"I helped defend Reagan’s would-be assassin. Law firms that fear Trump, take note."

 That's the title of Greg Craig's op-ed in the WaPo.  Here's a piece:

 On March 30, 1981, I was a young partner at the law firm of Williams & Connolly working for the firm’s senior partner, Edward Bennett Williams, the leading trial lawyer of his generation and one of the greatest in American history.

That day sticks with me because it was the day that President Ronald Reagan was shot and nearly killed by a young man from Colorado named John W. Hinckley Jr. That night, while watching the evening news, I learned that Hinckley’s parents had contacted my law firm in search of representation for their son.

Early the next morning, I walked my normal route to work down Pennsylvania Avenue, past George Washington Hospital. The large, quiet crowd of TV cameras and members of the media stationed outside the hospital — surrounded in turn by police cars and barriers forming a perimeter around the entrance to the emergency room — reminded me that my firm might well be, at that very moment, considering whether to take on Hinckley as a client.

Because I had worked for two years as a federal public defender in Connecticut, Ed suspected that I would be eager for the firm to take the case. He might have been surprised when I told him we should decline if anyone in the firm had the kind of relationship with any of the shooting’s victims such that taking the case would cause them to leave the firm. I knew that some of the lawyers in the firm might well have worked closely with the president, been friends with his family or with James Brady, the White House press secretary who was grievously wounded and, on that day, close to death.

Ed invited me to participate in the executive committee meeting to explain that concern. Everyone agreed that we should check to see whether anyone in the firm had a close relationship with any of the victims, but on the underlying question of whether to take the case, there was at first no consensus.

The lawyers sitting around the conference table were articulate and opinionated — and they were not shy. The arguments against taking the case were straightforward: Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there was really nothing that we could do for Hinckley that a public defender could not do for him just as well. In addition, we knew next to nothing about his background. He might have turned out to be a Nazi sympathizer who would try to turn the case into a political show trial.

The economic arguments against taking the case were most compelling. We would eliminate any capacity to build business with the Reagan administration. It was hard to believe that clients who wanted to be on the good side of the administration would ever come to us. Besides that, we would surely lose existing clients who did not want to be associated with a law firm representing a would-be presidential assassin. Having Hinckley as a client could have been a financial disaster for the firm.

After hearing the views of everyone else, Ed finally spoke: “If our law firm isn’t strong enough to take this kind of case — as controversial and as blameworthy as this person is — it would certainly be hard for any other firm to do so.” He went on: “I have seven kids in my family. And I don’t doubt that one day one of them might do something stupid or crazy that would cause me to need a lawyer for him. I would not have much respect for our profession if I called up Arthur Liman at Paul Weiss and told him ‘Arthur, I need your help,’ and he came back and told me: ‘I’m so sorry, Ed. I have consulted my partners, and we think representing your son might do damage to our bottom line. But of course we wish him best of luck.’”

Williams & Connolly took Hinckley on as a client. I was on the team, led by Vince Fuller, that defended Hinckley at trial. The trial lasted three weeks, and the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity.

 

 

 

Congrats!!

First, to Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga and Judge Miguel de la O:

The Henry Latimer Center for Professionalism and the Standing Committee on Professionalism have named Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and Judge Miguel de la O of the 11th Judicial Circuit as co-winners of the 2025 William M. Hoeveler Judicial Professionalism Award.

The annual award recognizes active judges who exemplify strength of character, service, and competence as a jurist, lawyer, and public servant.

Chief Judge Altonaga and Judge de la O “demonstrate the ideals of professionalism and justice while inspiring others to do the same,” according to the Center for Professionalism.

Second, to blog author John Byrne, who was appointed to the Third DCA JNC:

John Byrne of Coral Gables is a partner at Maderal Byrne & Furst. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Florida and his juris doctor from Cornell University. Byrne is appointed from a list of nominees recommended by The Florida Bar for a term ending July 1, 2028.

 Can't believe the Governor's press release didn't mention the blog!

Jewish American Heritage Month Celebration is scheduled for May 8

 You are cordially invited to attend the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s 2025 Jewish American Heritage Month Celebration on Thursday, May 8, 2025, from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. in the Ceremonial Courtroom (13-3) at the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse, Miami.  This year's program is titled The Resilience of the Jewish People: A Conversation with Dan Senor and United States District Judge Roy K. Altman.  A reception will be held on the 14th floor following the program.

 We hope you can join us for this event!  Please RSVP by May 2, 2025 to:  FLSD_Program@flsd.uscourts.gov  

News & Notes

1. Justice Sotomayor speaks out. Via NY Times:

“Judicial independence is critical to everyone’s freedom, because arbitrary power is just that,” she said. “And it means that anyone is going to be subject to unfairness at someone else’s whim.”

Justice Sotomayor’s remarks came in a charged setting. Georgetown’s law school was the subject of an unusual inquiry from Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. In a letter to Dean Treanor, Mr. Martin demanded that the law school end all efforts at achieving diversity, equity and inclusion.

2. Skadden cuts deal with Trump. Via the Hill:

President Trump on Friday announced a deal with the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal services “during the Trump administration and beyond.” 

The agreement comes as Trump has signed executive orders targeting Big Law firms tied to his critics and perceived political enemies, restricting the work they can do with the federal government. 

3. Jenner & Wilmer do not.  Via NY Times:

Jenner & Block said in a statement that its suit was intended to “stop an unconstitutional executive order that has already been declared unlawful by a federal court.” A third firm, Perkins Coie, has also sued the Trump administration over the same matter, and had some early success in stopping the executive order.

Jenner & Block also created a website — Jenner Stands Firm — to publicize its filing and to highlight newspaper editorials criticizing the executive orders and comments from law school professors questioning the legality of Mr. Trump’s actions.

On Friday evening, Judge John Bates of Federal District Court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order that bars the Trump administration from punishing Jenner & Block. The judge called the portion of the executive order that criticizes the pro bono legal work the firm does for organizations “disturbing” and “troubling.”

Later Friday, another federal judge in Washington, Richard Leon, issued a temporary restraining order granting WilmerHale most of the relief the firm sought from the executive order against it.

The effort to fight back in a public manner stands in contrast with the way other firms have handled Mr. Trump’s campaign against them.

4. Trump pardons Trevor Milton (Nikola) and commutes Carlos Watson's (Ozy Media) sentence.  Via the AP.

5.  Trump fires LA AUSA.  Via LA Times:

A federal prosecutor in Los Angeles was fired Friday at the behest of the White House, after lawyers for a fast-food executive he was prosecuting pushed officials in Washington to drop all charges against him, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

Adam Schleifer was terminated Friday morning, receiving an email informing him that the dismissal was “on behalf of President Donald J. Trump,” according to two of the sources, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals from federal officials. Joseph T. McNally, the acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California who is Schleifer’s boss, was not involved in the decision, the sources said.

Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles who is now a partner at Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg LLP, said Schleifer was fired via a “one line e-mail, and it came from a White House staff account.”

  6.  Finally, your Sunday moment of Zen... one of the clips I always watch for inspiration in trial:

 

FBA Goes to Washington

 By John R. Byrne

Yesterday, members of our local chapter of the Federal Bar Association—myself included—hit Capitol Hill in D.C. to encourage support for the federal judiciary. The main goal was to convince legislators to support the "Judges Act," a bipartisan bill that would create sixty-nine new federal judgeships between now and 2035, including several in Florida.

But the Florida delegation had its own pet cause: getting the new federal courthouse in Broward named after Judge Dimitrouleas. Thanks to Oliver Ruiz, who pressed the issue with several legislators and their staff, great progress was made on that front.

On a separate note, a special shout-out to blogger (and criminal lawyer extraordinaire) David Markus, who added another acquittal to his résumé after a month-long trial in front of Judge Ruiz. His partner, Lauren Field Krasnoff, tried the case with him and was essential to the defense as well. No small feat!

(Pictured from left, Oliver Ruiz, Stephanie Turk, John Byrne, and Jon Osborne)

"Blindfolded Juries, Coerced Convictions: Why Prosecutors Often Win Before Trials Even Begin"

 That's the title of this new Clark Neily article, which is worth a read and starts this way:

The Bill of Rights dedicates more words to the resolution of criminal charges than any other subject, establishing a criminal justice system in which defendants are afforded rigorous protections such as the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, and trial by jury.

But the Founders would hardly recognize today’s adjudicative process, which is more akin to an industrial-scale assembly line that prioritizes expediency over fairness and churns out guilty pleas through ad hoc, extraconstitutional dealmaking that systematically excludes ordinary citizens from a process in which they were meant to be the key players. And the small handful of defendants who resist the often palpably coercive pressure to plead guilty will be tried by a jury that has been carefully curated and indoctrinated to ensure it is free of people who understand the historic powers of jurors in our system, including but not limited to conscientious acquittal.

Bet the law-firm time

You all know the story.

Trump has issued executive orders against Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss. Perkins has decided to fight. Paul Weiss has decided to settle.

The managing partner of Paul Weiss, Brad Karp, issued this firm-wide email explaining his decision to bend the knee and settle. It's hard to blame him. Here's a snippet:

We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm. But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration. We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn’t erase it. Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.

At the same time, we learned that the Administration might be willing to reach a resolution with us. So, working with our outside counsel, we did exactly what we advise our clients to do in “bet the company” litigation every day: we talked with the Administration to see if we could achieve a lasting settlement that would not require us to compromise our core values and fundamental principles.

In a matter of days, we were able to negotiate such a resolution. That resolution, the terms of which I shared with all of you on Thursday evening, had three primary components. First, we reiterated our commitment to viewpoint diversity, including in recruiting and in the intake of new matters. Second, while retaining our longstanding commitment to diversity in all of its forms, we agreed that we would follow the law with respect to our employment practices. And third, we agreed to commit $10 million per year over the next four years in pro bono time in three areas in which we are already doing significant work: assisting our Nation’s veterans, countering anti-Semitism, and promoting the fairness of the justice system.

To be clear, and to clarify misinformation perpetuated from various media sources, the Administration is not dictating what matters we take on, approving our matters, or anything like that. We obviously would not, and could not ethically, have agreed to that. Instead, we have agreed to commit substantial pro bono resources, in addition to the $130+ million we already commit annually, in areas of shared interest. We will continue all of the existing pro bono work we already do and will continue in our longstanding role as a leader of the private bar in the pro bono and public interest sphere.

This existential crisis required the leadership of our law firm to make incredibly difficult decisions under extraordinary time pressure. In making those decisions, we were guided by two fundamental principles. First and foremost, we were guided by our obligation to protect our clients’ interests. As I mentioned earlier, we concluded that even a victory in litigation would not be sufficient to do so, because our firm would still be perceived as persona non grata with the Administration. We simply could not practice law in the Paul, Weiss way if we were still subject to the executive order. This resolution was unambiguously in our clients’ best interests.

You're the managing partner of Paul Weiss.  What would you do?

Chief Judge Pryor Issues Order on Misconduct Complaint

By John R. Byrne

There’s been a trend in multidistrict and class action litigation of federal district judges expressly seeking diversity in plaintiff-side leadership, which is court-appointed. Yesterday, Chief Judge Pryor issued an order explaining that such a practice violates the Constitution as well as certain judicial codes of conduct.

The order stemmed from a judicial misconduct complaint filed against Judge Casey Rodgers of the Northern District by influential conservative lawyer Michael R. Davis, who runs the Article III Project.

Judge Rodgers, an experienced MDL judge who is presiding over the Depo-Provera MDL, had made comments at a case management conference about striving for diversity in plaintiffs' leadership—particularly gender diversity. She said, “I think diversity is still an important thing to strive for, so diversity, you know, of all types, but particularly in this litigation, because of the Plaintiffs, I want that particular diversity reflected in the leadership. Now, that doesn't mean I'm looking for every single leader[] to be female, but females need to be adequately represented in your leadership.” Judge Rodgers later issued an order consistent with her comments. Davis filed a complaint, which led to Judge Pryor’s review.

Ultimately, the issue resolved itself, with Judge Rodgers making clear through later orders and comments that she wouldn’t be giving preference to female attorneys when appointing leadership. All the same, Judge Pryor wrote that “the Judicial-Conduct Rules, the Code of Conduct, and the Constitution prohibit federal judges from engaging in discrimination based on sex,” and went on to point out that commentators in the space were “openly encouraging [judges] who preside over these actions to consider impermissible characteristics like sex or race when they appoint leadership counsel.”

Full order below.11-25-90043 CJ Order by John Byrne on Scribd