All lawsuits—including election-related actions—must be “grounded in fact, supported by law and free from improper motives,” according to an open letter signed by 125 past and current bar leaders when it was published Monday evening. (Image from Shutterstock)
All lawsuits—including election-related actions—must be “grounded in fact, supported by law and free from improper motives,” according to an open letter signed by 125 past and current bar leaders when it was published Monday evening.
“The courtroom is not a theater for unsubstantiated claims,” according to the letter.
Among the bar leaders who signed the letter are four people who identify themselves as former ABA presidents: R. William “Bill” Ide (1994-95), Dennis W. Archer (2003-2004), Laurel G. Bellows (2012-2013) and James R. Silkenat (2013-2014).
Mary Smith, who is the immediate past president of the ABA, also signed the letter but identified herself as a past president of the National Native American Bar Association.
Another former ABA president, Linda Klein, (2016-2017) also signed the letter but identified herself as a past president of the State Bar of Georgia.
Some members of the ABA Task Force for American Democracy organized the letter in their personal capacity.
U.S. News & World Report spoke with Monte E. Frank, a member of the ABA Task Force for American Democracy’s advisory commission. He said the letter is intended to remind lawyers that they are “oath-bound protectors of the Constitution and rule of law.”
“By having state bar and local bar and national bar leaders stand up and lead on this sends a very powerful message to those who are seeking to undermine the integrity of our elections,” said Frank, who signed the letter as a past president of the Connecticut Bar Association and the New England Bar Association.
After the 2020 presidential election, “some 628 legal cases were filed alleging fraud or impropriety, and they were overwhelmingly unsuccessful,” the letter said. Five lawyers connected to the cases were disbarred or suspended from law practice.
The baseless cases stirred confusion and anger, leading to threats against election workers, judges and others and likely contributing to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the letter said.
“Filing election-related lawsuits without a solid factual and legal foundation endangers the very institutions lawyers are oath-bound to defend,” the letter said. “In a functioning democracy, lawsuits are not weapons to spread distrust—they are tools for justice.”
The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday blocked Cobb County, Georgia, election officials from counting a block of absentee ballots if they are received after 7 p.m. on Election Day. (Image from Shutterstock)
The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday blocked Cobb County, Georgia, election officials from counting a block of absentee ballots if they are received after 7 p.m. on Election Day.
The Georgia Supreme Court affected Cobb County voters who requested ballots on time but did not receive them until shortly before Election Day. The state supreme court said any of those ballots received after 7 p.m. on Election Day should be kept separate but not counted.
More than 3,000 voters were affected, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Cobb County is a racially diverse suburban area north of Atlanta, according to Reuters.
Tori Silas, chair of the Cobb County Board of Elections and Registration, issued a statement noting that the Georgia Supreme Court order addressed only a motion for a stay, according to WSB-TV.
“We will anticipate the supreme court’s final ruling to see whether it ultimately allows these voters additional time to return their ballots or whether we must only count those received by the close of polls on Tuesday,” Silas said.
As a result of the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling, voters in suburban Cobb County should vote in person on Election Day or deliver their absentee ballots by 7 p.m. that day, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a Nov. 4 press release.
A lower court judge, Senior Judge Robert E. Flournoy III of Georgia, had extended the absentee deadline on Nov. 1 in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the ACLU of Georgia and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Georgia law requires ballots to be sent within three days of an application, according to the ACLU.
Flournoy had ordered the absentee ballots of affected Cobb County voters to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received by 5 p.m. on Nov. 8.
An Ohio lawyer mistakenly sent $550 via money transfer app Zelle to an Illinois resident, peppered him with emails and texts while a bank fraud department investigated, and then sued him after the money was returned. (Photo from Shutterstock)
An Ohio lawyer mistakenly sent $550 via money transfer app Zelle to an Illinois resident, peppered him with emails and texts while a bank fraud department investigated, and then sued him after the money was returned, according to an ethics complaint by the Dayton Bar Association.
An Oct. 31 ethics complaint alleges that Dayton, Ohio, lawyer Christine M. Baker violated attorney ethics rules by filing a lawsuit with false statements without basis in law or fact.
The ethics complaint also alleges that Baker engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law by “aggressively waging a campaign of attack” against the mistaken Zelle recipient and his wife.
Baker denied the allegations in an interview with the ABA Journal. Everything in the suit is true, she says, and one of its aims was to recover damages for the “serious legwork” that she did trying to get her money back.
Baker had intended to send $550 to her husband, Zachary Reynolds, on Sept. 19 and 20 in 2023. Instead, she typed an email address that apparently differed from her husband’s by one character and sent the money to an Illinois resident named Zack Reynolds, the ethics complaint says.
On Sept. 21, 2023, Reynolds in Illinois contacted his bank after noticing the mistaken transfer. He was informed that the bank’s fraud department would handle the matter, and he should not send funds related to the Zelle transfer.
By Sept. 22, 2023, Baker had learned Illinois Reynolds’ cellphone number, email address, personal address, employer, charity affiliations, wife’s identity, contact information for his wife’s employer and his wife’s email address.
According to the ethics complaint, Baker sent electronic communications Sept. 22, 2023, that allegedly included:
• A text to Illinois Reynolds, telling him that his retention of the money is “unlawful,” and if he did not return the money in 24 hours, “collection, garnishment and all available recovery methods will commence, including notifying your employer of your conduct.”
• Another text threatening to sue Illinois Reynolds, informing him that he is a “thief,” threatening to tell a charity affiliated with Reynolds that he committed a “theft,” and saying she should share the information with “anyone with a basic internet connection.”
• Yet another text telling Illinois Reynolds that he and his wife were being named in a civil action for unjust enrichment. The text included an address thought to be his “in an effort to intimidate” him and his wife, according to the complaint.
• An email threatening a suit to Illinois Reynolds’ wife, a third grade teacher, using her school email address.
In additional texts, Baker forwarded materials to Illinois Reynolds’ employer and co-worker “in an effort to cast him in a negative light and to disparage him,” the ethics complaint says.
On Sept. 24, 2023, Illinois Reynolds was advised that the funds were being returned to Baker.
“At no time did Mr. Reynolds try to prevent the funds from being returned or attempt to keep the funds,” the ethics complaint says. “He simply followed the advice of his bank about not returning the funds himself since the nature of the transaction was suspicious for fraud.”
The funds were available in Baker’s account Oct. 3, 2023, yet Baker filed suit Nov. 17, 2023, the ethics complaint says. She filed an amended suit in December 2023.
The suit was removed to federal court and dismissed without prejudice at her request, according to a February order.
Court records for Montgomery County, Ohio, indicate that Baker filed a new suit
for alleged defamation, conversion and emotional distress against Reynolds on Oct. 30.
Alleged false statements in the amended suit included:
• An allegation that Illinois Reynolds advised Baker “that he would take no steps to return the money.” In reality, Illinois Reynolds said, “Considering this is your error, I find your threats offensive, and they are noted. You can follow the appropriate channels with [name of his bank] to recoup your mistake.”
• An allegation that Illinois Reynolds told Baker that she would have to serve him with papers to recover her money. In reality, Reynolds said, “As I mentioned to you, as advised by my bank and attorney, [name of bank]’s fraud department is handling the dispute. … Based on your behavior, all involved assume this is a scam. If it’s not a scam, you should be ashamed and embarrassed by your behavior.” Baker responded by saying if Illinois Reynolds is represented by a lawyer, he should refer the lawyer to her. Reynolds responded, “I suggest you call [bank’s name] or formally serve me papers. I will no longer respond to any attempts to contact me.”
Baker told the Journal that the ethics charges are “if not inflated, falsified.”
“I think the DBA alleges that I filed a lawsuit with misleading or untruthful information, and that I didn’t cooperate with the DBA’s initial inquiry,” she says.
“I of course deny both of those claims. Everything I’ve ever said to anyone about this matter was, is and will always be true. I also was very cooperative with the Dayton Bar Association. What they referred to as my noncooperation was my request, rather insistence even, to meet with the Dayton Bar Association’s broader panel via Zoom,” she says.
Baker said her suit had claimed that Illinois Reynolds defamed her in statements during the Dayton Bar Association investigation and to a representative in Illinois. It also sought $2,500 in damages for conversion.
“Conversion is taking or keeping something that isn’t yours,” Baker says. Illinois Reynolds “told me that he wasn’t going to return my money unless I pursued it, and it took me hours of time to pursue it.”
“And for that, the DBA is responding I think disproportionately,” Baker says. The conversion allegation is “a true claim, it’s a claim with a basis in law and fact.”
Latham & Watkins and its client must pay an attorney-fee sanction for “flagrant violations of a protective order,” according to a federal judge in California. (Photo from Shutterstock)
Latham & Watkins and its client must pay an attorney-fee sanction for “flagrant violations of a protective order,” according to a federal judge in California.
U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee of the Central District of California ordered Latham and its then-client, former Banc of California CEO Steven A. Sugarman, to pay attorney fees incurred by investment company Muddy Waters Capital in a motion for sanctions, report Reuters and Law 360.
In a Sept. 30 order unsealed last Tuesday, Gee said Latham wrongly gave Sugarman an expert-witness report that relied on documents produced by Muddy Waters Capital that had been designated for “attorneys’ eyes only.” Sugarman then wrongly shared the report with others in a bid to implicate Muddy Waters Capital in a bid to devalue Banc of California stock, Gee concluded. Latham had designated the report as “confidential,” rather than for “attorneys’ eyes only.”
The underlying litigation was a securities class action lawsuit by investors who alleged a failure to disclose harmful information that led to a decrease in stock price. The information, revealed in an anonymous blog post, consisted of allegations that Banc of California had ties to a fraudster.
Sugarman subpoenaed Muddy Waters Capital based on his belief that it may have been among market participants who were aware of the blog post in advance because they had short positions that would benefit from a decrease in stock price. Muddy Waters Capital produced documents about its Banc of California transactions in response to an order saying the material would be for attorneys’ eyes only.
The report that relied on the attorneys-eyes-only information was prepared by a professor who was asked to provide an opinion on why the bank’s stock price decreased. He concluded that traders engaged in a “short-and-distort” trading scheme.
Sugarman said he didn’t think that the expert report contained information for attorneys’ eyes only, and it was his confidential document. He said he didn’t recall authorizing an employee to disseminate it. Gee nonetheless found Sugarman in civil contempt, saying his conduct “was not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the protective order.”
Latham claimed that the expert report did not include information derived from attorneys-eyes-only material, but that argument “is obviously wrong,” Gee said. The law firm alternatively argued that civil contempt wasn’t warranted for “a technical error during a yearslong, incredibly complex litigation requiring near-daily application of the protective order.”
“This argument,” Gee said, “undermines the critical importance of complying with protective orders in civil litigation—and minimizes the degree of care that must be exercised in ensuring compliance.”
Gee acknowledged, however, that “there is insufficient evidence to suggest that Latham acted in bad faith as opposed to in serious error.”
A Latham spokesperson declined to comment to the ABA Journal. A lawyer for Sugarman, Mona Hanna of Michelman & Robinson, did not immediately respond to the Journal’s emailed request for comment.
Attorney Marc Elias stands outside the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix in August 2016, after a hearing for a lawsuit against Arizona over voting rights. (Photo by David Jolkovski for the Washington Post via Getty Images)
“In his three-decade career,” the New York Times reports in a profile, Elias “has arguably done more than any single person outside government to shape the Democratic Party and the rules under which all campaigns and elections in the United States are conducted.”
Supporters celebrate Elias’ many victories, including his fight against efforts to overturn the 2020 election and two significant decisions last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, the New York Times says. This year, Elias “has been in the middle” of Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign’s response to dozens of Republican lawsuits challenging voting rules.
“My team of lawyers is better than the GOP’s,” Elias recently bragged, as recounted by the Hill. “And we’re ready to beat them again in 2024.”
Elias was similarly combative when Republicans recently targeted him in an ad campaign highlighting his work to keep third-party candidates off ballots. The campaign portrayed Elias as a hypocrite for trying to eliminate voter choice, according to the New York Times. Elias responded in a social media post.
“Republicans hate me because I stand up to them and fight. I wear their scorn like a badge of honor,” Elias wrote.
Elias grew up suburban New York, according to the New York Times profile. His father was a small-business owner and both parents were “New Deal Democrats,” he once told Roll Call. He has a law degree and a master’s degree in political science from Duke University.
Elias joined Perkins Coie after law school and became leader of its political law practice in 2009. In that role, the New York Times says, he “expanded its team of lawyers, its client roster and its profits while becoming increasingly influential with key Democratic leaders.”
Elias left Perkins Coie and formed the Elias Law Group in 2021 following controversy over his involvement in the hiring of opposition research company Fusion GPS. That company compiled a dossier with “largely debunked” allegations about former President Donald Trump’s Russia connections, the New York Times says. The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the research without their knowledge.
Elias took more than 40 Perkins Coie lawyers with him to form his new law firm.
Firm members helped achieve two Supreme Court victories. In one, the Supreme Court struck down a congressional map that diluted Black voting strength in Alabama. In the other, the Supreme Court rejected the “independent state legislature” theory contending that state legislatures have the exclusive power to regulate congressional elections. The high court ruled that state courts have the power to review congressional maps created by state legislatures.
In a controversial move in January, the Elias Law Group asked the Federal Election Commission to allow a political action committee funded by billionaire George Soros to coordinate with Democratic campaigns and party committees in Texas for voter turnout efforts.
The FEC approved the petition. It wasn’t long before the Trump campaign used the opinion to coordinate with groups funded by Tesla CEO Elon Musk and other wealthy donors, according to the New York Times.
One critic is Tom Moore, a former chief of staff for a Democratic member of the FEC who opposed the petition.
“Opening the money faucets up as wide as they go strikes me as a bad idea for Democrats because Republicans just have a bigger faucet,” Moore told the New York Times.
Elias responded to the New York Times in a statement.
“I am proud of my record in fighting back against Republican voter suppression, election subversion and gerrymandering in court,” he said.
Dhl Infrabulls Pvt Ltd Through Director … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2024
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhl Infrabulls Pvt Ltd Through Director … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:31167
1 WP-34242-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 29th OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 34242 of 2024
DHL INFRABULLS PVT LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR SANJEEV
JAISWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
ORDER
As per the directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the matter is placed
before this Court.
After arguing for some while, learned counsel for the petitioner prays
for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to challenge the
demarcation report dated 07/10/2024 before appropriate forum, however,
prayed for grant of interim relief for a limited period.
Prayer is not opposed by learned Government Advocate appearing on
advance copy.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Keeping
in view the fact that there is a dispute in respect of identification of land
bearing Survey No.118, Village Sumrakhedi, the petitioner is granted liberty
to approach the competent Civil / Revenue Court for challenging the
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 10/29/2024 4:07:55 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:31167
2 WP-34242-2024
Demarcation Report (Annex.-P/3) and if any such action is taken by the
petitioner, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. In the
meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain status quo for a period of 15
days from today.
With the aforesaid, present petition is disposed of.
Certified copy today itself.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Tej
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 10/29/2024 4:07:55 PM
