Legal Ethics Roundup: Associates ‘Revolt,’ SCOTUS Chief ‘Rebukes,’ Judge Cleared Over CNN Critique, CO Missing $400k Judicial Complaints Office, New Legal Ethics/Democracy Tracker Launched & More

I’m working from abroad this week during my daughter’s spring break. You’ll notice that I’ve drawn many of this week’s headlines from UK sources. Needless to say, across the pond they are following the ethics of judges and lawyers as much as we do here at the LER!

Announcing the Legal Ethics & Democracy Tracker

Having trouble keeping track of the many ongoing and emerging cases involving legal ethics and democracy? I’ve started a tracker here with a list of matters I’m watching. I hope you find it helpful.

And now for the headlines…you get sixteen this week. (Maybe it is time to turn the weekly ‘top ten’ into at least a ‘top fifteen’?)

Highlights from Last Week – Top Ten Sixteen Headlines

#1 “With New Decree, Trump Seeks to Cow the Legal Profession. A Presidential Memorandum Aimed at Lawyers Everywhere Struck a Menacing Tone.” From the New York Times: “President Trump broadened his campaign of retaliation against lawyers he dislikes with a new memorandum that threatens to use government power to punish any law firms that, in his view, unfairly challenge his administration. The memorandum directs the heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to ‘seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States’ or in matters that come before federal agencies. Mr. Trump issued the order late Friday night, after a tumultuous week for the American legal community in which one of the country’s premier firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, struck a deal with the White House to spare the company from a punitive decree issued by Mr. Trump the previous week. Vanita Gupta, who as a civil rights lawyer and a former Justice Department official has both sued the government and defended it in court, said Mr. Trump’s memo ‘attacks the very foundations of our legal system by threatening and intimidating litigants who aim to hold our government accountable to the law and the Constitution.’” Read more here (gift link).

#2 “Lawyers Revolt” Over Attacks on the Legal System. Two headlines for #2. First, from the Law Society Gazette (UK): “Hundreds of associates from leading US firms have joined the chorus of protest against president Donald Trump’s attacks on the legal sector, saying they will lead where their employers have failed. No major law firm has issued any public statement since the Trump administration started issuing orders against certain firms restricting their security clearance and restricting access to government contracts. … Associates from many of those firms are among the almost 500 signatories to an open letter condemning Trump’s actions. The letter, signed anonymously by associates but with their firm and qualifying year included, accuses the executive of having ‘launched an all-out attack aimed at dismantling rule-of-law norms, including by censuring individual law firms by name because of past representation.’ The letter continues: ‘Our hope was that our employers, some of the most profitable law firms in the world, would lead the way. That has not yet been the case, but it still very much can be.’” Read more here. [Side note: As of 03.24.25, the letter has nearly 1,400 signatures.] Second, from the Global Legal Post (UK): “Campaigning Skadden associate resigns citing Big Law’s failure to challenge Trump’s attacks on law firms.” Read more here.

#3 “Top US Supreme Court Justice Rebukes Trump’s Call to Impeach Judge.” From the BBC: “The chief justice of the US Supreme Court has released a rare statement in response to President Donald Trump’s call to impeach a judge who ruled against his administration over migrant deportations. ‘For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,’ Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement. He added that the ‘normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.’” Read more here.

#4 “Trump Rescinds Order Targeting Law Firm After It Makes $40M Promise.” Two headlines from the UK for #4 and two from the US. First, from the BBC: “President Donald Trump has rescinded an executive order targeting a prestigious international law firm after it promised to abandon diversity policies and provide $40m (£31m) worth of free legal work to support White House initiatives. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP is a multinational law firm headquartered in New York that has many high-profile clients. Trump’s 14 March executive order had terminated federal contracts with the firm and suspended security clearances for its lawyers, saying it was undermining the US judicial system. Trump has issued similar executive orders against the law firms Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling. The White House rescinded the order on Thursday after a meeting between Trump and Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton.” Read more here. Second, from The Guardian: “Inside the White House, advisers to Donald Trump reveled in their ability to bully Paul, Weiss – one of the largest law firms in the US – and see its chair criticize a former partner as he tried to appease the US president into rescinding an executive order that threatened the firm’s ability to function.” Read more here. Third, over at his Legal Ethics Stuff Substack, Brad Wendel (Cornell) called this a “disgraceful capitulation.” Fourth, it is well worth your time to read Karp’s email to his fellow lawyers explaining why negotiating rather than litigating was in the best interest of their clients and the firm, courtesy of David Lat at his Original Jurisdiction Substack. Here’s an excerpt:

Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients. In particular, it threatened our clients with the loss of their government contracts, and the loss of access to the government, if they continued to use the firm as their lawyers. And in an obvious effort to target all of you as well as the firm, it raised the specter that the government would not hire our employees.

We were hopeful that the legal industry would rally to our side, even though it had not done so in response to executive orders targeting other firms. We had tried to persuade other firms to come out in public support of Covington and Perkins Coie. And we waited for firms to support us in the wake of the President’s executive order targeting Paul, Weiss. Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys.

We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm. But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration. We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn’t erase it. Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.

At the same time, we learned that the Administration might be willing to reach a resolution with us. So, working with our outside counsel, we did exactly what we advise our clients to do in “bet the company” litigation every day: we talked with the Administration to see if we could achieve a lasting settlement that would not require us to compromise our core values and fundamental principles.

#5 Ethics Complaint Tossed Against Federal Judge Who Critiqued Trump on CNN Over Judiciary Attacks. From Reuters: “A U.S. judge has been cleared of alleged wrongdoing for going on CNN to speak out against threats made against members of the judiciary and respond to Donald Trump’s comments about the daughter of the judge who presided over the New York case in which the now-president was convicted last year. The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit Judicial Council threw out two ethics complaints against Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton in Washington. It found that Walton did not talk about the merits of any legal case, but commented only on Trump’s statements made on social media about Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over the New York criminal case, and his family.” Read more here.

#6 “Big Firms Under Fire as Trump’s Diversity Purge Takes Aim at Legal Sector.” From the Law Society Gazette (UK): “US president Donald Trump has continued his attack on the legal sector with leading law firms being ordered to show they are not discriminating through their diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The federal government’s US Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has written to 20 firms requesting information about equality practices. The list includes A&O Shearman, Hogan Lovells and Freshfields – as well as global firm Perkins Coie which was last week made subject to an executive order restricting its access to government work. The latest move has prompted the International Bar Association to condemn what it calls the ‘ongoing erosion of the rule of law.’” Read more here.

#7 “Colorado Lawmakers Funded an Office to Handle Complaints Against Judges. No One Set It Up.” From KUNC: “In the wake of an alleged blackmail scandal that roiled the state judicial branch, the Colorado legislature in 2023 created an independent office to help ensure it didn’t happen again. But two years later, the ombudsman office still doesn’t exist — and it’s not clear why. The apparent oversight came to light this week when a legislative budget staffer — looking line by line for things to cut from the state’s operating budget to close a $1.2 billion shortfall — discovered an oddity: a $400,000 budget for an agency that had no employees, hadn’t made a budget request and didn’t appear to exist anywhere but on paper.” Read more here.

#8 “Fix the Court Sues State Department Over FOIA on Justices’ Travel Abroad.” From Fix the Court: “Fix the Court sued the U.S. Department of State in federal court today over an unfulfilled Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on Supreme Court justices’ international travel.” Read more here.

#9 “Attorney’s ‘Egregious’ Conduct Warrants Disbarment, Not Suspension, Florida Supreme Court Says.” From the ABA Journal: “The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that a Palm Beach County, Florida, attorney should be disbarred over professional misconduct, despite a referee’s recommendation that he only receive a 91-day suspension. In its March 13 opinion, the Florida Supreme Court said Malik Leigh, a founding partner of Watson Leigh in Tallahassee, Florida, showed that he did not understand ‘the most fundamental legal doctrines or procedures.’ The state supreme court also said Leigh had ‘a propensity to flout court rules and orders’ despite receiving several warnings.” Read more here.

#10 On the Ethical Obligations of Lawyers and Judges to Preserve the Rule of Law. From Frank Bowman (Missouri) in Slate: “If confronted by apparent government attorney misconduct or apparent defiance of court orders, judges should first … insist on determining the facts. Do not accept vague unsworn platitudes. Put the relevant witnesses, including lawyers, on the stand under oath. … This alone would serve the immensely valuable purpose of advising the public of the judicial view of government misbehavior. Second, when appropriate, judges should use their civil contempt powers promptly and sternly. …Finally, if a reasonable basis exists to believe that government lawyers have misrepresented facts to the court or otherwise behaved unethically, judges should promptly refer offenders to disciplinary authorities of the court or the relevant state bar.” Read more here.

Bonus Headlines – Recusal Watch

The Trump administration is seeking the removal of judges in at least two of the cases where it was unhappy with a ruling. Here are headlines from the past week.

• “Trump Administration Sees Bias in a Judge and Tries to Push Her Off a Case.” From the New York Times: “The Trump administration filed a motion on Friday seeking to disqualify Judge Beryl A. Howell from presiding over a lawsuit brought by the law firm Perkins Coie over an executive order stripping its lawyers of their security clearances and denying them access to government buildings.” Read more here (gift link).
• “Judge James E. Boasberg Halted the Administration from Using an 18th-Century Law to Deport Migrants. Does a Constitutional Crisis Loom Between Trump and the Courts?” From the Washington Post: “Ignoring the usual practice of filing an appeal or an emergency writ of mandamus seeking higher appellate court review, the Justice Department also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reassign the case from Boasberg, accusing him of ‘micromanagement’ of the executive branch. The circuit court gave no sign it was considering the unusual request.” Read more here (gift link).

Where’s the Rest of the Roundup?

Revisit the “Welcome Back Edition” for an explanation of the new format. And keep an eye out for next month’s “First Monday Edition” with reading recommendations, analysis, reforms watch, jobs, events, and much more.

Get Hired

Did you miss the 100+ 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

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.