1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge who sought female attorneys…

Judiciary

Federal judge who sought female attorneys among class counsel has acknowledged sex-bias concerns, order says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2025, 9:21 am CDT

A federal judge who called for female attorneys to be “adequately represented” on the leadership team for plaintiffs in multidistrict contraceptive litigation has “acknowledged the concerns created by her statements,” according to an order closing an ethics inquiry.

U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the Northern District of Florida “has taken appropriate voluntary corrective action that acknowledges and remedies the problems created by her statements,” wrote Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta in the March 20 order.

Conservative activist Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project—a conservative group—filed a complaint against Rodgers after she said during a Feb. 21 case management conference and in a Feb. 23 order that she thinks that female attorneys have to be “adequately represented” on the leadership team given the female plaintiffs in the contraceptive drug Depo-Provera litigation.

Davis had released the complaint and his organization, the Article III Project, published online articles about it. He alleged that Rodgers’ statements amounted to discrimination based on sex and constituted judicial misconduct.

Rodgers omitted references to sex when she invited applications for leadership positions in a Feb. 28 order. All applicants would be considered based on merit, she said in the order. Then, in a March 13 hearing allowing nearly 70 applicants to give presentations, Rodgers said she would not give preferences to women to avoid the appearance of impermissible sex discrimination.

Pryor said Rodgers’ voluntary corrective action was sufficient while warning that judges can’t discriminate based on sex when selecting class counsel.

Pryor noted a 2013 statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a cert denial in which he criticized a judge’s “unique” requirement that class counsel fairly reflect the composition of plaintiffs.

What Alito described as a unique practice “has been touted as a ‘best practice’ in multidistrict litigation,” Pryor said. “Commentators openly encourage judges who preside over these actions to consider impermissible characteristics like sex or race when they appoint leadership counsel.”

Notions about a lawyer’s ability to fairly and adequately represent class interests “must exist within the bounds of the rules that govern judicial conduct, and those bounds prohibit discrimination based on sex,” Pryor said.

Law360 and Reuters are among the publications with coverage of the order, noted by How Appealing.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. BigLaw attorneys who are ‘frequent practitioners’…

Civil Procedure

BigLaw attorneys who are ‘frequent practitioners’ in federal district can’t be admitted pro hac vice, judge says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 5, 2025, 3:45 pm CST

Two Baker & Hostetler lawyers won’t be able to represent a compounding pharmacy in a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, at least for now, after a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas denied their application to appear pro hac vice.

Partner Andrew M. Grossman and associate Marc N. Wagner cannot be admitted pro hac vice because they are “frequent practitioners” in cases filed in the Northern District of Texas, said U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman of the Northern District of Texas in a March 3 order.

Law360 covered the decision, noting that pro hac vice motions “are common and usually regarded as an afterthought. They are rarely denied.”

A pro hac vice admission means that a lawyer has been admitted to practice in a jurisdiction in only one particular case, Pittman said. In the past year, however, Grossman submitted three such applications, while Wagner submitted four of them in the Northern District of Texas, including the applications in the case before Pittman.

The lawyers, Pittman said, are encouraged “to file applications to be admitted to practice in this court, and [this court] would happily welcome them as members of the bar.”

Grossman is licensed in Washington, D.C., and admitted to practice before nearly every federal appeals court. Wagner is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C.

Wagner and Grossman did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email seeking comment. They are among six Baker & Hostetler lawyers who signed the Feb. 24 suit and among four who planned to seek pro hac vice admission in the case.

The suit challenges an FDA decision to remove the weight loss drug semaglutide from a shortage list, which meant that compounding pharmacies were no longer allowed to help satisfy demand. The plaintiffs in the suit are a compounding pharmacy and a trade association that represents compounding facilities.

Pittman appears to be a stickler for the rules. He previously dismissed a suit because of a missed deadline to file a certificate of interested persons and sanctioned two lawyers in a different suit for submitting declarations instead of notarized affidavits as he had directed.

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

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has lost yet another case and is now being ordered to once again pay attorneys fees for her office’s intentional violations of Peach State open records laws.

As Law&Crime previously reported, the final judgment in the matter ancillary to the district attorney’s failed racketeering (RICO) prosecution of President Donald Trump was a foregone conclusion.

In October 2024, the judge overseeing the matter said Willis would lose and be subject to a monetary penalty. On Friday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause formalized her ruling.

“The law doesn’t apply to you,” the judge sarcastically said during last year’s final hearing in the case — upbraiding a government lawyer.

Attorneys across the country are being targeted with fake electronic filing notifications, in which emails purporting to come from the federal Judiciary’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system lead recipients to a malicious website with computer viruses.

According to the IT Security Office for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the fake Notices of Electronic Filing prompt recipients to reply immediately. Recipients are then sent an email containing a link to access fake case documents that direct users to a malicious website.

To avoid becoming a victim of the scam, be sure to always validate cases and case documentation directly through your local federal court’s CM/ECF system. Never download attachments or click on links from unofficial or questionable sources.

If you receive a suspicious email regarding a federal court case, contact the federal court in your jurisdiction before opening any attachments or links.

Visit the federal court scams page for more information about scams targeting people who interact with the federal courts.