1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Harvard Law Review investigated for alleged…

Law Schools

Harvard Law Review investigated for alleged ‘spoils system’ that uses race in article selection

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 12:13 pm CDT

The federal government has opened an investigation into the Harvard Law Review “based on reports of race-based discrimination permeating the operations of the journal,” according to an April 28 press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

At issue is whether the law review’s policies for membership and article selection violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on race, color and national origin in education programs receiving federal funding.

Allocating opportunities and recognition based on race, rather than merit, is unacceptable, the press release said.

Reuters, Bloomberg Law, ABC News and the Harvard Crimson have coverage.

The civil rights offices of the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services are conducting investigation.

“Harvard Law Review’s article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission,” said Craig Trainor, the Education Department’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, in the press release.

The investigation follows a report by the Washington Free Beacon concluding that race “plays a far larger role in the selection of both editors and articles” than previously acknowledged by the Harvard Law Review. The Washington Free Beacon article was based on leaked internal documents.

The press release cited alleged statements by editors at the Harvard Law Review in which they appeared to favor minority writers. In one instance, an editor allegedly voiced concern that four of the five people who wanted to reply to an article about police reform “are white men.” In another alleged incident, an editor suggested that an article should get expedited review because the author was a minority.

The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization that is legally independent from the Harvard Law School, according to a statement by a Harvard Law School spokesperson cited by publications covering the investigation.

The school is “committed to ensuring that the programs and activities it oversees are in compliance with all applicable laws and to investigating any credibly alleged violations,” the statement said.

The investigation was launched amid the federal government’s decision to freeze more than $2 billion in grants and contracts with Harvard University, which has sued in response.

See also:

Lawsuits target law reviews at Harvard and NYU, saying they favor women and minorities

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice agrees…

Judiciary

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice agrees to license suspension for alleged election-review misconduct

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 11, 2025, 11:00 am CDT

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Gableman has agreed to the suspension of his law license to resolve an ethics complaint that stems from his investigation of the 2020 election for the Wisconsin State Assembly.

Gableman and the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation agreed a three-year suspension of Gableman’s law license is an appropriate sanction in a stipulation signed on April 7 and filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court must approve the suspension.

The stipulation acknowledges that Gableman can’t successfully defend against the misconduct allegations.

The Associated Press, Reuters and the Washington Post have coverage. Law Forward had filed a grievance against Gableman, according to a press release.

Gableman’s $2.3 million election review did not find significant fraud, according to past reporting by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The ethics complaint accused Gableman of failing to tell a legislative committee about cooperation by the cities of Madison and Green Bay in Wisconsin and falsely stating in court documents that the cities’ mayors had failed to appear for depositions without justification.

He was also accused of criticizing a judge instead of responding to questions during a court hearing on a group’s public-records request in Dane County, Wisconsin. He claimed that Judge Frank Remington “has abandoned his role as a neutral magistrate” and later said, “You want to put me in jail, Judge Remington? I’m not gonna be railroaded.”

“With this deal,” said Jeff Mandell, president and general counsel of Law Forward, “Gableman stipulates that he misled courts, lied in public meetings, and violated government transparency laws.”

Gableman served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 2008 to 2018. He filed the stipulation a week after a Democratic-backed candidate won election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, giving the court a 4-3 liberal majority, the Washington Post points out.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The Massachusetts college students accused of hatching a plot to frame a man and label him a predator — which resulted in his assault — say the criminal charges against them should be dropped.

As Law&Crime previously reported, the Assumption University students allegedly lured a 22-year-old man to the campus, falsely accused him of seeking sex with an underage girl, and then chased him down and beat him while recording the attack as part of a so-called “To Catch a Predator” trend on TikTok. The students, all teens, are facing felony kidnapping and conspiracy charges.

Now, the students — Isabella Trudeau, 18, Kevin Carroll, 18, Joaquin Smith, 18, Easton Randall, 19, and Kelsy Brainard, 18 — have asked the judge overseeing the case to drop at least some of the charges against them, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported.

Leonardo Angiulo, a lawyer for one of the students, reportedly described the incident as “a bunch of kids making bad decisions” — but not something that warranted serious charges.

Defense lawyers also said the video that was taken by students to share on social media not only misrepresents what happened, it shows that the man’s movement was not restricted as he ran away. Attorneys also attacked the statement of facts written by police, saying that it relied on the students’ accounts even as officers openly questioned the truth of what they were saying.

At one point, Angiulo argued that the students were simply being students.

“They decided they wanted to confront a person they disagreed with,” he said, according to the Telegram & Gazette. “Isn’t that what college is all about?”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. DOJ files complaint against federal judge…

Judiciary

DOJ files complaint against federal judge for alleged hostility against government lawyer

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 24, 2025, 12:27 pm CST

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a misconduct complaint Friday for alleged “hostile and egregious misconduct” by a federal judge presiding in a challenge to an executive order that says gender dysphoria conflicts with military troop readiness.

The DOJ filed the complaint against U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes of Washington, D.C., report Law360, the Associated Press and Reuters.

“The transcript reveals multiple instances where Judge Reyes’ misconduct compromised the dignity of the proceedings and demonstrated potential bias, raising serious concerns about her ability to preside impartially in this matter,” the complaint says.

Chad Mizelle, the chief of staff for U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, filed the complaint seeking “appropriate action” with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Reyes is an appointee of former President Joe Biden. According to Original Jurisdiction, Reyes “is an equal-opportunity benchslapper” who has also chastised “liberal legal lions.”

The Jan. 27 executive order asks the secretary for the U.S. Department of Defense to revise the military’s transgender policy in a way that is consistent with the order.

“Adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life,” the executive order says.

The Associated Press and Law 360 report that during the hearings, Reyes:

  • Raised her voice and demanded an answer from a government attorney about whether President Donald Trump’s executive order showed animus by calling “an entire category of people dishonest, dishonorable, undisciplined.”

  • Engaged in a rhetorical exercise regarding discrimination. Reyes declared that graduates of the University of Virginia School of Law would be barred from her courtroom because they are “liars and lack integrity.” She then told the government lawyer who was a University of Virginia School of Law grad “to sit down.” According to the ethics complaint, the directive “served no legitimate judicial purpose and transformed an attorney appearing before the court into an unwilling participant in the judge’s unnecessary demonstration.”

  • Asked the government lawyer what “Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me’?” she asked. The complaint says the question “placed DOJ counsel in an untenable position of either appearing unresponsive or speculating about how an incoherent hypothetical aligns with Judge Reyes’ personal religious beliefs.”

The plaintiffs challenging the order are six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two others who want to enlist.

Reyes is not the only federal judge feeling the heat while presiding over challenges to Trump administration policies. Republican lawmakers have introduced articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York after he barred Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s representative from accessing information from the Department of the Treasury, report Bloomberg Law and Axios.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Morgan Lewis, plaintiff settle alleged age,…

Law Firms

Morgan Lewis, plaintiff settle alleged age, race bias case

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 19, 2025, 9:01 am CST

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and a patent prosecution specialist who sued for alleged age and race bias have agreed to dismiss the case.

The dismissal followed a settlement agreement between the law firm and the plaintiff, Melinda Robertson, Law360 reports.

Robertson’s attorney, Neil S. Hyman, told Law360 on Feb. 12 that a settlement had been reached, but he could not provide details.

Robertson, a Black patent prosecution specialist born in 1962, had alleged that Morgan Lewis gave better opportunities to white, younger co-workers. When she complained, Robertson alleged, the firm retaliated by having weekly performance meetings in a glass-walled conference room visible to colleagues.

Robertson had filed her lawsuit in March 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Dechert sues former lawyer for alleged salary…

Law Firms

Dechert sues former lawyer for alleged salary overpayment

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 29, 2025, 10:56 am CST

Dechert has sued a former senior project attorney for more than $90,000, the money that the law firm said it is still owed after a $132,250 salary overpayment.

The Jan. 21 lawsuit filed in the trial-level New York Supreme Court blames the salary overpayment on a clerical error.

Law.com has the story.

The suit says senior project attorney Kathleen Fay continued to receive her regular salary for a 7½ month period ending in May 2024, even though she wasn’t performing billable work at that time. A temporary employment agreement in effect during that period provided that Fay would be paid only for billable work assigned to her and performed.

The agreement was reached in late September 2023 after Fay asked to remain listed on the firm’s website. Fay’s contract as a project attorney ended without an extension June 30, 2023, but she continued to be paid for three months and was offered consulting services to help with her job search, the suit says.

When Dechert discovered its mistake in mid-May 2024, it demanded its money back. Fay did not comply, the suit says.

“In an attempt to make itself whole,” the suit says, Dechert “exercised its rights to recoup certain payments made to or otherwise due to” Fay.

Fay told Law.com that the suit allegations “are baseless and its actions are unethical.” She worked on the firm’s product liability team for more than a decade “and am now a law librarian earning less than a paralegal,” she said.

“It is unfortunate that Dechert has chosen to remove my vested funds from my 401(k) account and to bully me in public,” Fay told Law.com. “However, the equities and the law favor me and I look forward to vindicating my rights and reputation in court.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge dropped from now-sealed suit…

Judiciary

Federal judge dropped from now-sealed suit over alleged underage drinking at his home

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 6, 2025, 9:31 am CST

A federal judge has been dropped from a December lawsuit alleging that “significant underage drinking” happened during a 2023 party at his home, leading to a fight that significantly injured a partygoer.

Plaintiff Alex Wilson sought to drop as defendants U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the Central District of California and his wife in a Dec. 30 request filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Law360 reports. The request was granted the same day.

Wilson had alleged that he was injured during the fight outside the judge’s home when he was struck from behind, and he hit his head and body on the curb. The alleged assailant, who was a minor at the time, remains a defendant in the suit, along with his parents, according to Law360.

Wilson’s lawyer sought to drop Scarsi and his wife from the suit without prejudice, meaning that they could be added as defendants in the future. They were accused of negligence and premises liability.

The Scarsis were dismissed from the suit after they said the complaint had included personal identifying information that put them at risk. The suit has since been sealed, according to Law360.

Judge John J. Kralik of Burbank, California, was assigned to preside in the case in December, according to the court docket.

Scarsi is an appointee of President-elect Donald Trump during his first term in office. Scarsi oversaw a criminal tax case against Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, before the elder Biden issued a pardon to his son.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judicial Conference declines to refer Justices…

U.S. Supreme Court

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

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 6, 2025, 12:00 pm CST

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.