Category: News Feeds

If you’re one of those folks who believe the United States should function, broadly speaking, as a representative democracy, it would stand to reason that over a long enough timeline, the demographics of the organs of government would start to resemble the breakdown of the country. That’s not even the dreaded “identity politics” at work, but simple math. At any given time some groups might be over- or underrepresented (indeed, there’s nothing wrong with Justice Ginsburg’s famous “when there are nine” hope for an all-woman Supreme Court), but generally speaking if 15 percent of the population is X, then about 15 percent of the people in a particular office should also be members of X over the long haul simply by virtue of being 15 percent of the available pool.

But since the folks responsible for staffing the federal judiciary — specifically Leonard Leo and other Federalist Society leaders — believe America’s “representative democracy” should stretch only so far as representing the second-most selective country club in Mississippi, the federal judiciary does not really resemble America. I mean, they don’t even care if their judges are qualified, so seeking diversity enhancements is a tall order for them.

This morning, the Center for American Progress released a major report on the diversity of the federal judiciary titled, “Examining the Demographic Compositions of the U.S. Circuit and District Courts” prepared by Danielle Root. It gathers the receipts for the claim we all vaguely know to be true: the courts are woefully unrepresentative of America.

White people comprise 80 percent of the circuit courts despite comprising around 62 percent of the population. While that’s already bad, because federal judicial appointments are still for life, this is a number that’s only going to get worse. As the share of white people in the country declines relatively, people like Allison Rushing — a 2007 law school grad on the Fourth Circuit on the strength of her resume formerly working for a group that defined homosexuals as a threat to society — will just be reaching middle age with no plans to go anywhere.

Only one circuit is 50 percent female. Only one openly LGBTQ jurist sits on a circuit court. Women of color make up around 20 percent of the population and only 6 percent of active circuit judges.

Around 42 percent of active district court rosters are entirely white. Only 16 percent of district courts have at least half female judges. Openly LGBTQ folks? None. But credit to the Southern District Court of Illinois and the District Court of Hawaii where women of color make up half the bench. So there’s some progress!

But the report breaks down demographics by circuit as well, recognizing that, for instance, the Second Circuit where people of color comprise approximately 42 percent of the general population will have a larger pool of prospective jurists to draw from than, say, the Eighth Circuit where people of color represent around 21 percent of the population. But even controlling for this variances, the judiciary comes up short. The Second Circuit’s active judges are 69 percent white and the Eighth Circuit’s active judges are 91 percent white, both of which are off.

But the most insane offender is the Fifth Circuit where the population is 55 percent people of color but the active judges are 81 percent white. As you might suspect, the Eleventh Circuit isn’t far behind with 45 percent of the population being people of color and 80 percent of the active judges being white. It’s almost like those courts represent parts of the country where systemic racism has been particularly aggressive in preventing upward mobility among non-white people. But that certainly can’t be the case, because Chief Justice Roberts told me racism doesn’t exist anymore in Shelby County.

There’s a lot more detail broken down in the report.

Coupled with a prior CAP report finding that judges of “different races and ethnicities; gender identities and sexual orientations; and even educational and professional backgrounds add immense value to the development of federal common law that is fairer and more humane,” this study sounds the alarm for future administrations and Senators to work overtime to right the ship when it comes to demographic representation. Because numbers like this aren’t a quirk, it’s evidence of pretty deliberate disregard for selecting jurists from the full pool of available talent.

While liberals will naturally be inclined to spit outrage over these numbers, they shouldn’t be allowed to duck scrutiny for their role in getting us here. For years, when they had a hand on the rudder, they’ve distributed federal judgeships to talented attorneys based often on long-standing personal connections or a history of generous donations. This artificially limits the pool of available nominees to high-end attorneys and in-house counsel — jobs that for a whole host of other reasons are not necessarily diverse. Going forward, take a step back, recognize that biases may be compounding, and keep aware of talented attorneys who might not have been your roommate at Duke 40 years ago. That’s what the Democrats need to take away from this.

For the Republicans… well, Leonard Leo’s really psyched about a polo and khaki-clad caddy he just met who swears he’s watched 6 full seasons of Law & Order. Hearings will be scheduled next week.

Examining the Demographic Compositions of the U.S. Circuit and District Courts [Center for American Progress]

---

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 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.

When it comes to small law firms, getting attention from the world at large (read: potential clients) is the first order of business. At Above the Law, we’ve seen plenty of bold, or erm, interesting attorney advertisements that are designed to make you remember them if and when you find yourself in need of legal services.

Two Waco, Texas attorneys, Will Hutson and Chris Harris, have a novel (and harmonized) approach to attorney advertising. The pair, who both come from musical families, opted to sing and perform in lieu of a traditional lawyer blog. And the endeavor has been successful. One of their most popular pieces, Don’t Eat Your Weed, has over 500,000 (and counting) views on YouTube. And as ABA Journal reports, the catchy ditty counsels against destroying evidence which carries a much stiffer penalty in Texas than marijuana possession:

“Tampering with evidence doesn’t make any sense. Let the cops find your weed,” the two sing in a folk-country style, complete with a Waylon Jennings-esque drawl while strumming guitars on their music video, “Don’t Eat Your Weed.” “There’s a kind of probation called deferred adjudication, and there’s lots of other ways to plead. It’s just a misdemeanor. You can hire a cleaner to get it off your record.”

However, if you make the mistake of destroying, swallowing or trying to hide the evidence, it becomes a felony in Texas.

“As the officer approaches, you try to eat your roaches and you throw your weed out the door. Oh no, the cop sees you ’cause that’s what he’s trained to do. And now you’re in big trouble!” they sing.

Here’s the full piece in all its glory:

Harris credits the ploy with helping to humanize them as lawyers. And of course increasing their relevance and the number of inquiries they receive from potential clients:

“I think it’s intimidating for people to call lawyers,” Harris says. “They feel like they get a sense of who we are before they ever talk to us. Trust is huge in our business.”

As for whether the videos have helped the firm’s bottom line, Hutson says he’s received more phone calls and web queries. Harris, meanwhile, says his civil practice probably hasn’t been helped by a song about marijuana. Nevertheless, he says the firm’s web relevance score has increased, and they get inquiries from a broader base of people than before.

Their repertoire is more than just weed-related songs. They also have a popular number about the Fifth Amendment:

And Hutson and Harris also have “secular” songs. The duo perform as Alamo Basement (shout out to Pee Wee’s Big Adventure) and have recently crowdfunded enough money to record an album. The jury is still out on whether any of their “regular” songs are as good as “Don’t Eat Your Weed.”

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. 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).

* A California attorney has been busted for selling drugs and guns. Talk about a full-service attorney… [New York Post]

* A New Orleans lawyer is headed to federal appeals court in order to contest the constitutionality of mandatory bar dues. [Associated Press]

* A lawsuit suggests that the e-cigarette company Juul bought ad space targeted at kids on Cartoon Network and other outlets. [Reuters]

* Michael Avenatti’s fate for his shakedown of Nike has been submitted to a New York jury, while a trial date has been set for Avenatti’s alleged fraud against former client Stormy Daniels. Avenatti is quite the belle of the criminal law ball… [New York Post]

* An Oklahoma City attorney at the center of a triple homicide has been suspended from practice. [KFOR.com]

* Paul Weiss is facing a boycott of applicants over the firm’s representation of Exxon. Pretty sure there are plenty of people still willing to work there. [Salon]

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Zimbabwe’s economy will overcome the numerous hurdles which lay before us on the path towards prosperity.  These obstacles are patent, and in some cases potent. But with hard work, proper planning, and monetary and fiscal discipline, Zimbabwe will get out of the current economic rut.

Some of these challenges are out of our control. Take Cyclone Idai in March of last year for example. The extreme weather phenomenon destroyed lives and livelihoods. This meteorological mess was followed by another, as drought struck across our lands.  Food output has thus been severely hampered by these outside forces; and we have been left with no choice but to subsidise, import and rely on help from the international community to avoid total crisis. While there were some real achievements in 2019, including a balanced budget for the first time in living memory, we have a commitment to subsidise where necessary to make sure our nation is fed.

As we move into 2020, we will continue to learn from these “unknown unknowns”. We are already investing in ‘climate proofing’ our agriculture, including new irrigation techniques, and drought resistant crops. We must now double up our efforts with our international partners – new and old – to protect our agriculture and food supply.

As we look forward to growing our economy, it is incumbent upon us to rein in inflation as quickly as possible. This is crucial for investment. This is vital for job creation.  Month on month inflation is already stabilising, down to approximately 16%. Of course, annual inflation remains high. We do not hide this, nor was this unexpected. That is what happens when you liberalise a currency. But this process of reforms is a long-term necessity for our economy.

We are taking steps to prop up the currency, drip-feeding in cash injections in a non-inflationary manner. This has involved exchanging electronic currency for the physical currency. We will also be introducing higher denomination notes over the course of 2020 to make it easier for citizens to transact. We know the current environment is tough. But Zimbabwe’s economy needs tough reforms, not superficial ones.

In the current environment, both wages and purchasing power have taken a big hit. Government therefore has a responsibility to support consumers and the private sector as a whole.  As part of the currency reform agenda, we have had inevitable wage compression. This is part of the liberalisation process. We have responded by propping up the wages of the civil servants, and we hope the private sector acts in kind. Dollarisation inertia unfortunately means that retailers are still pricing in USD and simply translating it to the local currency.  This is squashing the purchasing power of current wages. We are closing that gap by allowing wages to rise.

In order to finance these moves and reboot the Zimbabwean economy as a whole, it is crucial to reform state-owned companies.  We have already passed the first hurdle, which was to decide which ones should be partially privatised, which ones should be liquidated, and which ones should be departmentalised, and of course to highlight those which should not be touched.  2020 is now about implementing and enacting these moves. We will advance the partial privatisation of the telecom company (Netone) and motor-vehicle assembly company (Willovale Mazda Motor Industries), capitalise our Silo Foods Industries, privatise banking assets and more. We want to have a private sector-led economy in Zimbabwe. And for the private sector to lead, we must privatise!

Despite all the hurdles and all the barriers, Zimbabwe in 2019 leapt 15 places in the Global Ease of Doing Business rankings. As we look to improve this in 2020, privatisation is a big part of this story.

For the first time in living memory, Zimbabwe achieved a balanced budget. We have our fiscal and monetary fate in our own hands. We have a talented, educated and devoted workforce, ready to get to work. And we have natural resources a-plenty, ready to drive our economy forward. The Zimbabwean future is, therefore, an exciting one. With patience and discipline, we will overcome all the hurdles that lay in our path and build a better future for all.

Post published in: Business

According to Vault’s Annual Associate Survey for 2020, which Biglaw firm ranked first in associate career prospects?

Hint: The firm has had a total of nine name changes in its history, picking up its current moniker in 1939.

See the answer on the next page.

Direct-to-consumer DNA kits have changed our reality. The wall of secrecy that was once behind conception and parenting — including adoptions, affairs, and the use of donor eggs, sperm, and embryos — is crumbling. One major facet of this reckoning with the truth has been the stark realization that many, many doctors were using their own sperm to “treat” their unknowing patients.

Sometimes this practice was in place of “anonymous donor” sperm; sometimes, it was actually in place of the spouse or partner’s sperm. It’s pretty gross to think about. But even grosser is the complete lack of accountability for the doctors who must have known of the ethical and moral shortcomings of their actions.

The Justice System Has Been Failing Us

A doctor using his own sperm to impregnate a patient, without her knowledge or consent as to the source of the sperm, must be a crime, right? Or at least a pretty solid tort? For many states, you guessed wrong. More and more cases of those doctors’ egregious practices have been uncovered. And more and more lawsuits have been filed. However, each prosecution or lawsuit has faced an uphill battle.

Take, for example, the case of Donald Cline, formerly a licensed medical doctor in Indiana. In one of the most notorious cases in the United States, DNA tests have shown Cline to have used his sperm in unknowing patients, resulting in at least sixty children. When the betrayed patients and offspring sought legal remedies against Cline, they were unsuccessful. After all, the patients had consented to Cline inseminating them with sperm. Cline did plead guilty to two charges of obstruction of justice, after lying to officials about using his own sperm with patients. But that, to most victims, was not sufficient.

Time To Change The Law

Since current law has been failing the victims, many have sought, and are currently seeking, to change the law. State by state, if necessary. Last year, two successful bills were passed. One was in Indiana, unsurprisingly, as ground zero of the Cline fiasco. Another was in Texas, where Eve Wiley led the charge. (Listen to this podcast where Wiley and her believed-donor tell the twisting and fascinating tale of uncovering the truth of Wiley’s genetic history.) In Texas, without a civil cause of action due to the state’s recent tort reforms, and without a viable criminal cause of action to charge him, Wiley’s “doctor daddy” is still actively practicing medicine even today. That’s crazytown.

Now other states are following suit, and closing the legal loopholes that existed for doctors to take advantage of their patients in this most intimate of areas. And while I doubt that as many doctors are so casually using their own sperm these days, there are certainly modern horror stories involving assisted reproduction, including that of a staff member at a Utah clinic swapping out countless sperm samples with his own.

The states currently making progress in this area include my own home state of Colorado with HB20-1014 (Go, Representative Kerry Tipper!), Nebraska with LB 748, Ohio with HB 486, and Florida with SB 698. Other states, as well, appear poised to introduce their own fertility fraud legislation. While the proposed laws vary, they are consistent in their goals of ensuring or clarifying that this type of behavior by trusted medical professionals is not acceptable and not legal, and providing a path forward for justice.

In Texas, Wiley faced criticism for her push for better legislation with comments like, “you should just be grateful that you are related to a doctor.” But those critics are jerks, to say the least. Most of us can agree that regardless of whether we think it is a good thing to be genetically related to a doctor, patients should be entitled to relevant information and to make their own choice when it comes to whose sperm is — or is not — inserted in them. And when that information is not given or a patient’s choice is not respected, there should be legal consequences.

Tip Of The Iceberg

As more people test their DNA and learn surprising truths, it’s possible we have only, to date, seen the tip of the iceberg as to the extent doctors were engaging in this practice. Wiley explains that she and Professor Jody Madeira are being contacted almost weekly about new cases. Unfortunately, one common path they have seen is for victims to settle in private mediation, in exchange for anonymity for the doctor. Wiley notes the frustration with this option, since “This leaves the doctor to continue practicing, with his reputation intact, and to continue offending unbeknownst to his patients. The lack of a clear path to justice leaves most victims feeling they don’t have voice and to suffer in silence.”

Professor Madeira of Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law is an academic devoting significant thought to the legal complications of these cases and a best path forward. For more on the topic, check out her recent law review article in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Understanding Illicit Insemination and Fertility Fraud, from Patient Experience to Legal Reform, and her article in Fertility and Sterility, Against seminal principles: ethics, hubris, and lessons to learn from illicit insemination.

What To Do?

What if you just found out that you are one of the many victims of this practice? Wiley and Madeira are a great source of assistance for figuring out your options with the current (bleak) legal landscape. Both welcome your polite and respectful contact, understanding that they still have jobs and personal lives to attend to. Wiley explains that she aims to help others feel as informed and empowered as possible under the circumstances. She points victims to support groups specifically for the “donor deceived,” suggests legal resources, and, acts as a sounding board as they work through incredibly complex feelings. And, of course, if they are interested, she discusses legislative efforts. After all, what better way to deal with the holes in the legal system than to fix them. It might not bring justice to the victims, but at least they are playing an important role in protecting others and preventing anyone else in their state from finding themselves in this devastating position.

---

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

Mentoring is one of my favorite topics. We don’t do it as much or as often as we should. Sometimes we don’t even know we’ve done anything, but we have, and it’s those times when we realize that even the tiniest bit of mentoring can have an impact well beyond what we might have thought.

The recent Oscar awards telecast is a perfect example of what I mean. Yes, I live in La-La Land, and the Oscar awards are of little interest to most outside the Los Angeles fantasy world. (Ratings for the show were dreadful.) Four Oscars went to Bong Joon-Ho and his movie Parasite. What’s my point?

When he accepted the award for best director, Bong gave a shout out to Martin Scorsese, who Bong considered a mentor (even if Scorsese didn’t know it). Bong said Scorsese had said that “the most personal is always the most creative.” So, here’s an example of how mentoring takes many forms; there can even be “stealth mentoring,” (the mentor has no idea about the impact of her words on someone else).

Both Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino, who Bong also acknowledged as supporting his work, may well not have known that Bong was going to say anything. I bet both of the acclaimed directors were touched by the gesture. Bong didn’t have to say anything at all, but he did so in a heartfelt and generous way. How often do we acknowledge mentoring and how it has helped us along the way?

Bong’s translator at the awards was a young woman, Sharon Choi, with directorial aspirations. So, in his own way, the 50-year-old Bong is paying it forward for her.

Mentoring doesn’t have to be grandiose. It doesn’t even require any acknowledgement per se of the mentoring relationship. It can be as understated as answering a question or two for a newbie lawyer, directing a lawyer as to where to find something, sharing pleadings, contract forms and points, and authorities forms. (Remember when we used to all keep form files? Those are relics of a bygone era.) The point is to pass on accumulated knowledge so that others can benefit from what you have learned: what works, what doesn’t, what sets a judge off like a rocket, while another could care less.

There’s so much talk today about the “sharing economy.” I think mentoring is sharing. Of course, some people share less than others, and some not at all. Everyone is familiar with the “you eat what you kill” mentality.

Mentoring can be coffee, a meal, or even grabbing a more experienced lawyer during a trial recess to help figure out how to handle an issue that just arose. When I was a baby deputy district attorney. trying my very first misdemeanor petty theft case, counsel for the two defendants asked for a mistrial because they claimed that they were missing a page of discovery. I asked for a brief recess, went out into the courthouse hallway, and grabbed the first experienced deputy DA I saw, and asked him what a mistrial was.

Mentoring is not necessarily just for law students, newbie lawyers, or those further along than newbies. I think mentoring is just as important for those “pre-law” students (what the hell is a “pre-law” major anyway?), for those in the “pipeline,” so to speak, deciding whether to drop a whole wad of cash or incur six figures in debt, only to decide that being a lawyer is not all that it’s cracked up to be. How many of us watch lawyer shows on television and laugh at the contrast between how lawyers are portrayed on screen and the life of a real lawyer?

For most of us, lawyering is a lot of drudge work, paper shuffling, meeting with clients who don’t want to hear what we have to say, trying to collect receivables, and other unpleasantries. Lawyering is not glamorous, no matter how many times we see otherwise on television, especially when the lawyers are young, attractive, and if a woman, able to walk in stilettos while pushing briefcases full of documents.

I think UCLA Law Dean Jennifer Mnookin has nailed it. Her advice is simple and straight to the point: don’t go to law school if you don’t think you want to be a lawyer. Sounds obvious, doesn’t it? As the dean says, it’s a huge investment of time and money and, as the profession continues to adopt artificial intelligence to use in bread and butter tasks, it may well become harder to earn a decent living.

Think about the sunk costs of spending three to four years in law school, studying for the bar and then taking it, awaiting results and then scrambling for a job (if you’re not from one of the top schools, then “scrambling” is probably an appropriate term. Of course, that assumes you’ve passed the bar exam.)

Steven Chung has sounded a similar warning in his ATL post, a sort of “test yourself” as to whether becoming a lawyer is really, really, really what you want to do. If you really really want to be a lawyer, then find a mentor early on. If you don’t have the passion, the burning desire, then find something else that will engage you. There’s no guarantee that you will make big bucks in practice, and if that’s the motivation, then do something else.

---

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

Donald Trump famously demands loyalty from “his” employees. But as U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu found out yesterday, that loyalty only goes one direction. He will burn your career to the ground the moment you become an inconvenience, and never give it a second thought.

Liu has worn a lot of hats in the Trump Administration. This veteran of Bush’s Justice Department worked on Trump’s transition team and as deputy general counsel at Treasury before being confirmed as U.S. Attorney for D.C. in September of 2017.

As head of the largest U.S. Attorney’s Office, Liu loyally carried out the president’s directives. Like investigating James Comey over an unproven leak allegation from 2017. Or doing her darnedest to get a grand jury to indict former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. (Cough, cough NO BILL.)

But Liu also inherited some cases from Special Counsel Robert Mueller that were not to the president’s liking. Her failure to go easy on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who pled guilty, or his crony Roger Stone, who was found guilty by a jury, put her in the conservative crosshairs. Barbara Ledeen, a well-connected Republican Senate Judiciary Committee staffer who worked with Michael Flynn to obtain Hillary Clinton’s phantom emails during the 2016 campaign, was particularly outraged by Liu’s failure to drop the Flynn prosecution, according to the Washington Post.

It’s probably not a coincidence that the Judiciary Committee killed Liu’s nomination last year to fill the number three job at the DOJ, ostensibly over her connection to the pro-choice National Association of Women Lawyers. But in December Liu got another shot when Trump announced his intention to nominate her for Under Secretary of Terrorism and Financial Crimes at the Treasury.

Her name was officially advanced to the Judiciary Committee on January 6, and she handed the reins at the U.S. Attorneys Office in D.C. over to her successor Timothy Shea that very day. Which is very much not normal, since nominees don’t typically quit their day jobs until they’ve actually been confirmed to the new position.

There is speculation that Barr needed Liu out of the way so he could “take control of legal matters of personal interest to President Donald Trump,” as NBC described it. The network reports that Barr himself intervened immediately after Liu’s abrupt departure to get the prosecutors in DC to lessen sentencing recommendations for Flynn and Roger Stone. But with her position in limbo and Trump enraged over the Stone prosecution, Liu was uniquely vulnerable.

The Post reports that Trump pulled her nomination yesterday, both because of Ledeen’s imprecations and because he realized that a confirmation battle would mean that Democratic senators got to ask Liu about the Stone case in an open hearing:

Speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the situation, the person said Ledeen had made little headway before the recent storm over Stone’s sentencing, calling it a turning point. Treasury officials believe Trump himself made the call to withdraw Liu because her confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee was set for Thursday, and Trump was concerned she would be asked about the case, the person said.

CNN confirms that Trump himself withdrew the nomination because he was pissed off that Liu refused to do more to help out his buddies Flynn and Stone.

For her part, Ledeen denied having anything to do with Liu being unceremoniously kicked to the curb, telling the Post,  “I’m a Senate staffer. I can’t lobby either the Senate or the White House. I’m kind of amazed my name came up in this. Somebody likes to throw around my name.”

Which is simply adorable coming from the person who got caught redhanded sending unsolicited emails to Flynn’s former counsel attempting to coordinate his defense strategy with House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes’s appearances on Sean Hannity’s show.

But whoever stuck the knife in, Liu is the one left high and dry here. And while we’re not crying for a lawyer who’ll no doubt wind up on the payroll at Kirkland & Ellis or Jones Day within a week, it’s certainly a cautionary tale for all the line attorneys being asked to toe the party line as Bill Barr decimates the independence of the Justice Department. Sooner or later, that train will jump the tracks and run you over, too!

Barr takes control of legal matters of interest to Trump, including Stone sentencing [NBC]
Trump withdraws Treasury nomination of former U.S. attorney for D.C. Jessie K. Liu after criticism of her oversight of Mueller prosecutions [WaPo]

Back on September 30th, Judge Carlos Murguia of the District of Kansas was formally reprimanded by the Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, chaired by Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich, for “inappropriate behavior.”

The council found Murguia sexually harassed court employees, specifically finding he “gave preferential treatment and unwanted attention” to female employees, and engaged in “sexually suggestive comments, inappropriate text messages, and excessive non-work-related contacts, much of which occurred after work hours and often late at night.” They also found Murguia had a years-long extramarital relationship with a felon on probation (who is now back in prison), and was “habitually” late for court.

Murguia admitted to the misconduct and apologized for his behavior. But despite the reprimand, a week later on October 7th, Murguia was back on the bench.

Now House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and three other committee members have sent a letter to Tymkovich, District of Kansas Chief Judge Julie Robinson, and Secretary of the Judicial Conference of the United States James Duff calling for a “a frank examination of the adequacy of the steps taken to address” Murguia’s misconduct.

Specifically, the letter asks the following questions about the misconduct and the investigation/consequences:

• The reprimand did not state when Murguia’s misconduct began or how many people were harassed. Will the information be disclosed at a later point? Are there policies in place for disclosure to prevent future misconduct?

• What protections have been provided to those who were harassed, and what steps have other federal courts taken to ensure support for individuals in similar situations?

• Is there a system in place allowing court employees to anonymously report misconduct?

• What policies are in place to review personnel decisions that may be influenced by misconduct committed by a judge or supervisor?

• Will the district of Kansas investigate whether other judges were concerned about Murguia’s behavior and, if so, why they didn’t file complaints?

As Nadler said in a statement, “No one should experience harassment, discrimination, or other misconduct in any workplace — and especially not in our federal courts, where so many Americans expect to turn for justice.”

A judiciary spokesperson said the reprimand “is not the final step in the process.”

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. 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).