After PACER hack, judiciary takes ‘special measures’ and ‘technical steps,’ DOJ official says

After PACER hack, judiciary takes ‘special measures’ and ‘technical steps,’ DOJ official says


Judiciary

After PACER hack, judiciary takes ‘special measures’ and ‘technical steps,’ DOJ official says

The federal judiciary is taking “special measures” in cases in which information may have been exposed in a hack of the case management system used to upload case documents. (Image from Shutterstock)

The federal judiciary is taking “special measures” in cases in which information may have been exposed in a hack of the case management system used to upload case documents, according to Acting Assistant Attorney General Matt Galeotti.

In a briefing with reporters, Galeotti said “technical steps” are being taken, and “different filing measures” are being put into place, Reuters reports.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts announced in an Aug. 7 press release that the judiciary was strengthening protections “in response to recent escalated cyberattacks of a sophisticated and persistent nature on its case management system.”

Although most of the documents filed on the courts’ electronic filing system are open to the public through PACER, some sealed documents “can be targets of interest to a range of threat actors,” the press release said.

According to CNN, some federal courts were requiring sealed documents to be filed in paper form only. They include the Eastern District of Washington, the Southern District of Florida and the Eastern District of Virginia.

Taking another tack, the Eastern District of New York was creating an online submission process outside PACER’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, known as CM/ECF, for sealed documents, according to CNN and the New York Times.





Source link

What pro bono is BigLaw providing under Trump deals? Trade deals get help but not some conservative causes

What pro bono is BigLaw providing under Trump deals? Trade deals get help but not some conservative causes


Law Firms

What pro bono is BigLaw providing under Trump deals? Trade deals get help but not some conservative causes

Some law firms that reached pro bono deals with President Donald Trump appear reluctant to take on some conservative causes, and in some instances, they are taking cases adverse to the administration, according to news reports. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Some law firms that reached pro bono deals with President Donald Trump appear reluctant to take on some conservative causes, and in some instances, they are taking cases adverse to the administration, according to news reports.

Nearly five months after BigLaw firms began reaching the pro bono deals, “there’s little outward sign that the agreements have impacted their business operations,” Bloomberg Law reports.

The deals required nine firms to provide $940 million collectively in pro bono help toward causes supported by Trump to avoid punitive executive orders. Much of what is known about the deals “is essentially written on the back of a digital napkin, contributing to the uneven delivery,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

Bloomberg Law reports that at least some of the deals weren’t signed. They don’t impose deadlines and don’t include an enforcement mechanism.

Both articles noted that four other firms have so far successfully challenged punitive executive orders. The rulings “likely tamped down any sense of urgency” by the dealing firms, Bloomberg Law says.

The Wall Street Journal says these potential avenues for pro bono mostly didn’t materialize:

  • Legal help for police officers accused of misconduct. BigLaw firms haven’t volunteered, according to Devin Barrington-Ward, a spokesman for the National Police Accountability Project.

  • Help for conservative causes as requested by the Oversight Project, a conservative watchdog group formerly affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Most firms didn’t respond when contacted, said the group’s president, Mike Howell.

  • Pro bono assistance for the Brooklyn district attorney’s office in New York City, as suggested by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft global litigation co-chair Nick Gravante. The firm did not contact the office, according to a district attorney spokesperson.

The U.S. Department of Commerce is receiving assistance, however, according to a spokesperson. The department is working with “some of America’s top law firms and legal minds to cement the truly historic trade deals that President Trump negotiated for the American people,” the spokesperson said.

One firm reportedly working on trade deals is Kirkland & Ellis, according to the articles and a report in the New York Times.

Bloomberg Law reports that some of the nine firms “have continued to take the kinds of cases that appear to have made them targets in the first place.”

One example cited by Bloomberg Law is Milbank partners’ involvement in litigation challenging Trump’s tariffs and defending two New Jersey cities in Trump administration challenges to their immigration policies. Another example is a lawsuit filed by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison against the Proud Boys, a right-wing group, and its leader alleging infringement of trademarks awarded to a church vandalized by Proud Boys members.

But leaders for public-interest nonprofits who spoke with the Wall Street Journal said some BigLaw firms are ignoring their phone calls, even when the firms provided pro bono assistance in the past.

Hat tip to How Appealing, which provided the link to the Wall Street Journal article.





Source link

Jury awards nearly M to former police officer for wrongful prosecution in sex assault case

Jury awards nearly $60M to former police officer for wrongful prosecution in sex assault case


Criminal Justice

Jury awards nearly $60M to former police officer for wrongful prosecution in sex assault case

Federal jurors in Detroit awarded about $58.5 million Tuesday to a man who was a police officer in Duval County, Florida, when he said he was wrongly charged with sexually abusing a child in Michigan. (Photo from Shutterstock)

Federal jurors in Detroit awarded about $58.5 million Tuesday to a man who was a police officer in Duval County, Florida, when he said he was wrongly charged with sexually abusing a child in Michigan.

Jurors awarded Sean MacMaster $33 million in compensatory damages against David Busacca, a Michigan State Police officer, and Brian Kolodziej, a former Michigan assistant attorney general, report the Detroit Free Press, the Associated Press and WXYZ. Jurors also awarded punitive damages of $10 million against Busacca and $15 million against Kolodziej.

Jurors said the defendants acted “intentionally, deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth” in pursuing the charges.

Lawyers for MacMaster had alleged that Kolodziej pursued the charges to impress a woman close to MacMaster’s ex-wife, who was engaged in a custody battle with MacMaster, according to the AP.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel dropped the criminal sexual conduct charge against MacMaster in 2021. At about that time, Kolodziej resigned from Nessel’s office amid evidence that he was in a romantic relationship with a different woman in a sexual assault case that he oversaw. According to the AP, he pleaded no contest to willful neglect of duty and gave up his law license.

Representing himself at trial, Kolodziej said his resignation from the attorney general’s office “has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of this case supporting probable cause for an arrest warrant and a search warrant,” the AP reports.

Busacca’s lawyer said his client was a road patrol trooper supervised by others, and he was “not going out on a limb here to help Brian Kolodziej get a girlfriend.”





Source link

Writing Out Loud: The power of the spoken word to improve your legal prose

Writing Out Loud: The power of the spoken word to improve your legal prose



Name your favorite book. What’s your favorite line from that book? Do you have one? Can you even remember one line, one quote from the book? Now, name your favorite movie. What’s your favorite line from that movie? Can you pick just one, or are there too many to choose from?

If you’re like me, you have a favorite book, one you love above all others, one that you tell people is a “must-read.” Yet as much as you love that book, you cannot recite one line from the book. You almost can. You can visualize the setting and the main characters in your mind. You can imagine how they sound and their attitudes. But try as you might, you cannot remember one line of dialogue from the book.

On the other hand, reciting your favorite line from your favorite movie is no problem. In fact, you may trot that line out with friends, family or co-workers. Indeed, you may repeat it so often that your co-workers, friends and families are fed up with it and with you. There’s just so many times people can hear you say: “Leave the gun. Take the cannoli,” before they want to treat you to the same end that awaited Paulie in The Godfather.

Why is this? Why do quotes from movies implant themselves so clearly in our brains while the written word does not? Is it that movies are better than books?

History and experience tell us that’s not so. Indeed, rare is the case in which a book is adapted into a movie and the movie version is a better story. Does it happen? Yes. But that’s the exception not the rule. So why do we remember quotes from movies far more easily than quotes in books?

One explanation may be provided by media richness theory, which was developed in the 1980s. Face-to-face communications or communication via video combined with audio are richer forms of media than the written word in that they are able to communicate complex ideas more quickly and more effectively in a shorter period of time.

Why is that? There are a number of reasons, but chief among them is that the spoken word, because of nonverbal cues, as well as tone and pitch of voice, taps into emotion far more effectively than words on a page. Thus, while human behavior is driven both by logic or reason on the one hand and emotion on the other, there has been suggestion that up to 90% to 95% of decision-making is driven by emotion. And the spoken word is more effective at tapping into emotion than the written word.

But whether behavior is driven primarily by emotion or whether it’s driven in equal measures by emotion and logic, it’s clear that emotion plays an integral part in our decision-making and behavior. Accordingly, communication meant to foster a decision (e.g., legal briefs) that can tap into both logic and emotion is presumably a superior form of communication than that which appeals to just logic.

If you don’t believe this, just try it for yourself. Read the French national anthem, La Marseillaise. Then listen to it being sung by Victor Laszlo and various expats in Casablanca. That will clear up any doubts.

That’s all well and good, but how does this relate at all to legal writing? After all, legal writing is just that—writing. It’s just words on a page, often filled with emotionless jargon and citation. What good does it do to know that the spoken word is more effective than the written word in communicating if you’re required to present your ideas and arguments via a written document?

Well, it means that you can test your written material by reading it aloud. Doing this will reveal whether your writing is clear and whether it flows naturally—like spoken language—or whether it is stilted, complex and overly structured, filled with dependent clauses, as legal writings (and, indeed, this sentence) all too often are.

Hint: If reading your work out loud leaves you breathless or you find yourself tiring of your own voice, that’s a sign that you should trim your work down to size.

Reading your work aloud will also enable you to identify typographical, grammatical and syntactical mistakes. Indeed, anyone who has been practicing law for some time knows the sinking feeling of filing a brief or sending an email only to later find a typo in the document despite having proofread that document multiple times. Reading the written work aloud, however, is an excellent double-check that will assist in spotting typos and other grammatical mistakes.

Perhaps most importantly, reading your work aloud will enable you to determine whether your work has any emotional impact. If it sounds like you’re reading a grocery list, there’s a good bet it will read just as bloodlessly to a judge.

Is reading your work out loud a cure-all for problems in your writing? Certainly not. But it definitely will help. As Yul Brynner said in The Ten Commandments: “So let it be written. So let it be done.”


Alex Barnett is a partner at DiCello Levitt, where he focuses on complex, class action litigation and representing those injured by antitrust violations.


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

Court clerk staffers in New Orleans dig through landfill to find wrongly tossed court records

Court clerk staffers in New Orleans dig through landfill to find wrongly tossed court records


Criminal Justice

Court clerk staffers in New Orleans dig through landfill to find wrongly tossed court records

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry speaks with reporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on March 18, 2024. (Photo by Francis Chung/Politico via the Associated Press)

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry has ordered the Louisiana State Police to investigate why criminal court records were tossed into a landfill, forcing criminal clerk of court staffers to wade through the debris last week to recover them.

“This is a disgusting abuse of power and a slap in the face to crime victims,” Landry said on X, formerly known as Twitter.

NOLA.com has coverage.

Videos shared online show workers standing in debris while recovering mangled paperwork, the Associated Press reports. Darren Lombard, clerk of the criminal district court, said he worked with staff members to dig through the garbage, but not all the documents were recovered.

“The last day we were out there, it stormed a bit, so we recovered just about everything we could,” he told WWL-TV.

Lombard said the Louisiana secretary of state’s office has a process in place for missing or destroyed paperwork that will be used if a needed document can’t be found. The tossed documents were from the 1950s to the 1970s.

The tossed Orleans Parish documents included case appeals, docket books and evidence logs in cases of murder, rape and armed robbery, according to NOLA.com. Felony records must be permanently retained in the parish.

The documents were being placed inside trailers at a Department of Public Works maintenance yard because the criminal court clerk’s office doesn’t have sufficient storage, said Joe Threat, the New Orleans chief administrative officer, in an interview with NOLA.com. The documents were discarded when public works staffers were cleaning out the trailers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The city has reached a lease to buy agreement for a new site to store all court documents, Threat said.





Source link

Once-jailed county clerk asks Supreme Court to overturn right to same-sex marriage

Once-jailed county clerk asks Supreme Court to overturn right to same-sex marriage


U.S. Supreme Court

Once-jailed county clerk asks Supreme Court to overturn right to same-sex marriage

Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis at the Rowan County Courthouse in September 2015 in Morehead, Kentucky. (Photo by Ty Wright/Getty Images)

A county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 decision finding that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

Former clerk Kim Davis is asking the Supreme Court to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges and to rule that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause protects her from tort liability for her religious-based refusals to grant the licenses.

Obergefell was a “flawed opinion” and “egregiously wrong,” say lawyers for Davis with the conservative Christian legal group Liberty Counsel in the cert petition filed last month.

ABC News, the Washington Blade, the Louisville Courier Journal, the Independent and the Associated Press are among the publications with coverage.

Davis was jailed for contempt in 2015 after she refused to issue marriage licenses, but she was released after six days when court employees issued the licenses. She was sued by same-sex couples she turned away and ordered to pay $100,000 to two plaintiffs for emotional distress, as well as $260,000 in attorney fees.

Obergefell held that the right to same-sex marriage is protected by the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Then-Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by the high court’s four liberal justices, which at the time included Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer.

Ginsburg has since died, and Kennedy and Breyer have retired. Kennedy and Ginsburg were replaced by appointees of President Donald Trump—Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Breyer was replaced by an appointee of former President Joe Biden—Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Obergefell was grounded in the “erroneous fiction” of substantive due process that prohibits government infringement of certain fundamental liberty interests, the cert petition says.

Davis’ lawyers argue that the due process clause at most protects process, not substantive rights. The argument was made by Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a 2022 decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion.

If the Supreme Court does not eliminate substantive due process, the cert petition says, Obergefell should be overturned because the right to same-sex marriage is “neither carefully described nor deeply rooted in the nation’s history.”

“If ever there was a case of exceptional importance,” the cert petition says, “the first individual in the republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it.”

The Supreme Court will consider whether to grant cert this fall.

The case is in Davis v. Ermold.

See also:

Defiant county clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses despite SCOTUS action





Source link