that
her
accommodations
would
be
a
“fundamental
alteration”
of
the
law
school’s
course
of
study.

“The
law
school’s
frequent
response
to
Ms.
Omar’s
requested
accommodations
was,
‘That
is
not
how
we
do
it
here,’”
the
complaint
states.

The
administrators
must
have
a
short
memory.
They
might
not
do
it
that
way
now,
but
they
did

very
recently
—
COVID
and
all
— 
so
the
claim
that
recording
lectures
would
be
a
“fundamental
alteration”
to
the
law
school
is
hyperbolic
at
best.
What’s
the
big
change?
Did
the
school’s
tech
guy
change
his
phone
number?
Can’t
afford
to
prop
a
phone
camera
so
Omar
can
Zoom
in?
It
would
have
been
more
honest
if
the
school
responded
with
a
poop
emoji.

The
school’s
response
amounted
to
the
cookie
cutter
“We
do
our
best
to
comply
with
the
ADA”
that
you’d
expect.
As
the
case
develops,
I
look
forward
to
a
judge’s
eventual
“No
the
hell
you
didn’t.”
In
the
meantime,
you
can
read
the
complaint

here.

Wayne
State
Univ.
Law
School
Violated
ADA,
Student
Alleges
[Law360]

---

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
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
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.

Yesterday,
Donald
Trump’s
lawyers
once
again
lost
their
ever-loving
minds
on
the
public
docket.
It’s
kind
of
their
signature
move,
but
this
time
the
occasion
was
a

motion
by
the
special
counsel
to
exceed
the
page
limit
in
its
Brief
on
Presidential
Immunity.
The
horror!

When
the
election
interference
case
finally
returned
to
Judge
Tanya
Chutkan
last
month,
the
parties
had

competing
proposals
on
how
to
deal
with
the
Supreme
Court’s
fakakta
immunity
ruling.
Trump’s
plan
was
to
do
essentially
nothing
for
the
rest
of
2024
and
hope
he
wins
in
November.
The
government
countered
with
an
aggressive
schedule
and
promised
that
it
was
prepared
to
file
a
brief
defending
its
superseding
indictment
within
three
weeks.
The
court
declined
Trump’s
generous
offer
to
kick
the
can
down
the
road
for
several
more
months
and
ordered
the
prosecution
to
file
its
brief
by
September
26.

On
Friday,
the
government

acquiesced
to
an
extension
after
Trump’s
lawyers
blew
a
deadline.
But
on
Monday,
the
defendant
failed
to
extend
the
same
courtesy
when
the
special
counsel

petitioned
to
file
180
pages
to
aid
the
court
in
the
intensive,
fact-bound
inquiry
demanded
by
the
Supreme
Court’s
six
conservatives.
Trump’s
lawyers
requested
until
the
24th
to
respond,
and
the
court
told
them
to
get
their
homework
in
by
the
23rd.

But
instead
of
explaining
why
the
special
counsel
should
have
to
stick
to
45
pages,
as
per
the
local
rule,
they
instead
filed
a
motion
relitigating
their
already-rejected
claim
that
the
prosecutor
shouldn’t
be
able
to
file
the
document

at
all.

“The
proposed
approach
is
fundamentally
unfair,
as
the
Office
would
attempt
to
set
a
closed
record
for
addressing
unfiled
defense
motions
by
crediting
their
own
untested
assessments
of
purported
evidence,
denying
President
Trump
an
opportunity
to
confront
their
witnesses,
and
preventing
the
defense
from
obtaining
discovery,”
Trump’s
lawyers
whined.
“The
hypocrisy
of
this
proposed
approach
is
demonstrated
by
the
Office’s
earlier
arguments—in
this
case
and
in
Florida—that
using
discovery
materials
in
public
filings
could
taint
the
jury
pool
and
bias
potential
witnesses.”

That
last
bit
is
particularly
disingenuous,
since
the
special
counsel

requested
to
file
the
document
under
seal,
with
a
redacted
version
to
appear
on
the
public
docket
later.
But
Trump’s
howler
monkeys
were
just
getting
started.

“The
‘opening
immunity
brief,’
as
described
in
the
Motion,
would
be
an
improper
Special
Counsel
report
masked
as
a
superfluous
filing
seeking
advisory
opinions
in
a
criminal
case,”
they
fulminated.
“The
document
would
violate
the
Presidential
immunity
doctrine,
taint
the
integrity
of
these
proceedings,
increase
the
First
Amendment
harms
resulting
from
the
Gag
Order,
and
violate
the
Justice
Manual.”

The
scare
quotes
are
a
nice
touch.
Here
on
Planet
Earth,
Judge
Chutkan
herself
called
it
an
“Opening
Brief
on
Presidential
Immunity”
in
the
same
order
where
she
instructed
the
special
counsel
to
file
it.
The
only
issue
is
how
long
it’s
going
to
be,
and
grandstanding
about
“a
premature
and
improper
Special
Counsel
report”
is
wholly
beside
the
point.

But
performative
outrage
is
more
or
less
their
entire
legal
strategy,
so
instead
they
screamed
out
this
incoherent
demand
that
the
court
“deny
the
Motion
and
reconsider
the
September
5,
2024
scheduling
order,
by
rejecting
the
Office’s
lawless
request
to
file
a
180-page
public
defense
of
their
defective
Superseding
Indictment
before
they
are
in
compliance
with
their
discovery
obligations.”

Lotsa
luck!

US
v.
Trump
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Justice
continues
to
be
meted
out
for
those
who
participated
in
the
January
6th
attack
on
the
U.S.
Capitol,
and
one
of
the
defendants
sentenced
just
last
week
was
a
recent
law
school
admittee.
For
someone
who
had
aspirations
to
enter
the
legal
profession,
this
isn’t
the
side
of
the
law
you
want
to
be
on.

As
first
reported
by

CBS
42,
would-be
lawyer
James
Grant
had
been
accepted
to
the
University
of
Alabama
School
of
Law
in
the
Fall
of
2021.
In
his

sentencing
memo,
Grant’s
lawyer,
Robert
Feitel,
states
that
his
client
was
accepted
to
the
Top
50
law
school
with
a
full
tuition
scholarship.
CBS
has
additional
details:

Grant,
31,
of
Cary,
North
Carolina,
climbed
into
the
Capitol
through
a
broken
window
and
entered
a
senator’s
office.
After
his
arrest,
he
told
investigators
that
the
FBI
was
“the
biggest
threat
to
Americans”
and
that
prosecuting
Jan.
6
rioters
was
“a
big
witch
hunt.”

One
of
the
first
to
breach
the
interior
of
the
Capitol,
according
to
his
own
sentencing
memo,
Grant
“wandered
through
the
halls,
entered
a
Senator’s
office,
where
he
was
photographed
sitting
calmly.”
Here’s
that
photo,
where
Grant
can
be
seen
giving
the
peace
sign:

As
related
in
his
sentencing
memo,
Grant’s
father
would
later
go
on
to
tell
a
probation
officer
that
his
son
had
“made
an
incredibly
stupid
decision
(regarding
his
conduct
in
the
instant
offense)
which
is
not
emblematic
of
his
character.”

Although
prosecutors
asked
that
Grant
be
sentenced
to
nine
years
behind
bars,
he
was
instead
sentenced
to
three
years
for
his
crimes.
His
attorney
said
it
was
“almost
incomprehensible”
that
such
a
lengthy
sentence
had
been
recommended
for
his
client.

Grant
has
been
behind
bars
since
January
2022
after
he
was
charged
with
driving
while
drunk
with
an
assault
rifle
in
his
car
and
will
get
credit
for
the
time
he
has
already
spent
locked
up.

“I
think
I’ve
been
sufficiently
punished,”
Grant
told
the
judge.

Grant’s
attorney
said
he
should
be
eligible
for
release
almost
immediately
after
getting
credit
for
time
served
and
good
behavior
in
jail.

Per
his
own
sentencing
memo,
“The
opportunity
to
attend
law
school
may
well
be
lost
to
James
forever.”
Will
Alabama
Law
be
willing
give
a
convicted
J6
defendant
a
second
chance?
We
suppose
we’ll
have
to
see.

Man
sentenced
to
prison
for
taking
part
in
Jan.
6
riot
had
been
accepted
to
Alabama
law
school
before
arrest
[CBS
42]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.