briefs Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 15:18:59 +0000

Law Firms

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

April 8, 2025, 8:52 am CDT

Amicus briefs supporting Perkins Coie are piling up in its challenge to a punitive order against the law firm signed by President Donald Trump. (Image from Shutterstock)

Amicus briefs supporting Perkins Coie are piling up in its challenge to a punitive order against the law firm signed by President Donald Trump.

The briefs have been filed by more than 500 firms, more than 360 law professors, nearly 350 former judges and a “cross-ideological group” that includes the American Civil Liberties Union and the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest firm, report Law.com (here and here); Bloomberg Law; Reuters (here and here); Law360; and press releases by Law Forward, a nonprofit organization, and the ACLU.

The firm brief is mostly signed by smaller and midsize firms. According to Law.com, larger and well-known firms that signed are:

• Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer

• Covington & Burling

• Crowell & Moring

• Davis Wright Tremaine

• Fenwick & West

• Foley Hoag

• Freshfields US

• Hanson Bridgett

• Jenner & Block

• Manatt, Phelps & Phillips

• Munger, Tolles & Olson

• Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler

• Stoel Rives

• Susman Godfrey

• Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Perkins Coie sued after Trump issued an executive order that suspended Perkins Coie’s security clearance, limited access to federal buildings by its lawyers, blocked government hiring of firm employees, and required federal agencies to take steps to terminate contracts with the firms and their clients—if the firm provided services in connection with the client contract.

WilmerHale and Jenner & Block also sued after they were targeted with executive orders. Covington & Burling was also targeted in a more limited executive order; it has not filed suit.

As of April 3, four other firms reached deals with Trump to avoid punitive measures. The deals included pledges of pro bono support on issues supported by Trump and the firms.

A Perkins Coie spokesperson told Reuters that the firm was grateful to the firms that signed the amicus brief “in our challenge to the unconstitutional executive order and the threat it poses to the rule of law.”

Above the Law is compiling firms’ reactions to actions by the Trump administration in its “BigLaw Spine Index.” Law.com has published a timeline of the executive orders and firms’ response to them.

The legal advocacy groups that signed the ACLU brief are:

• The ACLU

• The ACLU of the District of Columbia

• The Cato Institute

• The Electronic Frontier Foundation

• The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

• The Institute for Justice

• The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University

• The National Coalition Against Censorship

• The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press

• The Rutherford Institute

• The Society for the Rule of Law Institute

Judges who signed an amicus brief include retired state supreme court and appellate justices and former federal judges. Among them are:

• Retired Judge J. Michael Luttig of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia

• Retired Judge Diana Gribbon Motz of the 4th Circuit at Richmond, Virginia

• Retired Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• Retired Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie of the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia

• Retired U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York

Law professors who signed the professor brief are from law schools that include Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, the University of California, the Georgetown University Law Center, the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Cornell Law School, the New York University School of Law, the University of Chicago Law School, Columbia Law School and the University of Michigan Law School.

Professors who signed the brief include Michael C. Dorf of Cornell Law School, Mark A. Lemley of Stanford Law School, Owen Fiss of Yale Law School, Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School, Leah Litman of the University of Michigan Law School, Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and Pamela S. Karlan of Stanford Law School.

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

Source link

The post Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order? appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Former Watergate prosecutor and friends reflect on life in ‘Legal Briefs’

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:03:02 +0000

The Modern Law Library

Former Watergate prosecutor and friends reflect on life in ‘Legal Briefs’

By Lee Rawles

February 5, 2025, 3:45 pm CST

Roger M. Witten.

For some people, retirement is an opportunity to kick back and finally relax. But for Roger M. Witten, it was a chance to finally tackle that book that he’d been thinking about writing. With a little help from longtime friends and colleagues, Legal Briefs: The Ups and Downs of Life in the Law was born.

Witten’s aim was to reach a general audience and give them an idea about what a life in the law could look like outside the most well-known bounds of a criminal justice, Law & Order career. The result is a series of short, digestible anecdotes from 20 attorneys, talking about memorable cases, clients and conundrums that they had. A reader could flip to any chapter in Legal Briefs and spend an enjoyable five to 10 minutes getting a snapshot from a contributor’s career.

Witten shares how he became an assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in the 1970s. In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, he tells host Lee Rawles about defending a wise guy client code-named Ted, who nicknamed Witten “Witless” and threw a party with a banner reading “Ted – 1, FBI – 0” when they reached a successful plea agreement.

Many of the contributors to the book of essays were involved in government litigation and complex corporate matters. Witten was one of the foremost litigators handling Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases, and before his retirement, he was a senior litigation partner in Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr’s New York office.

In this episode, he also shares his perspective as a former Watergate prosecutor on current events within the federal government since the Trump administration began, and he recounts his experience with the late Sen. John McCain of Arizona while defending campaign finance reforms.

Want to listen on the go? The Modern Law Library is available on several podcast listening services. Subscribe and never miss an episode.
Apple | Spotify | Google Play

In This Podcast:

Roger M. Witten

" style="vertical-align:text-top;"/>

Roger M. Witten

Roger M. Witten’s legal career began after a clerkship, with his appointment as an assistant Watergate special prosecutor on the staff of Archibald Cox. He then joined Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, which later became Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. Working in the law firm’s Washington, D.C., and New York offices, Witten’s practice focused on litigation that had international and/or public policy aspects; white-collar law enforcement matters; and internal investigations, which often related to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He was also a devoted advocate of campaign finance reform. He was the chair of WilmerHale’s litigation group and was a member of the firm’s management committee. He is now retired. Legal Briefs: The Ups and Downs of Life in the Law is his first book.

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

Source link

The post Former Watergate prosecutor and friends reflect on life in ‘Legal Briefs’ appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Federal judge will no longer tolerate lawyers’ barbed briefs and ‘expletive-laden phone calls’

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 16 Dec 2024 13:57:01 +0000

Trials & Litigation

Federal judge will no longer tolerate lawyers’ barbed briefs and ‘expletive-laden phone calls’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 12, 2024, 9:00 am CST

A federal judge in Seattle is fed up with “hyperbole and bluster” in a lawsuit alleging that State Farm failed to pay full policy benefits to homeowners after a house fire. (Photo from Shutterstock)

A federal judge in Seattle is fed up with “hyperbole and bluster” in a lawsuit alleging that State Farm failed to pay full policy benefits to homeowners after a house fire.

Lawyers “traded barbs in their briefs and during oral argument” about lack of professionalism and motives, offering competing accounts about who is to blame for a breakdown in communications, said U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the Western District of Washington in a Dec. 4. order. Whitehead was appointed by President Joe Biden.

Law360 has the story.

No matter which story is to be believed, the lawyers’ actions fell short of the required collegiality standard, Whitehead said.

“Expletive-laden phone calls, hang-ups, backing out of prior agreements without explanation, and misleading emails purporting to ‘memorialize’ phone calls demean the integrity of the legal process and show disrespect to all concerned, including the court in having to resolve petty disputes,” Whitehead said in his order.

“Let it be clear: The court will not tolerate such conduct moving forward.”

Whitehead scolded the lawyers before ruling on the plaintiffs’ requests for financial information from State Farm. The plaintiffs hope to learn whether the insurer incentivized claim handlers to place their personal financial gain over the interests of policyholders.

“Setting aside the parties’ hyperbole and bluster,” the communications submitted into evidence show that the parties are at an impasse, Whitehead said. The judge allowed discovery on the incentives program but narrowed the documents that should be produced.

Law360 listed the lawyers for the plaintiffs as Heather N. Derenski of Cedar View Law and Karl E. Malling. The lawyer for State Farm is James D. Hicks of Sinars Slowikowski Tomaska.

None of the lawyers immediately responded to ABA Journal emails seeking comment. Nor did they respond to messages left in voicemails or with law firm personnel.

Source link

The post Federal judge will no longer tolerate lawyers’ barbed briefs and ‘expletive-laden phone calls’ appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

BigLaw firm gets benchslapped for downplaying university deception in appellate brief’s facts section

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:06:15 +0000

Appellate Practice

BigLaw firm gets benchslapped for downplaying university deception in appellate brief’s facts section

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 28, 2024, 11:31 am CST

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher went too far when it used the facts section of an appellate brief to present “a one-sided narrative” that downplayed adverse findings against its client, according to an appeals court. (Image from Shutterstock)

The California Court of Appeal’s Fourth Appellate District criticized Gibson Dunn in an opinion that reduced a $22.3 million award against Zovio Inc. and Ashford University, an online school that is owned by Zovio. Gibson Dunn represented the defendants.

Original Jurisdiction noted the unpublished Feb. 20 decision.

“One common practice pointer for brief writing is not to forfeit the opportunity to use the facts section as a vehicle for subtle advocacy. But don’t go too far, lest you get benchslapped,” wrote Original Jurisdiction author David Lat in his Judicial Notice newsletter.

Zovio and Ashford University were found liable for making false and misleading statements to prospective students in violation of California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws. The appeals court reduced the award by $933,453 because the civil penalty was partly based on false advertising violations that fell outside the statute of limitations.

The appeals court’s criticism of Gibson Dunn begins at page 15.

Gibson Dunn’s factual recitation “highlights favorable testimony while ignoring or downplaying the trial court’s adverse factual findings,” the appeals court complained.

The appeals court included some examples. The brief said Ashford University sought to be a “place of opportunity” for disadvantaged students while “downplaying that the court found Ashford deceived those same students,” the appeals court said.

The brief also emphasized executives’ testimony that the role of admissions counselors was to help and educate, “ignoring that the court found defendants’ admissions counselors were sales people who were pressured to persuade prospective students to enroll,” according to the appeals court.

The appeals court noted the advice in a leading practice guide, which says the appellant’s brief “should accurately and fairly state the critical facts (including the evidence), free of bias, and likewise as to the applicable law.”

“We disapprove of the distorted narrative defendants have presented here,” the appeals court said. “And while defendants deny that they have raised a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to the trial court’s factual findings, we observe that any such challenge has also been forfeited due to their briefing violation.”

The appeals court also said the brief is “peppered with factual statements” that have no citation to the supporting record. And the brief intends to convey that Zovio suffered financial ruin after the judgment, but the assertion is based on outside materials, the appeals court said.

The appeals court said it was ignoring “unsourced factual assertions” and “citations to materials published on the internet as well as the facts they purportedly contain.”

Gibson Dunn did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s email request for comment.

Source link

The post BigLaw firm gets benchslapped for downplaying university deception in appellate brief’s facts section appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.