1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ‘Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era?’…

Law Firms

‘Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era?’ Judges consider injunction bids by firms targeted in Trump orders

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 24, 2025, 10:57 am CDT

Two federal judges sharply questioned a government lawyer Wednesday as they considered bids by Perkins Coie and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr to permanently enjoin executive orders that target them and their clients.

“Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era, the Red Scare era?” asked U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., in the Perkins Coie case. Howell was questioning Department of Justice lawyer Richard Lawson, according to Law360.

Publications with coverage, in addition to Law360, include the New York Times, Reuters, Bloomberg Law and Law.com (here and here).

Lawson argued for the government in the cases before Howell and U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, both of whom are located in the District of Columbia.

Perkins Coie and WilmerHale are among four law firms that filed lawsuits to challenge the executive orders that typically seek the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances; restrict their access to government buildings; and call for termination of government contracts for which the firms were hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Targeted firms have represented clients and worked on causes opposed by President Donald Trump.

Howell asked the “throwback” question after noting a declaration from a former Department of Defense official who oversaw security clearances. He said a blanket suspension of clearances, as called for in the executive orders, “harkens back to the repudiated and discredited programs,” including the Red Scare.

Arguing for Perkins Coie, Dane H. Butswinkas, a partner at Williams & Connolly, said Trump’s actions stem from “the playbook of authoritarianism,” according to Bloomberg Law.

“This is exactly the kind of conduct the Constitution forbids,” Butswinkas said.

Butswinkas said the executive orders targeted lawyers who are no longer with the firms, according to Law.com.

“It sounds more like national insecurity than national security,” he said.

In the hearing before Leon, Lawson said the orders are a valid exercise of executive function rather than punishments for First Amendment activities.

Leon questioned that assertion, Law360 reports.

“It’s pretty clear it’s retaliation,” Leon said, “at least to this court.”

Arguing for WilmerHale, Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy said the executive orders “are a direct and lethal threat to an independent bar,” according to Law360.

“The signal it sends to the whole bar is, ‘Watch out,’” Clement said.

Nine firms have reached deals with Trump to avoid executive orders. The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

Above the Law has created a list of firm actions in response to the Trump administration in its “BigLaw Spine Index.”

See also:

Revoking security clearances includes due process, which is not being followed, says whistleblower lawyer

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer for Infowars host Alex Jones gets…

Ethics

Lawyer for Infowars host Alex Jones gets reduced suspension over handling of confidential documents

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 20, 2025, 10:06 am CDT

A lawyer who formerly represented Infowars host Alex Jones has received a two-week suspension for careless handling of confidential documents after an appeals court overturned a lengthier suspension on appeal.

In a March 12 decision, Judge Robin L. Wilson of Waterbury, Connecticut, sanctioned lawyer Norm Pattis after a Connecticut appeals court’s 2024 decision that overturned a six-month suspension. The two-week suspension can be served any time within the next six months, Wilson said.

Law360 and the Darien Times have coverage.

Pattis is seeking a stay of the suspension while he appeals and has asked the judge to credit him for a one-week suspension that he served on the six-month suspension before it was stayed, Law360 reports.

Pattis was accused of violating lawyer ethics rules by careless handling of confidential documents obtained in discovery, including medical records for plaintiffs suing Jones over false claims that the 2012 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, was a hoax. Twenty children and six adults were killed by the shooter.

Pattis had represented Jones in a Connecticut defamation case over the false Sandy Hook claims. The plaintiffs obtained a $1.44 billion judgment against Jones.

Pattis’ law firm had released the records to a bankruptcy lawyer who released them to a Texas lawyer representing Jones in a similar case. A paralegal for the Texas lawyer mistakenly released the documents to the opposing counsel.

Pattis has said he thought that the documents could be shared with all of Jones’ lawyers, according to Law360.

Wilson said the sensitive information, which was protected by a court order, “was carelessly passed around from one unauthorized person to another” with no effort by Pattis to safeguard the documents.

“Given the highly litigious nature of this case, Pattis should have been on heightened alert and duty” that the confidential information “had to be handled with the utmost care,” Wilson said.

Wilson wrote in the decision that “there is no acceptable excuse” for Pattis’ misconduct, given his experience.

“Pattis is a well-known attorney who handles high-profile cases on a regular basis,” Wilson wrote. “He was required to appreciate the consequences of his actions when he made the decision” to release the records.

Wilson said factors in mitigation included lack of prior discipline and absence of a dishonest of selfish motive.

Pattis claims that Wilson did not consider character evidence that he introduced in the remand hearing and improperly relied on facts used by the previous judge to determine a sanction.

Pattis told Law360 that the reprimand was too tough under ABA standards for imposing sanctions.

“I understand the passions the Sandy Hook case evokes, but at some point, those passions should cool,” he said. “When do I stop being ‘Alex Jones’ lawyer’ and resume my role as a lawyer who handles tough cases?”

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Paul Weiss leader cites potential ‘existential…

Law Firms

Paul Weiss leader cites potential ‘existential crisis’ as 1 reason for Trump deal; critics include 141 firm alumni

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 24, 2025, 1:49 pm CDT

An executive order targeting Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison “could easily have destroyed our firm,” the law firm’s chairman, Brad Karp, told employees in a March 23 statement defending the deal that he reached with President Donald Trump.

Karp’s message, printed by Original Jurisdiction, said Paul Weiss was facing an “existential crisis” as a result of a March 14 executive order by Trump. The order had suspended security clearances held by people at the firm, restricted their access to government buildings, required government contractors to disclose whether they do business with the firm, and required agencies to take steps to terminate contracts with Paul Weiss or its clients.

The executive order is being revoked as a result of the deal, Trump announced in a post on Truth Social, his social media platform, March 20. According to Trump, the deal provides that Paul Weiss:

  • Will not deny representation to clients because of lawyers’ personal political views.

  • Will take on a wide variety of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints.

  • Will dedicate $40 million in pro bono legal services “to support the administration’s initiatives, including: assisting our nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, the president’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism and other mutually agreed projects.”

  • “Affirms its commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion and retention and will not adopt, use or pursue any DEI policies.”

Karp sent a copy of the agreement to firm employees that differs from Trump’s description, the New York Times reports. Karp’s version does not mention DEI, but it did affirm a commitment to merits-based employment practices and to hire an outside expert to audit those practices.

Karp also said under the agreement, “the administration is not dictating what matters we take on, approving our matters or anything like that.”

The Truth Social post also quoted a White House statement that said Karp had “acknowledged the wrongdoing of former Paul Weiss partner Mark Pomerantz,” who worked on a criminal case against Trump while he was with the New York district attorney’s office. But Karp’s copy of the agreement did not mention Pomerantz, who has denied doing anything wrong, according to the New York Times.

Karp negotiated the agreement just a few months after suffering a heart attack, the New York Times reports in another article. The deal was supported by “the vast majority” of the firm’s partners, the New York Times said, which relied on anonymous sources.

Karp said he was initially “hopeful that the legal industry would rally to our side” after Trump issued the executive order. Instead “certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys,” he said.

Paul Weiss initially planned to challenge the executive order in a lawsuit, but it soon became clear that a successful legal challenge “would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the administration,” Karp said. In reaching a deal, Karp said, “we were guided by our obligation to protect our clients’ interests” and the need to ensure that the firm would survive.

Critics of the deal include 141 Paul Weiss alumni who signed a March 24 letter protesting the firm’s decision, according to a March 24 press release.

“We expected the firm to be a leader in standing up for the legal profession, the adversary system and the right to counsel,” the letter said. “Instead of a ringing defense of the values of democracy, we witnessed a craven surrender to, and thus complicity in, what is perhaps the gravest threat to the independence of the legal profession since at least the days of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.”

Taking the other side is Stephen Gillers, a professor at the New York University School of Law, who told Law.com that Paul Weiss “had no obligation to fight Trump in court.”

The firm “has obligations to its clients, who must deal with the federal government regularly as an adversary or a regulator, and to its thousands of employees, including lawyers,” he said.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former practice chair allegedly overbilled…

Ethics

Former practice chair allegedly overbilled clients by over $3.5M at 2 BigLaw firms, ethics complaint says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 26, 2025, 12:13 pm CST

A former partner in the Chicago offices of two large international law firms is facing an ethics complaint alleging that he falsified billing records and caused clients to be overbilled by more than $3.5 million over a period of 20 years.

William Michael Doyle Jr. is accused in a Feb. 19 ethics complaint filed by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the Legal Profession Blog reports.

The ethics complaint does not name the firms. But an online press release from 2022 said Doyle was the trusts and estates practice chair at Winston & Strawn before he joined Greenberg Traurig as a shareholder in August 2022.

“Doyle is a renowned tax and estate-planning expert with more than four decades of experience representing many of the wealthiest families in the United States and around the world,” the press release said.

While working at both firms, Doyle directed other lawyers and staff members to perform tasks for clients and reviewed their time-keeping records. Doyle was supposed to review the records and approve them for submission to the accounting department, which then billed clients.

The ethics complaint alleges that Doyle caused clients to be overbilled for the work that he oversaw and performed by recording time for services not provided, by inflating the hours worked, by billing for time spent on other clients, and by recording time that should have been written off.

The ethics complaint alleges that Doyle caused Winston & Strawn clients to be overbilled by $2,529,378 over 18 years. He is accused of causing Greenberg Traurig’s clients to be overbilled by $973,910 over a period of less than two years.

After learning of the time misrepresentations, both firms reviewed client invoices and offered to refund the amounts based on false information.

“Some, but not all, of the clients agreed to accept the refunds offered by the firms,” the ethics complaint says.

When reached by phone, Doyle said he could not comment without first speaking with his lawyer.

A Greenberg Traurig spokesperson gave this statement to the ABA Journal: “Mr. Doyle was with our firm for less than two years. As soon as we became aware of questionable billing practices, we investigated, and within weeks, took corrective actions, including notifying the Illinois bar [the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission], fully cooperating with the ARDC and offering a full refund of amounts that appeared to have been questionably billed to impacted clients. By the conclusion of our investigation, Mr. Doyle was no longer associated with our firm.”

A Winston & Strawn spokesperson gave this statement to the ABA Journal: “Bill Doyle left Winston & Strawn in August 2022 and has not been associated with our firm since that time. We are committed to upholding the highest ethical standards and have zero tolerance for any actions that compromise our integrity or the trust our clients place in us. The complaint does not name Winston or cite any misconduct by the firm but instead alleges that Mr. Doyle made misrepresentations to the firm’s billing department that resulted in the improper invoices. Since learning of this matter, we have conducted a thorough investigation and taken appropriate measures to address any harm to our clients.”

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Storage company contends it has no obligation…

Trials & Litigation

Storage company contends it has no obligation to sort through client files allegedly left by defunct law firm

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 6, 2025, 9:36 am CST

A records management company is asking a court to declare that it has no obligation to clients of a defunct Pittsburgh law firm that allegedly left more than 7,500 boxes in its warehouse that likely contain numerous client files.

In a Jan. 29 lawsuit, the Access Information Management Corp. said shuttered firm Rothman Gordon is asking the company to deliver the files to clients, even though the Access Information Management Corp. “has no authority whatsoever to relocate, handle, deliver or otherwise provide the files to any person or entity aside from Rothman.”

Indeed, the suit said, rifling through large unlabeled boxes could expose the Access Information Management Corp. to liability.

Law360 has the story on the suit, which also contends that Rothman Gordon owes the storage company more than $91,000 in unpaid bills, an amount that increases daily.

Rothman Gordon stopped operating in October 2024, but it has not filed articles of dissolution and remains obligated to fulfill its contractual obligations, the suit said. The firm allegedly stopped paying storage fees around June 2023.

The initial contract was between the firm and Business Records Management, a company acquired by the Access Information Management Corp. when it was known as Retrievex.

The firm agreed in the contract that it is the owner of the stored records, and that the storage company can’t destroy “useless records” absent written instruction and payment of the “standard published rates,” the suit said.

The Access Information Management Corp. filed the suit in Pennsylvania state court in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

The Access Information Management Corp. is seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its obligations, an injunction requiring Rothman Gordon to take back or destroy the files and to stop telling clients to contact the storage company, and damages of more than $91,000 for the unpaid bills.

Law360 identified the lawyer for Rothman Gordon as Matthew M. Herron of Herron Business Law. He did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal voicemail requesting for comment. Rothman Gordon’s former managing partner, Frank Salpietro, also did not immediately respond to a voicemail message.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. BigLaw firm sanctioned for ‘flagrant violations…

Law Firms

BigLaw firm sanctioned for ‘flagrant violations of a protective order’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 4, 2024, 2:36 pm CST

Latham & Watkins and its client must pay an attorney-fee sanction for “flagrant violations of a protective order,” according to a federal judge in California.

U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee of the Central District of California ordered Latham and its then-client, former Banc of California CEO Steven A. Sugarman, to pay attorney fees incurred by investment company Muddy Waters Capital in a motion for sanctions, report Reuters and Law 360.

In a Sept. 30 order unsealed last Tuesday, Gee said Latham wrongly gave Sugarman an expert-witness report that relied on documents produced by Muddy Waters Capital that had been designated for “attorneys’ eyes only.” Sugarman then wrongly shared the report with others in a bid to implicate Muddy Waters Capital in a bid to devalue Banc of California stock, Gee concluded. Latham had designated the report as “confidential,” rather than for “attorneys’ eyes only.”

The underlying litigation was a securities class action lawsuit by investors who alleged a failure to disclose harmful information that led to a decrease in stock price. The information, revealed in an anonymous blog post, consisted of allegations that Banc of California had ties to a fraudster.

Sugarman subpoenaed Muddy Waters Capital based on his belief that it may have been among market participants who were aware of the blog post in advance because they had short positions that would benefit from a decrease in stock price. Muddy Waters Capital produced documents about its Banc of California transactions in response to an order saying the material would be for attorneys’ eyes only.

The report that relied on the attorneys-eyes-only information was prepared by a professor who was asked to provide an opinion on why the bank’s stock price decreased. He concluded that traders engaged in a “short-and-distort” trading scheme.

Sugarman said he didn’t think that the expert report contained information for attorneys’ eyes only, and it was his confidential document. He said he didn’t recall authorizing an employee to disseminate it. Gee nonetheless found Sugarman in civil contempt, saying his conduct “was not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the protective order.”

Latham claimed that the expert report did not include information derived from attorneys-eyes-only material, but that argument “is obviously wrong,” Gee said. The law firm alternatively argued that civil contempt wasn’t warranted for “a technical error during a yearslong, incredibly complex litigation requiring near-daily application of the protective order.”

“This argument,” Gee said, “undermines the critical importance of complying with protective orders in civil litigation—and minimizes the degree of care that must be exercised in ensuring compliance.”

Gee acknowledged, however, that “there is insufficient evidence to suggest that Latham acted in bad faith as opposed to in serious error.”

A Latham spokesperson declined to comment to the ABA Journal. A lawyer for Sugarman, Mona Hanna of Michelman & Robinson, did not immediately respond to the Journal’s emailed request for comment.

Updated: With the emergence of generative artificial intelligence, many traditional software categories have been reinvented. Legal software has not been immune from this impactful change. Over the past few years, AI has been increasingly embedded into tools that support legal workflows, and the result has been improved functionality that increases the overall intuitiveness and value of legal software.

The next generation of litigation analytics

Litigation analytics software is no exception to this trend. This category of software has changed significantly since I last wrote about it in 2020. The addition of more sophisticated AI capabilities, including generative AI, to some platforms, has supercharged the output. As a result, this category of software is even more appealing than ever to litigation attorneys and their teams.

Since the rollout of ChatGPT in November 2022, improved AI capabilities have impacted new and existing litigation analytics tools, noticeably increasing competition in this space. With this influx of AI-enabled products comes the challenge of sifting through the many choices available to identify the tool that is the best fit for your law firm’s needs.

That’s where this article comes in. I’ll provide an overview of this software category, tips for choosing the right tools, and a rundown of top contenders in the space.

The how and why of litigation analytics

Litigation analytics software quickly sifts through court records, filings and other public and private datasets, providing users with organized insights about judges, case outcomes, attorneys, expert witnesses and more. This technology helps legal professionals identify the patterns and trends that influence the direction of a case, providing for more informed strategy development.

With the addition of generative AI, these tools go beyond traditional data sorting. Generative AI capabilities enable the software to not only organize and analyze data but also generate summaries, predict potential outcomes, and offer strategic recommendations based on historical trends and similar cases. For example, the software can highlight patterns in a judge’s previous rulings or identify the likelihood of success for certain motions.

This enhanced functionality enables legal teams to reduce the time spent on manual research and data analysis. Using real-time, AI-powered insights, lawyers can make more informed decisions, improving the accuracy and efficiency of case preparation. Whether forecasting a case’s outcome or identifying trends in opposing counsel’s litigation tactics, these tools help legal professionals optimize their strategies from start to finish. The result is not just improved workflow efficiency but an increase in data-driven decision-making that can have a direct impact on litigation success.

Evaluating AI tools for litigation analytics

Before exploring new AI-powered software, you’ll have to first evaluate your firm’s current tech choices. Software vendors often introduce updates or may be in the process of forming partnerships that enhance the platforms that are already used in your firm, which could potentially add the features you’re seeking. Checking with your firm’s trusted providers before evaluating other tools can save time and resources by avoiding redundant purchases.

If you determine that a new solution is necessary, the next step is to clearly define the problems you have to solve. Review your firm’s current tech to identify gaps in your IT stack and uncover workflow inefficiencies. Make sure to involve team members who will use the software, so that you better understand their pain points and preferences. Their input will ensure a smoother adoption process and alignment with day-to-day operations.

Once you have a clear sense of your needs, research available tools. The list of litigation analytics platforms below is a good starting point. Take advantage of free trials or demos to test functionality and determine whether the software integrates well with your existing systems and workflows.

Security and compliance are also essential considerations when adopting AI tools. Your firm’s ethical obligations require careful vetting of any third-party provider that handles your firm’s confidential information. Confirm how client data will be handled, stored and backed up. Determine who will have access to it and under what circumstances.

Additionally, because analytics tools depend on firm data, ensuring robust data security is critical. While vendors often claim to protect data, you should verify the protections in place and assess whether the steps taken meet professional and regulatory standards.

When researching AI tools, another security factor to consider is whether the provider uses your firm’s data inputs to further train its AI models. Current ethics guidance suggests that confidential data should not be used for this purpose.

Finally, evaluate the AI tool’s accuracy and reliability. Consider how well it performs tasks, such as analyzing court data and predicting litigation outcomes, ensuring that it complements rather than complicates your litigation strategy. With these factors addressed, your firm will be better equipped to adopt a solution that enhances efficiency and litigation management.

With that advice in mind, let’s review some generative AI-enhanced litigation analytics tools. Understand that this list is not all-inclusive. Additionally, offerings from large legal tech companies, like Thomson Reuters, LexisNexis and vLex, are excluded. Each of these companies provides large-scale generative AI platforms that include litigation analytics data, so if your firm has these tools in place, it’s worth learning more about these capabilities and their costs before investing in a stand-alone option.

The cost of most legal analytics software depends on subscription models, features and firm size and is often negotiated with the vendor. However, if pricing is available on the company’s website, it will be included below.

Litigation analytics software with AI capabilities

First, there’s Trellis, which is a state trial court research and analytics platform. It provides access to court dockets and the judicial rulings of most states. Trellis offers insights into judges, opposing counsel and their firms and case outcomes. Pricing starts at $129.95 per month for up to three accounts.

LegalMation is an AI-driven tool that automates the litigation process. It generates legal documents and provides data analytics for litigators. The analytics provided draw from datasets that include external sources, such as court dockets, along with a firm’s internal data and documents. Reports provided include a risk index, outcome and cost predictions and counsel comparisons.

Another option is Premonition, an AI-driven litigation data and analytics platform. It predicts motion outcomes and provides insights into lawyers, firms, companies, judges and courts, offering comprehensive data coverage and detailed analysis of various litigation participants.

Finally, Pre/Dicta collects, classifies and analyzes the entire federal docket and every judge’s unique personal attributes, including age, gender, resumé/background and political affiliation. Then, using what it calls “predictive AI,” it predicts the success or failure of a motion to dismiss before that judge.

Maximizing litigation teams’ efficiency with AI

We are in a fast-moving era of technological advancements, and ignoring AI is not an option. Instead, position your firm for long-term growth by investing in AI-powered software that streamlines your teams’ litigation workflows and supports strategic decision-making.

The data-driven insights will improve courtroom outcomes and enhance client satisfaction, enabling your firm to stay ahead of the competition. The bottom line: There’s no better time than now to explore AI solutions that will empower your legal team for future litigation success.

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

---

Updated Oct. 29 at 9:29 a.m. to clarify wording for the Pre/Dicta litigation analytics software.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Florida lawyer says she used trust account…

Ethics

Florida lawyer says she used trust account funds to avoid becoming homeless

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 17, 2024, 1:58 pm CDT

An Orlando, Florida, lawyer accused of client trust account violations has said she used some settlement funds during the COVID-19 pandemic to avoid becoming homeless when she lost her primary job as a schoolteacher.

The Florida Supreme Court placed the lawyer, Natalie Renee Jones of Florida, on emergency suspension in a Sept. 16 order summarized by the Florida Bar News.

The Miami Herald covered the suspension and Jones’ explanation.

Hurricanes Helene and Milton are further compounding Jones’ troubles, Jones said in a motion for an extension of time to comply with the suspension order. The hurricanes have displaced Jones from her home and law office, and she has limited access to essential documents and records, she said.

The ethics investigation began when Bank of America notified the Florida Bar of an overdraft of about $2,400 in Jones’ client trust account in March, according to the Sept. 11 motion for the emergency suspension. The bar determined that the overdraft stemmed from Jones’ payment of fees to herself from trust account money two weeks before she deposited the settlement check.

The bar initiated an audit. It found shortages in the trust account ranging from $3,333 to $37,052 from December 2020 to June 2024, according to the suspension petition.

Jones told disciplinary authorities in a June letter that she used client settlement funds for personal expenses because “the alternative would have rendered my son and me homeless.”

The letter said Jones began working as a schoolteacher a year before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. She also began drafting demand letters for attorneys and took on two significant accident cases against Walmart and Lyft, as well as some smaller cases.

After the pandemic shut down schools and courts, Jones wrote, “I was without a steady income and in an exceptionally precarious situation.” Because her “finances were depleted,” she had to refer her two best cases to large litigation law firms.

When smaller cases settled, she said, she did not immediately compensate medical providers and used the money for living expenses.

In her answer to the petition for an emergency suspension, Jones said there was no threat to the public because all clients received their full settlement funds. Medical providers impacted by delayed funds were contacted and informed.

Jones said she is an attorney with a 30-year career that is “devoid of bar violations or complaints.”

Since the bar inquiry began, Jones said, she has taken a continuing legal education course on emotional resiliency, has sought counseling, and has listened to podcasts on managing client trust accounts.

Neither Jones nor her lawyer, Christopher L. Clark of the First Neighborhood Law Firm, immediately responded to an ABA Journal request for comment sent to email addresses used in the disciplinary case.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer accused of ‘egregious acts of dishonesty,’…

Ethics

Lawyer accused of ‘egregious acts of dishonesty,’ gambling with client cash gets disbarred

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 22, 2024, 11:44 am CDT

A California lawyer has been disbarred after he was accused of misappropriating nearly $117,000 in client money, spending it on gambling and personal expenses, and then lying to state bar officials about having cancer.

Sergio Valdovinos Ramirez of Manhattan Beach, California, who uses Valdovinos as his last name, was disbarred effective Oct. 18, in a Sept. 18 opinion by the California Supreme Court. He was ordered to pay restitution and interest to five clients and to pay a $5,000 sanction to a client security fund.

After ethics charges were filed against him, Valdovinos told the State Bar of California’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel that he had cancer, according to the review department opinion. He told the hearing judge that he was undergoing chemotherapy, and that he was being treated by Dr. Stephen Chang of the City of Hope.

He did not provide promised medical documentation. Investigators were unable to find any doctor by that name at City of Hope.

Valdovinos later said he didn’t present his medical documentation because of privacy concerns.

He also lied to clients about their cases, providing them with checks that were said to be settlement money or a refund, the opinion said. The checks bounced.

“This case is about an attorney’s egregious acts of dishonesty that occurred in his practice and continued through his disciplinary trial,” the review department of the State Bar Court of California—the administrative arm of the California Supreme Court—said in a June 28 opinion recommending disbarment.

Law360, KTLA and the Los Angeles Times via Yahoo News are among the publications with coverage.

Valdovinos had claimed that the hearing judge was biased against him, and she had embarrassed him when she asked whether he intended to raise gambling addiction as a mitigating factor in his ethics case. The question was not unreasonable, the review department said. In a two-year period, Valdovinos had spent $886,535 for gambling chips from the Bicycle Casino and the Commerce Casino.

The opinion detailed alleged misappropriation and misrepresentations.

One client who said she was injured in a car accident paid Valdovinos $4,850, but he never filed a lawsuit on her behalf, the review department said. He used the money for personal expenditures, including payments for restaurants, a gas station and the Bicycle Casino. Valdovinos allegedly told the client that he had filed the suit, but there were court delays because of the COVID-19 pandemic. He later said he settled the suit, according to the opinion.

Valdovinos gave the client four checks said to represent the settlement money, but he stopped payment on the first and had insufficient funds to cover the other three, the opinion said. He also claimed that he had tried to wire the funds, but there were problems. He did provide the client $500, the only money he ever returned to her.

“Valdovinos went to great lengths to give [the client] the false impression that he was making progress on her case and to hide the fact that he had not filed a lawsuit on her behalf, which is evidence that the misrepresentations were intentional,” the review department said.

Valdovinos also provided other clients with checks that bounced, the hearing board said.

“Valdovinos’s misconduct was widespread, covering multiple client matters, and he significantly harmed his clients,” the opinion said.

The review board cited several aggravating factors, including that Valdovinos “lied about the most easily verifiable facts.” His misrepresentations about cancer were “purposeful misrepresentations” to avoid complying with deadlines in the ethics case, the review board said.

“There is nothing in the record to illustrate Valdovinos learned from his misconduct and would not engage in such misconduct again; instead, Valdovinos never showed remorse or accepted responsibility,” the opinion said.

In his closing brief, Valdovinos had argued that the trial counsel’s office had relied heavily “on speculation and innuendos.”

Valdovinos never told one client that her case had settled for $175,000; rather, that was the amount that the client hoped to obtain, Valdovinos said. Her advance fees were used for a private investigator. And he never filed suit because there was no injury, he said.

Another client who cut off contact with Valdovinos “chose not to collect his funds in full,” the brief said. Another client never gave Valdovinos the necessary evidence for his case. In yet another case, Valdovinos worked on the case, using up the entire retainer, Valdovinos said.

Valdovinos was licensed in California in 2017 and had a solo practice. He is a graduate of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.

Valdovinos did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal request for comment sent to an email address on file with the state bar. A phone number listed by the state bar was not in service.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Overturning 45-year precedent, New Jersey…

Ethics

Overturning 45-year precedent, New Jersey gives disbarred lawyers second chance

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 16, 2024, 11:55 am CDT

Former New Jersey lawyers who are disbarred will in most cases be allowed to apply for reinstatement after five years, the New Jersey Supreme Court has decided.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s Oct. 15 order and determination reject the approach that it adopted in a 1979 case that imposed automatic and permanent disbarment for knowing misappropriation of funds. Now, lawyers disbarred for misappropriation, as well as lawyers disbarred for other reasons, can apply for readmission in five years as long as several conditions are met.

Law360 and Law.com are among the publications with coverage.

New Jersey now joins 41 other states and the District of Columbia in allowing disbarred attorneys to seek readmission. Most of those jurisdictions allow an application for reinstatement after five years.

But not every lawyer can apply for reinstatement in New Jersey. The state supreme court retained the authority to impose permanent disbarment in future egregious cases and to block successive applications for reinstatement for particular attorneys, according to an Oct. 15 press release on the new admission process.

The path back to a law license won’t be easy. Lawyers seeking readmission must meet several conditions, including requirements that they prove fitness to practice law, that they take and pass the New Jersey bar exam and the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, that they complete specified continuing legal education courses, and that they file a statement of restitution paid to former clients and a client protection fund.

The New Jersey Supreme Court acted on a recommendation of the so-called Wade Committee, also known as the state supreme court’s Special Committee on the Duration of Disbarment for Knowing Misappropriation. It is named for lawyer Dionne Larrel Wade, who was disbarred after a random audit showed that she sometimes took money from her client trust account to pay bills. She always repaid the money, however, and she had no prior discipline.

Wade had represented underserved clients and was honored for her pro bono work.

“Everything I’ve done in my life was to become an attorney and to help people,” Wade told the ABA Journal in a December 2022 article.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion disbarring Wade convened the special committee to evaluate whether disbarment should always be permanent. Twenty-one of the committee’s 28 members recommended a path to readmission.

New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner commented on the readmission decision in the press release.

“Going forward, New Jersey’s legal system will have a robust and fair review process that not only protects the public but also affords disbarred attorneys, who have taken appropriate steps, a chance to practice law again after five years,” Rabner said.