Giuliani contempt decision blocks him from doing this, putting his Florida condo at risk


Tort Law

Giuliani contempt decision blocks him from doing this, putting his Florida condo at risk

Disbarred lawyer Rudy Giuliani, pictured here in September 2022, is “in dire jeopardy” of having to turn over his Florida condo to two Georgia election workers who sued him for defamation after a federal judge held him in civil contempt Monday. (Photo by John Nacion/Star Max/IPx via the Associated Press)

Disbarred lawyer Rudy Giuliani is “in dire jeopardy” of having to turn over his Palm Beach, Florida, condo to two Georgia election workers who sued him for defamation after a federal judge held the former New York City mayor in civil contempt Monday, according to a report by Politico.

U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York barred Giuliani from presenting evidence on the primary defense that would allow him to keep the Florida condo after he failed to provide information that would help determine whether the property was his primary residence, Politico reports.

Liman’s decision allows him to draw negative inferences about Giuliani’s Florida residency, report the New York Times and Law.com.

The trial on whether 80-year-old Giuliani is entitled to keep the condo is scheduled for next week before Liman. At issue is whether the condo is Giuliani’s homestead entitled to protection under the Florida Constitution.

Publications with coverage, in addition to Politico, Law.com and the New York Times, include Reuters, the Associated Press and CNN.

The election workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, won a $148 million defamation verdict against Giuliani after he accused them of election fraud in the 2020 election. Giuliani was formerly a lawyer for President-elect Donald Trump.

Giuliani had claimed in now-dismissed bankruptcy proceedings that his New York co-op apartment was his homestead residence, which protected a portion of it in bankruptcy proceedings, according to a Dec. 27 decision denying Giuliani’s motion for summary judgment. After the bankruptcy dismissal, Giuliani declared Florida to be his domicile.

The contempt finding was for Giuliani’s failure to provide evidence about his primary residence, according to the New York Times.

Giuliani did not turn over full names of his doctors or provide a full list of other professional service providers, leading the judge to conclude that none was in Florida before Giuliani changed his residence there in January 2024, the AP explains. Liman also barred Giuliani from presenting testimony or electronic communications to establish the Florida homestead.

Giuliani could also be held in contempt separately for failing to turn over property, the New York Times says.

Giuliani has already turned over designer watches and a 1980 Mercedes-Benz convertible. He is also moving to turn over his Manhattan apartment in New York City. He did not provide a framed jersey of baseball player Joe DiMaggio, however, which he said he can’t find. Nor did he turn over his grandfather’s pocket watch, which he pulled out during the hearing Monday, saying he fears that it will be lost.

The liability verdict was delivered in a trial held only to determine damages after a different federal judge entered a default liability judgment against Giuliani for failing to provide meaningful discovery. That federal judge, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District of Columbia, has scheduled a separate contempt hearing against Giuliani for Friday for alleged violation of an agreement not to make new defamatory claims about the election workers, Politico reports.

Giuliani said in his podcast Monday evening the New York court’s request for information was “enormously burdensome,” and he had already released “hundreds and hundreds of pages of discovery.” according to reporting by CNN. He said he didn’t have to testify because the judge “had already made up his mind.”

Giuliani’s spokesperson, Ted Goodman, released a statement. Freeman and Moss “might be happy to fight to take away Mayor Giuliani’s most cherished personal belongings, including his signed baseball jersey of his childhood hero and his grandfather’s pocket watch, but they can never take away his extraordinary record of public service,” Goodman said.





Source link

Remembering President James Earl ‘Jimmy’ Carter, ever the teacher


By Nicholas W. Allard

Educators and students preparing to begin a new semester can make good use of lessons about leadership and purposeful service that can be gleaned from the beautiful life of former President James Earl “Jimmy” Carter. That is especially so for law school communities for at least two reasons.

First, although lawyers are a tiny fraction of the population (0.4% nationally according to the ABA, four for every 1,000 people), they have always achieved a disproportionately large presence in public and private sector leadership roles. Accordingly, U.S. law schools are focusing on how best to prepare students for leadership roles. Carter’s life is a rich case study of the virtues of civility, collaboration and cooperation that the ABA has identified as hallmarks of professionalism.

Second, with the privileges of our honorable profession come public responsibilities. We can use our knowledge and skills to do well, but we a requirement of our law licenses is to strive to do good, as well, through pro bono work and other selfless service. Carter’s relentless determination to make the world better for others is a shining beacon for aspiring lawyers to follow.

Amid a constant barrage of disturbing news, even the gloomiest short days and long dark nights of this new year are brightened by remembering Carter.

Understandably and appropriately, people everywhere are discussing the lessons of Carter’s life. He deserves recognition for being a good and decent man committed to unwavering public service to his country and people all over the world. Perhaps he will be remembered most and longest for what he taught us about how to work and live.

In retrospect, the restless striving that helped clear his improbable untrod path—from the farmland of a small town in Georgia to commanding a nuclear submarine, from the statehouse in Georgia as a contrarian anti-segregation governor to the White House, followed by four decades as the most stubbornly impactful humanitarian on the planet—was driven by hard work, perseverance in the face of setbacks, strength of character, and virtue grounded in the universal code of conduct that he drew from his faith. These are qualities that serve any law student and lawyer well.

Historians, in my opinion, are likely to agree with former first lady Rosalynn Carter, who chaffed when people described her husband as the greatest former president. She often would correct them by pointing out that he was an excellent president, as well. Actually, we got two terms of work out of Carter during his single term.

A few days after he was sworn in, Carter moved to heal old wounds. He granted complete amnesty to Vietnam draft evaders, and his daughter Amy began fourth grade in a historic Black public elementary school a few blocks from the White House. He successfully pursued the Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt (which stand to this day), the Panama Canal treaties and the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II.

Working with Congress, he established the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, sought and signed legislation limiting strip mining, and created the vast Arctic Refuge while doubling the land dedicated to national parks and wildlife preserves. Carter wrestled with “stagflation;” energy crises; the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor disaster; the Nicaraguan revolution; the end of détente and the renewed Cold War over the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan, which precipitated embargoes and the boycott of the 1980 summer Olympics in Moscow; and, of course, the Iranian hostage crises and disastrous failed rescue attempt.

Nicholas W. Allard.

On Jan. 20, 1977, during Carter’s inauguration, my wife, Marla, and I somehow wormed our way into the front row of the enormous crowd lining the Pennsylvania Avenue parade route. Unabated patriotism and pride from the recent bicentennial observances bolstered the collective sense of relief and expectation for Carter’s presidency in those post-Watergate days, when the country also was still pained by the fractures of the Cold War, the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War.

Suddenly, the new president’s long black bullet-proof limousine stopped right in front of us. Carter and his beloved, Rosalynn, got out and a started walking hand in hand toward the White House. He flashed his signature toothy grin and waved, and the crowd roared its delighted approval. Every single person among the thousands there felt as if Carter was waving and smiling at each of them. Now, an inaugural stroll has become an obligatory (and carefully orchestrated) ritual, like routinely recognizing special guests in the balcony seats at the State of the Union speech. In 1977, it was a spontaneous joyful brave gesture.

Carter was then, and always, an American original, an uncommon man with an innate genuine common touch. A teacher.

After Carter lost the 1980 presidential election in a landslide to former President Ronald Reagan, the Carters devoted themselves energetically to a life of service to others, including work in communities building housing for less-advantaged Americans; humanitarian and social good works at home and abroad, such as monitoring elections; and advocating for environmental protection, peace and world health causes. He even is credited with eradicating a 3-foot-long Guinea worm parasite that each year preyed on millions of people in Africa and Asia.

The Carters remained true to their humble mission, even as accolades like the Nobel Peace Prize piled up, along with unusual honors, such as having a naval ship and a fish species named after Carter. Throughout it all, he taught Sunday school deep into his 90s. Practicing what he preached, he leveraged his fame not for profit but to advocate human rights and love for his neighbors in hot spots all over the world courageously and often controversially.

On Aug. 25, 2009, news of the death of my former boss, U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, reached us on our mobile phones just before the flight attendants secured the door for a long flight home from a trip to Israel. We had been talking about Kennedy’s failing health the previous evening at dinner in the lovely gardens of the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem.

At that dinner, Carter and Rosalynn were, to our surprise, enjoying a quiet meal a few tables away. We asked the headwaiter to deliver a note thanking them for their continuing public service. Carter’s unexpected return note was extraordinarily gracious.

As we continued our dinner, we recounted the bitter Democratic Party presidential primary fight in 1980 between Carter and Kennedy. We especially recalled the awkward moment on the convention stage when, after Carter secured the nomination, he unsuccessfully tried to get Kennedy to shake hands and pose together. It must have been painfully embarrassing for the sitting president to unsuccessfully chase the iconic senator around the convention stage for a photo op of unity that never happened. But Carter tried.

Poignantly, after we landed in Philadelphia, as we walked through the concourse, the first voice we heard on an airport television, delivering a touching elegy for Kennedy, was Carter, speaking via satellite link from Israel. We cried.

The respectful attention deservedly being paid to Carter’s remarkable life and career provides us with a powerful teaching moment. Not a bad lesson for law students and lawyers from a life well lived by a great teacher.


Nicholas W. Allard is the founding Randall C. Berg Jr. dean of the Jacksonville University College of Law in Florida and previously was the president and dean of the Brooklyn Law School in New York. Allard has worked as the chair of the ABA Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress, as the chair of its Communications Committee, as a member of the ABA Government Relations Committee, and as a member of its Task Force on Lobbying Reform.


ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”


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





Source link

Federal judge acknowledges his civics presentations to politically affiliated club violated ethics code


Judiciary

Federal judge acknowledges his civics presentations to politically affiliated club violated ethics code

The judicial council of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Denver has tossed an ethics complaint against a federal judge who took corrective action after he was accused of giving presentations to a politically affiliated group. (Image from Shutterstock)

The judicial council of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Denver has tossed an ethics complaint against a federal judge who took corrective action after he was accused of giving presentations to a politically affiliated group.

The unnamed federal judge acknowledged that his civics-related presentations to the group violated the ban on making speeches to a political organization in the judicial conduct code, according to a June decision published last month by 10th Circuit Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes.

The judge “voluntarily acknowledged his mistake, ensured the removal of his presentations from the club’s YouTube channel, and notified the club that he would not present at future club meetings,” Holmes wrote.

Reuters and Colorado Politics have coverage.

The judge said he made the presentations because he wanted to represent the federal judiciary and the role that law plays in society. Political activity was not the “sole, or really even the predominate, focus” of the club, the judge had stated.

The ethics complaint had been filed by a pro se litigant who said the judge demonstrated his lack of partiality by his educational presentations to the club. The litigant also claimed that the judge made inappropriate comments during the presentations and discriminated against the litigant while presiding in his civil matter.

Those claims “are dismissed because they are completely unsupported,” Holmes said.





Source link

2 BigLaw firms flip-flop on associate special bonuses, agreeing to pay market rate


Lawyer Pay

2 BigLaw firms flip-flop on associate special bonuses, agreeing to pay market rate

Hogan Lovells and Perkins Coie have decided to pay special bonuses at the market rate of $6,000 to $25,000 after associates were initially told that they wouldn’t receive the money as a matter of course. (Image from Shutterstock)

Hogan Lovells and Perkins Coie have decided to pay special bonuses at the market rate of $6,000 to $25,000 after associates were initially told that they wouldn’t receive the money as a matter of course.

The special bonuses will be paid in addition to year-end bonuses ranging from $20,000 for the class of 2023 to $115,000 for the most senior associates, report Law.com and Above the Law, which published the new bonus memos here.

“It’s not the first time a firm has changed its mind about associate bonuses,” Law.com reports, “and it likely won’t be the last. Backlash from associates, concerns from partners about losing key associate talent, and peer firm pressure are just some of the reasons why a firm may reverse a decision when it comes to associate bonuses, according to legal industry observers.”

Hogan Lovells initially said it wasn’t paying routine special bonuses but it would give additional money to associates who exceed minimum hours. Now, it will pay special bonuses “on top of the other associate bonuses awarded,” a spokesperson told Law.com. “This means that many of our associates who qualify for the hours-based bonuses can earn bonuses above the announced scale of many other top firms.”

The spokesperson told Law.com that Hogan Lovells decided to match the market rate for special bonuses “following discussions with associates, partners and other stakeholders. An important part of our culture as a firm is that we listen, and we have made this decision after careful consultation.”

A Perkins Coie spokesperson told Law.com that its decision “is consistent with our commitment to paying market-competitive compensation and reflects the firm’s strong financial performance this year.”





Source link

Law grads with past substance-use disorders suffered disability bias in quest for license, DOJ says


Disability Law

Law grads with past substance-use disorders suffered disability bias in quest for license, DOJ says

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, would-be Tennessee lawyers encountered unlawful disability discrimination when they were required to submit to “burdensome examinations.” (Image from Shutterstock)

Would-be Tennessee lawyers encountered unlawful disability discrimination when they were required to submit to “burdensome examinations” and conditions triggered by their past diagnosis or treatment for a substance-use disorder or a mental health disorder, the U.S. Department of Justice has concluded.

The Tennessee Board of Law Examiners and the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program violated Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects people with from being excluded from programs of state and local governments, according to a letter of findings released Dec. 17.

The DOJ investigated after receiving complaints from two bar applicants, “D.S.” and “C.B.,” who were previously treated for substance-use disorders related to prescription drugs. Both suffered “significant economic harm,” including loss of jobs because of delays in obtaining a law license and costs incurred in complying with required evaluations by treatment facilities.

The conditions for obtaining a law license were “burdensome, intrusive and unnecessary,” the letter said.

NBC News has identified D.S. as Derek Scott, who was taking buprenorphine, a Food and Drug Administration-approved medication that his doctor prescribed, to treat the opioid-use disorder that he developed after becoming addicted to painkillers. The network chronicled Scott’s battle for a law license.

Scott, now an attorney in Clarksville, Tennessee, has been treated continuously for opioid-use disorder since 2012. He graduated from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 2019. On his bar application, Scott disclosed charges that were later dismissed, most of which happened when his addiction to painkillers was untreated.

Because Scott was taking buprenorphine, he was required to undergo a multiday assessment at an addiction-recovery facility that cost him $2,000. No drugs were found in his system other than buprenorphine. No cognitive impairment was found. The facility nonetheless recommended a six-month inpatient treatment program that would cost Scott $30,000, an amount lowered to $15,000 with credit for the $2,000 already spent because of scholarship money from the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program.

Scott’s treating physician “emphatically” disagreed with the need for inpatient treatment to stop a medication that was effectively treating his disability, the DOJ letter said. If he didn’t comply, Scott was told, he wouldn’t get a law license.

“Thus, D.S. was left with the choice of continuing the treatment that is successful for him in treating his [opioid-use disorder] or obtaining his license to practice law,” according to the letter of findings.

The law firm that had employed Scott as a law clerk fired him in November 2021 because of his inability to get a law license.

Scott sought a second evaluation by another facility and was granted permission. A psychiatrist there found that the drug therapy had been successful, and there were no legal, educational or occupational deficiencies. The medical report nonetheless concluded that Scott was not fit to practice law, and that abstinence treatment at a facility should be considered.

After the DOJ notified the Tennessee agencies in September 2023 that it was investigating, Scott received his law license.

The other lawyer, C.B., had completed an inpatient rehabilitation program in 2010 and graduated from law school in 2020. C.B. informed the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners that several misdemeanor arrests happened while he was abusing alcohol and Xanax, which is often used to treat anxiety disorders and anxiety caused by depression. A board interviewer concluded that C.B. had no mental or psychological disorder that would affect his ability to practice law.

C.B. was nonetheless referred to the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program for evaluation and was required to pay $6,000 for a psychological and drug assessment. The medical report found that C.B. was fit to practice law but recommended abstinence-based outpatient therapy for substance-use management and physical therapy for pain. He should also quit smoking and get his cholesterol checked, the report said.

The Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program said C.B. should get outpatient treatment in a drug program four days per week. C.B. lost his job and moved from Ohio to Tennessee to attend a seven-week program. He was then allowed to obtain a law license as long as he entered a five-year monitoring contract and submitted to random drug tests.

The restrictions and conditions imposed on Scott and C.B. “were based on speculation about their disabilities that were contrary to demonstrated conduct, and as to D.S. in particular, they were based on stigma and stereotypes about his prescribed treatment,” the letter said.

Scott told NBC News that he felt validated by the findings.

“I felt like they had put up an obstacle that they knew I couldn’t overcome,” he said.

Scott works as a lawyer primarily handling criminal defense cases, according to NBC News. He continues to take his medication.

NBC News spoke with civil rights attorney David Sinkman, who handles substance-use bias cases, about the DOJ letter. He was not involved in the case.

“This is a powerful finding by the Department of Justice that applies beyond admission to practice law in Tennessee, since there are similar licensing restrictions in other states and for other professions,” Sinkman said.





Source link

Judicial Conference declines to refer Justices Thomas, Jackson to DOJ for probes over alleged disclosure issues


U.S. Supreme Court

Judicial Conference declines to refer Justices Thomas, Jackson to DOJ for probes over alleged disclosure issues

The U.S. Judicial Conference indicated Thursday that it will not refer U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Department of Justice to investigate whether they violated ethics rules for alleged disclosure failures.

The U.S. Judicial Conference indicated Thursday that it will not refer U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Department of Justice to investigate whether they violated ethics rules for alleged disclosure failures.

The Judicial Conference disclosed its decision in letters to two Democratic lawmakers who sought a probe for Thomas and to a conservative think tank that sought a referral for Jackson.

SCOTUSblog, Above the Law, Reuters, Law.com and the Volokh Conspiracy have coverage.

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, who are Democrats, had requested referrals for Thomas following reports that he failed to disclose his interest in three properties sold to billionaire Harlan Crow, gifts of luxury travel from Crow, Crow’s payment of private school tuition for Thomas’ grandnephew, and Thomas’ purchase of a recreational vehicle with a loan from another wealthy friend.

The conservative Center for Renewing America had sought Jackson’s referral for allegedly failing to disclosure some of her husband’s medical-malpractice consulting income and potentially failing to disclose private contributions to her investiture celebration.

Both justices have filed amended disclosure statements addressing issues identified by the lawmakers and the Center for Renewing America, said Senior U.S. District Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr. of the Western District of North Carolina in the letters to the lawmakers and to the conservative group. Conrad is also the secretary of the Judicial Conference.

In addition, ethics rules exempted gifts of personal hospitality from disclosure, the letters said. Guidance released in March and April 2023 said the exemption does not apply to gifts of transportation that substitute for commercial transportation, however, and to gifts at a property regularly rented out to others for a business purpose.

Generally, new guidance is not applied retroactively to previously filed reports, the Judicial Conference said. With regard to the personal hospitality exemption, the Judicial Conference agreed that its 2023 guidance doesn’t apply to travel to travel before 2022 because of confusion over the issue.

The Judicial Conference letters also said there “is reason to doubt” whether the conference has the authority to refer Supreme Court justices to the DOJ.





Source link