1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Firm failed to honor exit package after retaliating…

Law Firms

Firm failed to honor exit package after retaliating for bias complaint, former BigLaw partner alleges

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 10:53 am CDT

A former salaried partner at Womble Bond Dickinson has filed a lawsuit alleging that the law firm cut her pay by half and offered her an exit package—which it didn’t honor—after she complained about a hostile work environment.

The April 25 suit filed by Wilka Toppins alleges race and gender discrimination, retaliation, misrepresentation and breach of contract.

Law360 has a story on the suit, filed in Harris County, Texas.

Toppins, who is Hispanic, said she accomplished “a great deal of origination and a large book of business” after she began work at the firm’s Houston office in November 2021, despite receiving inadequate support.

For a majority of her time at the firm, Toppins “had no associate help and no secretarial help,” the suit said. She was also subjected to a “very hostile work environment” by firm members and support staff in her corporate and securities practice group, according to the suit.

“The disparity in treatment included not providing sufficient support, attempting to take away plaintiff’s immigration clients and business, speaking to plaintiff in a derogatory and condescending manner, and failing to fulfill basic promises to her,” the suit said.

Toppins was the only Hispanic female in the entire firm at the time of her hiring, according to the suit.

After Toppins complained, the firm said it would investigate. Eventually, Toppins was told that the firm found that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, but it was not because she was a member of a protected class.

A pattern of retaliation followed, the suit said. Toppins’ pay was cut from $350,000 to $175,000, and she was told that if she did not like the new salary, the firm would be happy to “transition her off,” according to the suit.

After Toppins sought restoration of her pay, Womble Bond Dickinson offered her an exit package consisting of a 10% referral agreement, a contract position for immigration work and a severance agreement. Relying on the agreement, Toppins resigned in January 2024.

The firm then failed to honor the agreement under the exit package, the suit said.

A spokesperson for Womble Bond Dickinson did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s request for comment made in an email and a voicemail.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed…

Law Firms

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

By Debra Cassens Weiss

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.

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.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Nonprofits that challenged mass firings didn’t…

U.S. Supreme Court

Nonprofits that challenged mass firings didn’t have standing, Supreme Court says while staying rehiring order

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 8, 2025, 1:31 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a federal judge’s preliminary injunction that required the federal government to rehire as many as 16,000 fired probationary employees.

In its April 8 order, the Supreme Court said the injunction entered by Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup of the Northern District of California was based solely on claims by nine nonprofit plaintiffs. But those groups did not have standing, the Supreme Court said.

The injunction was not based on claims by other plaintiffs in the lawsuit before Alsup. Alsup didn’t rule on claims by the labor union plaintiffs because he found that he probably didn’t have the power to hear them, according to SCOTUSblog.

The Supreme Court stay will remain in place throughout the litigation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

SCOTUSblog, the Washington Post, the New York Times and Politico are among the publications with coverage.

According to Politico, “the decision’s ultimate impact is murky because another federal judge has issued a separate order reinstating many of the same probationary workers.”

Alsup had granted the preliminary injunction in a March 13 ruling from the bench, he said in a March 14 memorandum opinion. He ordered the employees’ reinstatement based on a finding that the Office of Personnel Management had no authority to fire employees of another agency. That authority belongs to each agency, he said.

Alsup’s injunction reinstated probationary workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense and the Department of the Treasury, according to a March 13 press release.

The government has contended that the firings can only be contested by individual employees before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The case is Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees.

See also:

Judge orders Trump officials to offer jobs back to fired probationary workers

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Merely misleading statements aren’t illegal…

U.S. Supreme Court

Merely misleading statements aren’t illegal under false statements law, Supreme Court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 24, 2025, 3:41 pm CDT

A federal law that makes it a crime to knowingly make false statements to influence the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. does not punish statements that are merely misleading, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The high court ruled for Patrick Daley Thompson, a lawyer and a former alderman who is the grandson of former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and the nephew of former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, SCOTUSblog reports. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the unanimous March 21 decision.

According to SCOTUSblog, the decision “was the most recent of a series of rulings over the past several years in which the court has pushed back against a broader reading of federal criminal laws by prosecutors.”

Other publications covering the opinion include Law360, WBEZ, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times.

Thompson had received three loans totaling $219,000 from the Washington Federal Bank for Savings over a three-year period. The first loan of $110,000 was used to make an equity payment to his law firm. The second loan was for $20,000, and the third loan was for $89,000. The FDIC became responsible for collecting outstanding loans after the bank failed in 2017.

Thompson told the FDIC’s loan servicer and two FDIC contractors that he had borrowed $110,000. Thompson maintained that his statement was misleading but not false because he referred only to the first $110,000 loan. He later agreed to settle the debt for $219,000.

Thompson was convicted in February 2022, and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the appellate decision.

“Given that some misleading statements are also true, it is significant that the statute uses only the word ‘false,’” Roberts wrote in the unanimous opinion. “In casual conversation, people use many overlapping words to describe shady statements: false, misleading, dishonest, deceptive, literally true and more. Only one of those words appears in the statute.”

The Supreme Court did not decide whether the conviction could be upheld because Thompson’s statement was false. The issue can be addressed on remand, Roberts said.

Thompson has already served his sentence of four months in prison, according to WBEZ. He was also convicted for filing false tax returns, but that was not an issue in the appeal.

The case is Thompson v. United States.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Climate change case that ‘ignited a movement’…

U.S. Supreme Court

Climate change case that ‘ignited a movement’ ends with Supreme Court’s cert denial

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2025, 2:01 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a climate change lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 youths who contended that the government is a trustee of the environment and has a duty to preserve it.

The Supreme Court denied cert in Juliana v. United States, report Law360, Reuters, the New York Times, the Oregon Capital Chronicle and E&E News by Politico.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco had tossed the case in a 2020 opinion that said the issue should be taken to the political branches of government, rather than the courts. In May, the appeals court said a revised suit had not cured standing issues that prevented courts from deciding the case.

The name plaintiff in the suit, filed in 2015, is Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, who is now 29 years old and a teacher in Oregon, according to the New York Times.

The U.S. Department of Justice said in a March 24 press release it has defended the case across three presidential administrations.

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s cert denial brings this long saga to a conclusion,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, in the press release.

The case was filed on behalf of the children by the nonprofit group Our Children’s Trust. Julia Olson, the group’s chief legal counsel, said in a March 24 statement the suit’s impact “cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone.”

“Juliana has ignited a movement and created a powerful legal framework for future generations to assert their constitutional rights in the face of the climate crisis,” she said.

In one success for the group in late 2024, the Montana Supreme Court struck down a state law banning consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in fossil-fuel-permitting decisions. The state supreme court cited a state constitutional provision that guarantees a “clean and healthful environment.” The case was Held v. Montana.

In a second case in 2024, Hawaii agreed to cut emissions of carbon dioxide in its transportation system in a settlement with Our Children’s Trust.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Averting immediate showdown, chief justice…

U.S. Supreme Court

Averting immediate showdown, chief justice pauses judge’s deadline for US to restore foreign-aid funds

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 27, 2025, 10:36 am CST

The U.S. government doesn’t have to comply with a federal judge’s Wednesday night deadline to restore foreign-aid funds after Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay in the matter.

Roberts issued the temporary stay late Wednesday in two consolidated lawsuits challenging a 90-day freeze in funding for foreign assistance programs. A plaintiff in one of the suits is the ABA, which had “tens of millions of dollars” in federal funding frozen for foreign rule of law and human rights programs, its suit said.

The Washington Post, Reuters, NBC News, Law.com, SCOTUSblog and the New York Times are among the publications with coverage.

Plaintiffs in the suit consolidated with the ABA’s alleged Feb. 19 that government defendants showed “brazen defiance” of a Feb. 13 temporary restraining order requiring restoration of funding.

U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia issued the Feb. 13 TRO. On Feb. 25, Ali issued a bench ruling setting the deadline at 11:59 p.m. Feb. 26 for compliance with his order requiring payment on completed contracts. The U.S. government immediately appealed.

Amir’s order appears to contemplate the immediate outlay of nearly $2 billion, according to the stay request filed with the Supreme Court by Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris.

The government is committed to paying legitimate claims for work, and it is “undertaking significant efforts” toward that end, Harris said.

“What the government cannot do,” Harris wrote, “is pay arbitrarily determined demands on an arbitrary timeline of the district court’s choosing or according to extra-contractual rules that the court has devised. That mandate creates an untenable payment plan at odds with the president’s obligations under Article II to protect the integrity of the federal fisc and make appropriate judgments about foreign aid.”

The stay request argued that the suits amount to claims for breach of contract that should be heard by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The cases are U.S. Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Trump v. Global Health Council.

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

It’s a well-worn saying that the law always lags behind technology. It makes sense. We all remember the old song about how a bill becomes a law and how long the whole process can take. By the time you get to the verse about a president signing something into law, technology has either evolved into something even more cutting edge or become obsolete—replaced by a newer, shinier toy.

When it comes to data protection and privacy, some states have already taken the lead in trying to protect consumer data. But in these political times, expecting or hoping for the federal government to follow suit seems about as likely as seeing pigs fly. Throw in new revolutionary types of tech, such as generative artificial intelligence, and what was once just a lag has the potential to turn into a gulf.

In this episode of the Legal Rebels Podcast, Benjamin Mishkin, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s technology privacy and data security practice group, talks with the ABA Journal’s Victor Li about what the regulatory landscape looks like regarding data protection and privacy and what we can—and can’t—expect in the near future.