See the Video: Lawyer calls appeals judge ‘honey’ in heat of oral arguments, struggles to continue

See the Video: Lawyer calls appeals judge ‘honey’ in heat of oral arguments, struggles to continue


Appellate Practice

See the Video: Lawyer calls appeals judge ‘honey’ in heat of oral arguments, struggles to continue

An appellate lawyer has gained internet fame after he called a female judge “honey” during the heat of oral arguments before the Colorado Court of Appeals last week. (Image from Shutterstock)

An appellate lawyer has gained internet fame after he called a female judge “honey” during the heat of oral arguments before the Colorado Court of Appeals last week.

“But, but, honey,” he said before catching himself.

“Oh, my God, I’m sorry,” he said. “That, that—I don’t know what to say to that. I apologize.”

Above the Law and Irish Legal News are among the publications with stories about the incident, captured in a video clip that is circulating online. The lawyer was representing Colorado in a criminal appeal in a sexual assault case.

Colorado Judge Elizabeth L. Harris told the lawyer to continue, but he struggled to gather his thoughts.

“I’m sorry, I’ve just been totally thrown by my mistake,” he said.

“I can imagine,” Harris replied. “I’m a little thrown by that also if I’m being honest.”

Later in the video not included in the circulating clip, the lawyer said he apologizes “profusely,” according to Irish Legal News.

“My brain didn’t turn on,” he explains.

Irish Legal News identified the lawyer as William Kozeliski of Colorado, which appears to be the name that he states before beginning his argument.

The ABA Journal tried to email Kozeliski and received an out-of-the-office email in reply.

The full video is available by searching for the word “Delgato” on this website. The case, People v. Delgato, focsued on whether a man’s criminal convictions should have been imposed consecutively or concurrently, according to Irish Legal News.

I need all of #lawsky to see this video from a Colorado appeals court livestream yesterday. I am in actual tears. Sound *incredibly* on, the subtitles will not help.

[image or embed]

— Mrs. Detective Pikajew, Esq. (@clapifyoulikeme.favrd.social) June 18, 2025 at 9:47 PM





Source link

Florida judge discussed federal judgeship before ruling for Trump, getting nominated, articles report

Florida judge discussed federal judgeship before ruling for Trump, getting nominated, articles report


Judiciary

Florida judge discussed federal judgeship before ruling for Trump, getting nominated, articles report

Judge Ed Artau of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida was nominated for a federal judgeship after serving on a panel that refused to toss a defamation case filed by President Donald Trump. (Photo from the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida)

A Florida appeals judge was nominated for a federal judgeship after serving on a panel that refused to toss a defamation case filed by President Donald Trump.

Politico and Bloomberg Law allege that Judge Ed Artau of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida was discussing his desire for a nomination before his concurrence in the case and the nomination that followed.

“A Florida state judge was lobbying for a seat on the federal bench,” alleged Politico, which broke the news. “After he sided with the president in a defamation case, Donald Trump gave him one.”

Artau’s concurrence cited Trump’s “fake news” claim and suggested overruling U.S. Supreme Court precedent that makes it more difficult for public figures to sue for defamation.

The stories are based on Artau’s Senate Judiciary Questionnaire made public by Accountable.US, a progressive group. The online links to the questionnaire published by Accountable.US, Bloomberg Law and Politico no longer work.

The articles have the timeline.

Artau met the general counsel for Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida in November 2024 to discuss his interest in the federal appointment, the articles report. On Feb. 12, Artau concurred in a panel decision allowing Trump’s lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board to continue. Artau met with the White House counsel’s office Feb. 27, and he was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May.

Artau said in his Senate disclosure that no one involved in the selection process discussed pending cases or legal issues with him in a way that could be interpreted as seeking assurances about his position.

Trump sued Pulitzer Prize Board members after they rejected his request to rescind the award that it gave to the New York Times and the Washington Post for reporting on alleged Russian election interference in the 2016 presidential election. The board said it conducted reviews finding that no assertions in the winning submissions were discredited after the prize was awarded.

Trump sued for defamation and conspiracy. Board members sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction because only one board member lived in Florida. The appeals court allowed the suit to continue, finding sufficient contacts with the state.

Artau’s concurrence agreed that the Florida courts had jurisdiction. But he said the merits of Trump’s claims are crucial to the analysis.

The board’s statement is actionable as fact, rather than opinion, he said. Artau also said the statement constitutes defamation by implication because, as the suit asserted, the statement falsely implied that the newspaper reports were true, even though they “reported the individual components of the Russia collusion hoax all wrong,” and the reports were “exposed as utter fiction.”

“In other words,” Artau wrote, “the board members vouched for the truth of reporting that had been debunked by all credible sources charged with investigating the false claim that the president colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election.”

Artau also said the Supreme Court should revisit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which required actual malice for defamation suits against public officials.

Artau is a graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center and once worked as an associate at Proskauer Rose, according to his online bio. He is the son of Cuban immigrants, the Miami Herald reports.

Artau did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email requesting comment sent to an address listed by the Florida Bar. The Florida courts did not immediately respond to the Journal’s request to speak with Artau.





Source link

How legal ops teams are evolving and the tech trends driving change in an uncertain era

How legal ops teams are evolving and the tech trends driving change in an uncertain era


Ari Kaplan recently spoke with Will Seaton, the chief customer officer at DraftWise; Dan Wallace, the vice president of sales for the North American markets at Neota Logic; and Laura Wenzel, the global marketing and insights director at iManage.

The three companies are part of a consortium supporting a new report featuring the perspectives of 31 legal operations leaders titled Redefining Legal Operations to Adapt to Uncertainty and Change.

They discussed the most compelling results, how legal operations teams are evolving, and the technology trends driving change in an uncertain era.

Ari Kaplan: Eighty-four percent of the respondents confirm that the role of the legal operations professional has expanded. What is changing?

Laura Wenzel: This is our third year doing this research with you, and every year, I continue to feel excited and enthusiastic about the responses we’re receiving from legal leaders. Their roles are truly changing, and this research continues to confirm that. It’s beneficial to reflect on how the legal function is evolving and maturing. They are becoming much more proactive and engaged in critical conversations regarding business strategy. With the rise of gen AI, there’s significant recognition, as this research also highlights, that the skill sets and capabilities within the legal operations function are evolving, as well. They’re being challenged to enhance their data analytics skills and strategic thinking, and we’re also beginning to see a growing interest in developing knowledge management expertise. This reinforces the idea that legal operations teams are becoming much more mature and proactive in participating in and driving important strategic decisions, which have historically been handled by business stakeholders. In the past, legal was more reactive and task-oriented, but this research clearly illustrates its maturation and evolution across various enterprises.

Ari Kaplan: What’s driving the evolution of legal operations beyond traditional process improvement?

Will Seaton is the chief customer officer at DraftWise; Dan Wallace is the vice president of sales for the North American markets at Neota Logic; and Laura Wenzel is the global marketing and insights director at iManage.

Will Seaton: This is a significant misconception about the implementation of AI in companies that we should discuss further. People say AI will help me do my job faster, and while that may be true for some tasks, the potential for learning, the ability to enhance what is available to partners within and outside the business, as well as your clients, is incredibly exciting. AI enables individuals to gain insights earlier in their careers and to spend more time analyzing either the risks to the business, the risks associated with individual contracts, or the risks present at scale, including how to respond to those risks. So yes, there is an efficiency aspect driving the appeal of utilizing this technology and rolling it out. However, efficiency is only part of the equation. The quality of drafting, the thoroughness of reviews, the safety of contracts, and reducing the risks to the business are all outcomes that will result from implementing AI in your organization.

Ari Kaplan: On a scale of one to five, with five being the highest, 48% of the participants rated the willingness of their professionals in legal and in the broader enterprise with whom they collaborate to learn a new tool that would transform the way they work at a four or a five. Is new technology getting easier to learn, or are teams just more willing to invest the time?

Dan Wallace: Change and change management has always been a difficult task, and people generally resist change. However, there’s a growing belief that you either get on the bus, or it will leave you behind. Technology is becoming more advanced and user-friendly. There’s a simplification in how people can leverage technology, making them more comfortable with it. This comfort is expected to increase over time, leading to greater adoption as more individuals engage with technology. From an automation perspective, particularly regarding task and workflow, there’s an evolution occurring. Many organizations have invested in solutions that are siloed, creating friction and manual efforts between them. The idea of orchestrating these existing investments is gaining traction. People are beginning to understand that the more time and effort they invest in connecting their siloed solutions, the greater the cross-functional benefits and efficiencies they will achieve in the future.

Ari Kaplan: Seventy-one percent of the legal departments represented in this research offer self-service tools for NDAs and legal intake, among other tasks. What is driving that interest?

Laura Wenzel: The fact that 71% are looking to develop self-service tools highlights the evolving skill set and the relationship with their stakeholders, shifting from a task-oriented, reactive legal function to a strategic partner that evaluates the entire business. As a result, legal leaders are forging new relationships with adjacent functions, such as ethics, compliance and HR, fostering a sense of trust. The idea of creating self-service tools grounded in trust is what’s truly motivating many legal leaders to develop these resources. It’s essential for all of us to cultivate the right skill set and understand our capabilities and limitations. Overall, this is critically important.

Ari Kaplan: How can legal operations teams balance automation with the need for responsible risk management?

Will Seaton: Legal operations teams have an opportunity to better manage risk across their business and the various departments they collaborate with by utilizing new technologies, such as agentic AI and generative AI. These tools can help define specific tasks that protect the business, enabling agents to focus on different design tasks and more strategic activities, including risk assessments. By automating some of the time-consuming implementation tasks associated with risk management, individuals can concentrate on more significant questions that they currently lack the time or capacity to address.

Ari Kaplan: 74% of the participating legal operations leaders reported that they prefer technology solutions that enable their business units to engage in self-service legal activities, and 94% would like to automate more tasks. How are you seeing teams balance automation and innovation with an interest in providing white-glove client service?

Dan Wallace: It’s an interesting balancing act because there’s a financial benefit to using these tools to drive automation that appeals to those making decisions. However, there is a demand from clients who are seeking 24/7/365 availability of the functions they want to use. This creates a delicate balance between the personal, white-glove touch and maximizing technological use. Ultimately, clients are the ones driving this demand because they want availability on their own terms, rather than being limited to when it is accessible.

Ari Kaplan: Seventy-one percent of the respondents are using generative AI for tasks, like e-discovery, contract review and summarization. How do you see the shift affecting what legal tech vendors are bringing to market?

Laura Wenzel: AI really is going to change the way many of us work. It definitely accelerates; it definitely augments. That being said, there’s a lot of hype. There’s a lot of conversation around what AI can and cannot do, but at the end of the day, it’s critical for all of us to ensure that when we’re developing AI, we think about the person who’s going to leverage this capability because AI can do so many different things. For it to truly be successful, you need to take a human-centric approach and make sure that as you bring these capabilities to market, they align with the way that users are working. With Ask iManage, which is an AI assistant built within the iManage Work 10 platform, it is integrated into the workflows that users conduct every day in a way that is meant to augment and accelerate. It’s created alongside users and not just thrown over the wall. Building on that, the other key component to success with AI is adoption, avoiding making users do something different. It’s no surprise to me that this research really highlights the fact that legal leaders are embracing AI. Everyone sees the value. It’s important to ensure that the approach is appropriate for the use case that particular tech is targeting.

Ari Kaplan: One of the research participants commented that some of the junior roles in the law department can be automated with agentic AI. With the recent release of your AI associate, how do you see agentic AI supporting corporate legal operations teams?

Will Seaton: Agentic AI is extremely powerful, and I think some tasks currently handled by juniors will soon be managed by agents. However, these tasks are often not ones that juniors enjoy completing. They were designed for training and delegation purposes. As agents take over more of these responsibilities, juniors will have the opportunity to engage in more interesting tasks earlier in their careers. We have observed juniors, trainees and lateral transfers using DraftWise, gaining greater access to knowledge and having more valuable conversations with their managers and senior legal leadership within their teams earlier in their careers. By tapping into that knowledge and strategic thinking presented by agentic AI, while some tasks may change, this development opens up opportunities for junior roles to become more valuable to the team earlier in their tenure.

Ari Kaplan: Consistent with the year-over-year trends in this research, 39% of the teams I spoke with are building cross departmental apps or solutions to help automate broader workflows. What type of functions are being automated, and how is that affecting the way corporate legal teams work?

Dan Wallace: It’s a natural evolution of what’s taking place. Many organizations began by automating tasks, progressed to workflows, and now they’re attempting to integrate these isolated efficiencies to achieve even greater effectiveness and more cohesion in how their customers, whether internal or external, are utilizing these functionalities. It’s a natural progression. It’s going to lead to increased efficiency. Ultimately, at the end of the day, it will enhance the experience for those using them.


Listen to the complete interview at Reinventing Professionals.

Ari Kaplan regularly interviews leaders in the legal industry and in the broader professional services community to share perspective, highlight transformative change and introduce new technology at his blog and on Apple Podcasts.






Source link

Federal judge admonishes litigant for ‘absolutely disgusting’ way she disposed of gum in court

Federal judge admonishes litigant for ‘absolutely disgusting’ way she disposed of gum in court


Trials & Litigation

Federal judge admonishes litigant for ‘absolutely disgusting’ way she disposed of gum in court

A Florida federal judge admonished a litigant who admitted that she stuck chewing gum to the underside of a courtroom table where the counsel are seated. (Photo from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida’s June 12 order to show cause)

A federal judge in Pensacola, Florida, admonished a litigant who admitted—in response to an order to show cause—that she was the person who stuck chewing gum to the underside of a courtroom table where the counsel are seated.

“The fact that there was chewed gum stuck under the table was absolutely disgusting,” wrote U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II of the Northern District of Florida in a June 13 order admonishing the guilty party.

Law360 and Law.com are among the publications with coverage.

The gum was unfortunately discovered by an assistant U.S. attorney who “got gum on her skirt when she brushed her leg against the underside of counsel’s table,” Wetherell said. “The gum that was not stuck to the AUSA’s skirt was still stuck to and hanging down from the table after the incident.”

Wetherell issued a June 12 order to show cause after the discovery that called for identification of the culprit. The order included a photo of the stringy gum hanging from the table.

The plaintiff in the case, Lorraine M. Padavan, confessed in a response to the order to show cause and wrote a letter of apology. She also offered to speak with the prosecutor who was affected and to pay her cleaning bill or to replace the damaged clothing.

Wetherell said he appreciated Padavan’s candor.

“Things would have been considerably worse for plaintiff had she not admitted it because the courtroom security video clearly shows her placing the gum under the table,” Wetherell said in a footnote.

It better not happen again, Wetherell said in another footnote.

If it does, “I will come up with sanctions that are commensurate with the schoolchild-nature of the violation,” he wrote.

The options, he said, might include:

  • Sitting in the courtroom under the supervision of a court security officer handwriting “I will not stick my gum under a courtroom table again” 100 times on notebook paper

  • An afternoon spent helping court custodial staff

  • A couple of hours spent scraping gum off the sidewalk in front of the courthouse

Padavan, who is represented by GrayRobinson, won $96 million in a New York lottery with her husband before his death. She is suing the woman who allegedly moved in with him and took control of his assets.





Source link

Law student who argued Constitution protects white people received award for top grade in originalism seminar

Law student who argued Constitution protects white people received award for top grade in originalism seminar


Law Students

Law student who argued Constitution protects white people received award for top grade in originalism seminar

A Florida law student won an award after arguing in a paper that the United States was conceived as a white country, and federal courts “have the power to arrest the dispossession of white America.” (Image from Shutterstock)

Updated: A Florida law student won an award after arguing in a paper that the United States was conceived as a white country, and federal courts “have the power to arrest the dispossession of white America.”

The student, Preston Damsky, won the book award for the best student in his originalism seminar at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, the New York Times reports in a story noted by the TaxProf Blog.

U.S. District Judge John L. Badalamenti of the Middle District of Florida was a co-teacher of the seminar.

The paper constituted 65% of the final grade, according to a Volokh Conspiracy post by Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houson, who said Badalamenti, a former public defender, was being unfairly targeted in the article.

“The fact that a student received a high grade in a small seminar is not worthy of a New York Times expose,” Blackman wrote. “Aren’t there actual problems to write about?”

Damsky’s paper argued that courts should challenge the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment—which protects due process, equal protection and birthright citizenship—as well as the 15th Amendment—which says the right to vote cannot be denied based on race or status as a former slave.

Failure to stop the dispossession of white America is “at best, judicial surrender in the face of a terrible crime,” Damsky’s paper said. “The people cannot be expected to meekly swallow this demographic assault on their sovereignty.”

Merritt McAlister, the interim dean at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, defended the award decision in at least two town hall meetings and in an email to students, citing the need for institutional neutrality and Damsky’s free speech rights, according to the New York Times. That was before Damsky began posting “blunt, crass and ugly” messages on X (formerly Twitter), including one saying Jewish people must be “abolished by any means necessary” and another saying immigrant “invaders” should be “done away with by any means necessary,” according to the article.

Damsky was suspended and barred from campus, decisions that he is challenging. The university told Damsky in emails that his posts made students fear for their safety.

Damsky told the New York Times that he isn’t a threat.

“You know,” he said, “I’m not, like, a psychopathic ax murderer.”

He also said he was being unfairly targeted for his views.

He did say, however, referring to him as a Nazi “would not be manifestly wrong,” the article says.

Badalamenti, an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term, has received praise from liberals and conservatives, the New York Times reports. Badalamenti “is not a white nationalist,” Damsky told the New York Times.

“Don’t get me wrong,” Damsky said. “I would prefer it if he was.”

In his Volokh Conspiracy post, Blackman said Badalamenti is held in high regard. Blackman read the paper and said he would have given it a grade of B-plus or an A-minus “if I was feeling generous.”

“Is this the best student note I’ve ever read? No,” Blackman wrote. “Was it executed well from a technical perspective? Yes. Was it thoroughly researched? Yes. Did it present a coherent thesis based on history? Yes. Was it well organized? Not really. The article underdeveloped the core obstacle—the ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments—and doesn’t explain how the Supreme Court would overrule certain landmark precedents. But these sorts of shortcomings are typical of law student papers.”

Writing at Bluesky, Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor and a historical political scientist at the Georgia State University College of Law, had a different impression.

“I read the paper. It’s bad,” he wrote. “It’s just Dred Scott repackaged. No new historical research. No innovative argument. It isn’t poorly written, but that’s about the only thing I can say about it—certainly could not have been the best paper in the class.”

McAlister issued a statement to the University of Florida community, reprinted at the Volokh Conspiracy, after the New York Times published its article.

“Let me state unequivocally: The student’s views are revolting and do not reflect the values of UF Law, its faculty or its administration,” McAlister said.

“The paper’s views also in no way reflect the views of the professor in this course. The professor had no knowledge of this student’s history at the law school or his deeply held personal views,” McAlister said. “The professor took the paper on its face—as a student paper attempting to use originalist methodology to reach a detestable and extreme position. As abhorrent as the paper’s thesis may be, that work still falls within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment, and, as such, was graded consistent with the grading standard for the course. … I know that many of you are outraged at the law school for not taking the book award away from the student. But the administration does not second-guess grading decisions at the law school, except in very narrow circumstances, and those circumstances did not apply here. … Rescinding the honor might feel righteous, but it would betray those principles and set a dangerous precedent in a law school that trains students to confront unpopular ideas and represent unpopular clients.”

Updated June 25 at 8:04 a.m. to include Merritt McAlister’s latest statement.





Source link

Florida AG held in civil contempt for disobeying order; ‘litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words,’ judge says

Florida AG held in civil contempt for disobeying order; ‘litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words,’ judge says


Ethics

Florida AG held in civil contempt for disobeying order; ‘litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words,’ judge says

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier speaks during a meeting at the Florida Capitol in Tallahassee, Florida, on March 5, 2025. (Photo by Rebecca Blackwell/The Associated Press)

A federal judge held Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in civil contempt of court Tuesday for disobeying an order temporarily blocking a state immigration law.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams of the Southern District of Florida said Uthmeier disobeyed her directive to provide actual notice of a temporary restraining order to law enforcement agencies with power to enforce it.

The April 18 TRO had blocked a law that made it a state crime for immigrants in the country to illegally enter Florida.

The decision was a “rare and forceful rebuke,” according to a June 17 press release by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs.

The New York Times, Law360, the Tampa Bay Times and NBC News are among the publications covering Williams’ June 17 order.

Williams issued the TRO after finding that the Florida law was likely preempted by federal law. She later issued an injunction, which the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta refused to disturb, according to Law360.

At first, Uthmeier told law enforcement agencies about Williams’ order. Then, in an April 23 letter, Uthmeier said he thinks that Williams’ order can’t bind independent law enforcement agencies because they aren’t parties to the case.

“No lawful, legitimate order currently impedes” enforcement of the illegal entry law, Uthmeier said in the letter.

Williams said Uthmeier also “publicly disavowed” his compliance several times, stating that he would not “bow down” to the court.

Williams had argued that Uthmeier’s letter was intended to explain his legal views and to keep law enforcement informed of litigation updates. Williams said Uthmeier was twisting the meaning of his words.

“Litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words as it suits them, especially when conveying a court’s clear and unambiguous order,” said Williams, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. “Fidelity to the rule of law can have no other meaning.”

Williams ruled a few weeks after a hearing in which she said “anarchy” would be the result if officials such as Uthmeier fail to follow court orders, according to the New York Times.

Williams ordered Uthmeier to file biweekly reports detailing whether arrests, detentions or law enforcement actions were undertaken. He should also immediately notify the court if he learns of arrests, Williams said.

Uthmeier responded in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

“If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it,” he wrote.

The case is Florida Immigrant Coalition v. Uthmeier.





Source link

YouTube
Instagram
WhatsApp