Prosecutor ‘poisoned the morale’ of DA’s office with fake harassment texts, disbarment order says


Ethics

Prosecutor ‘poisoned the morale’ of DA’s office with fake harassment texts, disbarment order says

A former prosecutor in Colorado should be disbarred for faking four texts that she attributed to a co-worker, including one referring to her as a “sex doll,” according to a Dec. 31 hearing board opinion. (Image from Shutterstock)

A former prosecutor in Colorado should be disbarred for faking four texts that she attributed to a co-worker, including one referring to her as a “sex doll,” according to a Dec. 31 hearing board opinion.

Yujin Choi of Denver fabricated the texts in October 2022 to make it appear that the co-worker was harassing her and then “doubled down on that deceit” by intentionally altering evidence, according to the hearing board, which is part of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge.

Choi allegedly doctored cellphone records and repeatedly deleted the texts. She claimed that her cellphone stopped working when she accidentally dropped it in the bathtub and asserted that her laptop also broke when she accidentally spilled water on it.

“In our view, this narrative is not plausible,” the opinion said.

Choi “pursued a personal vendetta” against the co-worker, criminal investigator Dan Hines, “by launching an informal smear campaign” for reasons “that remain opaque to us,” the hearing board said.

The New York Times, Law360, the Denver Post and Ars Technica (via the Legal Profession Blog) have coverage.

Choi, who was admitted to practice in May 2019, can appeal the decision. She was a deputy district attorney in the Denver district attorney’s family violence unit before she was fired for the alleged misconduct.

Choi sent the four texts to herself, changing the name in her cellphone to make it appear the co-worker was the sender, the hearing board concluded. It was the second time that she had accused Hines.

The first time, in 2021, Choi claimed that Hines had made an inappropriate remark in June 2021, and that he later sent a text that she considered to be harassing. An investigation was closed as unsubstantiated. Hines was nonetheless transferred within the office and told to avoid contact with Choi.

The texts at issue in the ethics opinion surfaced in October 2022. Choi was at a bar with friends when she showed them a text. It read: “Yujin, please stop talking about what I didn’t do to our colleagues. You are using your looks against innocent people. If you want to act like a sex doll to get a sugar daddy … fine, but that will not be me.”

Choi claimed that there were three more texts, all from Hines. They read, “Don’t be stupid,” “Let’s talk,” and “I’m sorry, hope you have a nice weekend.”

By disseminating the texts to co-workers and supervisors, Choi “perpetrated a false and harmful narrative that Hines had sexually harassed her by sending her these messages,” the opinion said.

Choi said she didn’t want the matter investigated, but her supervisors felt a duty to do so and required cooperation. When Hines was confronted with the texts, he logged in to his Verizon account to provide cellphone records and offered his iPhone for investigation. There was no indication that Hines sent the texts, the hearing board said.

Official records obtained directly from Verizon indicated that Choi sent and received the fourth text message in the Hines text thread at the time that she claimed to have received it, leading the hearing board to conclude that she also sent the first three messages. The first text displayed a time stamp indicating that it was sent more than 40 minutes after Choi texted a supervisor about it.

The damage included harm to Hines’ reputation and betrayal of co-workers who advocated for her during the investigation, the decision said.

Choi “poisoned the morale of the DA’s office, contributing to an environment in which victims feared they might be disbelieved and others feared they might be wrongly accused,” the hearing board said. “Further, her actions called into question whether the evidence in the criminal cases she prosecuted was genuine,” tarnished the reputation of prosecutors, and potentially undermined the credibility of sexual harassment victims.

A counselor had diagnosed Choi with post-traumatic stress disorder and vicarious trauma caused by Choi’s emotionally taxing work in the family violence unit. Her lawyers did not immediately respond to ABA Journal emails seeking comment.

Hines told the Denver Post that he “wouldn’t wish this upon anybody,” and he was “living in hell” after Choi’s first accusation. He has sued the Denver district attorney over the handling of the investigation.

The district attorney’s office later determined that Choi’s casework was in “excellent order” with no evidence of fabrication, a spokesperson told the New York Times. The office also thinks that the investigation was properly handled, the spokesperson said.





Source link

Arizona judge who championed domestic violence survivors dies at 77


Obituaries

Arizona judge who championed domestic violence survivors dies at 77

Judge Elizabeth “Ellie” Finn served as a judge for more than 42 years before her retirement in 2021. (Photo from the City of Glendale)

Judge Elizabeth “Ellie” Finn, a champion of specialized courts who served as a judge in Arizona for more than 42 years, died Dec. 27 at age 77.

The ABA Journal featured Finn in its Members Who Inspire series in September, highlighting her work establishing the Glendale Mental Health Court in Glendale, Arizona, and crafting domestic violence legislation in the state.

Finn served as the presiding judge of the Glendale City Court in Glendale, Arizona, for the last 18 years of her career and wrote about her role for the Journal’s Defending Justice series.

“When I was appointed, the mayor and council indicated they did not really know what occurs at the court,” Finn wrote. “I realized an important aspect of my position would be that of a communicator, ensuring transparency and that there are no surprises.”

In addition, Finn had been active in the ABA since joining the association in 2005. She was a member of the House of Delegates and of the Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence. Finn was also a former chair of the National Conference of Specialized Court Judges and served on its executive committee. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer shortly after attending the ABA Annual Meeting in 2022.

“She was a dedicated passionate advocate and strong believer in the good work of the ABA and CDSV in advancing education of judges and lawyers on domestic violence, as well as advancing protective policies for survivors,” says Vivian Huelgo, a former chief counsel for the commission.

When asked why she became so involved with domestic violence policy, Finn told the Journal that it did not stem from personal experience with the issue or with a survivor.

“It was just something where I saw a need and felt like I could do something to help,” she said.

Finn is survived by her husband, Edward Turner, and her children, Sarah Turner and Jesse Turner. According to her obituary, Finn “enjoyed traveling with her husband, particularly to Southern California for the boating life. Her recreational passions included reading mystery and romance novels, dancing and officiating weddings for friends and family.”

Finn’s memorial service will be at the Glendale Civic Center on Jan. 12 at 1 p.m., followed by a reception. The family asks that in lieu of flowers, donations be made to A New Leaf, an Arizona nonprofit supporting the homeless and survivors of domestic violence.





Source link

Oregon law barring secret audio recordings does not violate First Amendment, en banc appeals court says


First Amendment

Oregon law barring secret audio recordings does not violate First Amendment, en banc appeals court says

A federal appeals court has tossed a challenge to an Oregon law that generally bans secret audio recordings. (Image from Shutterstock)

A federal appeals court has tossed a challenge to an Oregon law that generally bans secret audio recordings.

The en banc 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco ruled Tuesday that the conversational privacy law does not violate the First Amendment.

Law360, Reuters, the Volokh Conspiracy and the Legal Profession Blog have coverage.

The Oregon law generally requires people making an audio recording to notify the target. It was challenged by the activist group Project Veritas, which uses undercover journalism in support of its conservative message.

The law’s “relatively modest notice requirement” is narrowly tailored to a significant government interest in letting Oregon residents know when their conversations are being recorded, the appeals court said in the 9-2 decision.

Judge Morgan Christen, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote the majority opinion.

“Because Oregon’s statute does not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint or restrict discussion of an entire topic, we conclude it is content neutral, and that it survives intermediate scrutiny,” Christen wrote.

The Oregon law has several exceptions to the ban on unannounced audio recordings.

One exception allows oral recordings of conversations during a felony that endangers a human life. Another allows audio recordings of conversations by a law enforcement officer performing official duties in plain view, when the person making the recording has a lawful right to be there. Yet another allows open audio recordings at public gatherings and in private meetings in which participants can reasonably expect that they are recorded.

The 9th Circuit said the law is content neutral because it does not draw distinctions based on a speaker’s viewpoint and was not enacted because of disagreement with a speaker’s message. It also allows other alternatives that allow a would-be recorder to disseminate a message.

“Project Veritas retains numerous alternative channels to engage in its journalistic speech activities,” the 9th Circuit said. “It may employ all the traditional tools of investigative reporting, including talking with sources, reviewing records, taking photographs, recording videos openly during public and semi-public meetings and events, recording videos that do not capture oral conversations, recording conversations after announcing it is doing so, and making use of Oregon’s freedom-of-information laws.

“Project Veritas may have its reporters go undercover and report on what they have seen and heard—without secretly recording its targets—as journalists have done for centuries.”

Project Veritas lawyer Benjamin Barr said his client will seek review with the U.S. Supreme Court. He told Law360 that the decision upholds the “broadest recording law in the nation” and “suffocates a reporter’s ability to investigate corruption and work with whistleblowers.”

The case is Project Veritas v. Schmidt.





Source link

Alito says his phone call with Trump concerned former clerk


U.S. Supreme Court

Alito says his phone call with Trump concerned former clerk

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said he spoke with President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday to provide a job reference for one of his former law clerks. (Photo by J. Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press)

Updated: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said he spoke with President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday to provide a job reference for one of his former law clerks.

Alito said in a statement the ex-clerk, William Levi, had asked him to take the phone call, according to ABC News, which broke the story.

Stories followed in publications that include the New York Times, Reuters, CNN and Fox News.

Levi formerly work as chief of staff to then-U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr during Trump’s first presidency. He is now being considered for a government position in the new administration.

A day after the phone call, lawyers for Trump asked the Supreme Court to stay his Friday sentencing for allegedly falsifying business records to conceal a hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors said the payment violated a New York law barring use of unlawful means to promote a candidacy—in this case, Trump’s presidential bid in 2016.

Alito said Wednesday, however, that the case was not discussed.

“We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed,” Alito said in the statement. “We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the president-elect.”

On Thursday evening, the Supreme Court denied Trump’s emergency application in a 5-4 vote. Alito, who did not recuse himself, voted with Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh in favor of granting Trump’s request to delay his Friday sentencing. They did not indicate their reasoning in the unsigned order.

Updated on Jan. 9 at 9:05 p.m. to note Justice Samuel Alito’s vote on Donald Trump’s emergency application.





Source link

KPMG asks Arizona to OK alternative business license for subsidiary law firm


Practice Management

KPMG asks Arizona to OK alternative business license for subsidiary law firm

A subsidiary of accounting company KPMG US is applying to operate as an alternative business structure in Arizona under state ethics rules that permit nonlawyers to own or invest in law firms. (Photo from Shutterstock)

A subsidiary of accounting company KPMG US is applying to operate as an alternative business structure in Arizona under state ethics rules that permit nonlawyers to own or invest in law firms.

If approved by the Arizona Supreme Court, KPMG Law US would complement the services of traditional firms, a spokesperson told Law.com, Bloomberg Law and Reuters.

Legal teams “face substantial and wide-ranging process challenges that can benefit from legal expertise and technology at scale,” KPMG said in a statement emailed to Law.com. “We aim to solve those pain points, especially on tight timelines.”

The aim is to “bring legal capabilities to managed services, such as contract lifecycle management,” the spokesperson told Bloomberg Law.

Approval would be “a game changer,” according to Law.com.

KPMG Law already offers legal services globally in more than 80 jurisdictions and has more than 3,750 employees. But bans on nonlawyer ownership of firms in most states have prevented companies such as KPMG from offering legal advice with its law-related services in the United States.

The Arizona Supreme Court’s Committee on Alternative Business Structures will consider the proposal Jan. 14. The state supreme court has the final say on approval.

Arizona has already approved more than 100 alternative business structures, but they “have largely been granted to firms practicing personal injury, mass torts and products liability law, as well as trusts, estates and probate law,” according to Law.com.

See also:

KPMG aims to employ 3,000 lawyers within the next few years

Pilot project allowing nonlawyer legal providers gets OK in Washington





Source link

2025 Outlook for Legal Leaders: It’s time to focus on big-picture strategies


For far too long, legal departments have been considered the slow-moving arm of the business. This presumption is true for many reasons—chief among them the fact that the legal department’s primary role is to balance risk with opportunity. Such responsibility often requires endless hours spent analyzing massive amounts of contract data to forecast potential gains and minimize losses.

But with the advent of generative AI, many processes that slowed down the legal arm of the business can be rapidly accelerated, especially when it comes to an organization’s contract data analysis and management systems. In fact, now that our industry has a much clearer vision of what generative AI can do—and how it can improve contract management workflows—tedious routine tasks that previously took up an exorbitant amount of time can be completed in a matter of minutes. These advancements have major implications for the legal department and its impact on the rest of the organization.

As we begin 2025, three emerging trends point to a future where legal teams will have the insights they need to play an integral role in their organization’s revenue goals. Here’s a look at how these shifts will transform legal work, freeing legal leaders from redundant, time-consuming tasks to focus on big-picture strategies.

1. Modern-day legal teams will be more agile, allowing them to move at the new speed of business

Generative AI has ushered in a new era of contract management strategies. With the right solutions in place, legal teams can become more agile and effective, supercharging productivity in ways that were unimaginable less than two years ago. But before legal teams can take advantage of generative AI solutions that are actually useful versus just being cool, business leaders must be more thoughtful about their AI investments and implementations.

It’s imperative businesses understand and lean into effective data grounding efforts to avoid “garbage in, garbage out” scenarios often associated with the large language models powering today’s more popular generative AI platforms. Data grounding will be a key factor in generative AI’s ability to deliver accurate and high-value outputs within contract management programs. Once teams are able to prioritize their data grounding efforts, tasks that took months to accomplish will be completed in minutes. Generating first drafts, writing clauses based on playbook analysis, searching endlessly for contracts that are often kept in disparate systems—these are just a few use cases where generative AI will drive productivity across legal workflows and processes.

Justin Schweisberger headshot_400px
Justin Schweisberger leads sales, marketing and strategic partnerships for Pramata, a leading end-to-end contract management platform.

2. Contract data will be recognized as a business-critical asset, unlocking unrealized revenue gains and new levels of growth

Contract data is not only the key to unlocking cost-saving opportunities, it is also one of the largest sources of untapped revenue for organizations that haven’t optimized their contract management programs. From identifying revenue leakage and overspending on vendors to developing more profitable contract provisions and renewal terms, there are a multitude of ways that contract data can drive massive revenue gains. Unfortunately, most CLM platforms fail to provide high-value insights that can move the needle on their organization’s most important goals.

But the tides are turning. Effective enterprise-grade contract AI solutions are changing the game when it comes to how legal teams leverage their contract data. With full visibility into their contracts—along with tools that can automate complex data analysis—forward-thinking legal teams will be able to realize the organization’s contracts as the business-critical asset they are.

Before legal teams can maximize the value of their contract data, it’s imperative that their contract management solutions come equipped with a contract-AI knowledge engine to avoid the “garbage-in, garbage-out” challenges often associated with generative AI tools. It is also important that CLM software includes an AI-powered repository that enables legal teams to expertly organize their contracts and extract key insights from a centralized—and searchable—database. Another key component of an effective contract management platform is ensuring it is not only intuitive, but accessible to stakeholders outside of the legal department, including sales leaders, finance teams, and the procurement department.

3. Enterprise-grade contract AI will allow legal leaders to achieve outcomes that go far beyond the legal department

The introduction of enterprise-grade contract AI technology makes it possible to extend the value of contract data well beyond the legal department. With the right platforms in place, sales, procurement and finance teams will gain access to previously unavailable contract insights that get them closer to their most important goals. Legal teams can turn contract data into revenue drivers, while procurement teams can better manage vendor relationships. Sales can optimize renewal terms within customer contracts and close deals faster, while finance leaders can rely on contract data to identify cost saving opportunities, as well as find—and stop!—revenue leakage.

The reality is now that legal leaders have a more realistic view of generative AI’s capabilities and limitations, they are better positioned to implement processes that maximize the value of their contract data.

One key benefit of the modern-day legal departments will be the ability to create self-service contract management solutions that can be used by business leaders outside of the legal department, including the CFO and head of sales. And that’s the real promise of enterprise-grade contract AI: delivering unhindered access to valuable contract data to the people who can activate it and drive measurable revenue growth.

There’s no question that the future of legal work is undergoing massive shifts. Legal leaders are reconsidering how work gets done and being more intentional about how they integrate generative AI solutions into their workflows. For the teams that are able to capitalize on these shifts—finally able to take full advantage of their contract data—the sky is the limit.


Justin Schweisberger leads sales, marketing and strategic partnerships for Pramata, a leading end-to-end contract management platform. In this role, Schweisberger sets the company’s global market positioning and forges Pramata’s relationships with some of the world’s top brands.


Mind Your Business is a series of columns written by lawyers, legal professionals and others within the legal industry. The purpose of these columns is to offer practical guidance for attorneys on how to run their practices, provide information about the latest trends in legal technology and how it can help lawyers work more efficiently, and strategies for building a thriving business.


Interested in contributing a column? Send a query to [email protected].


This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.





Source link