1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 59 partners leave A&O Shearman outside Asia…

Layoffs

59 partners leave A&O Shearman outside Asia since decision to trim 10% of equity partnership

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 3:19 pm CDT

Twenty-five U.S. partners are among the 59 partners who left A&O Shearman since its decision last year to trim 10% of its global equity partnership, according to a count by Law.com.

The count does not include 15 partners who left A&O Shearman in Asia, as previously reported by Law.com. Butit does include partners who left in the United States, London, Europe, Africa and Australia.

A&O Shearman said last year the partner cuts were “a difficult but necessary step forward” following the merger between Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling. About 45 partners who left joined other law firms.

A&O Shearman said it currently has around 800 partners worldwide, which is about the same number that it had when it announced the cuts. It is unclear why the current number isn’t lower, according to Law.com.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Suits seeking continued US funding will likely…

U.S. Supreme Court

Suits seeking continued US funding will likely be routed to Court of Federal Claims after SCOTUS decision, law prof says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 7, 2025, 11:42 am CDT

A decision on Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court in a challenge to an education-grant freeze will likely redirect many other lawsuits regarding Trump administration spending decisions to the Court of Federal Claims, according to a law professor.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision allowed the Trump administration to freeze $65 million in education-related grants while a suit filed by eight states is litigated.

The Supreme Court found that the government was likely to succeed in its argument that a district court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the Administrative Procedure Act. The law waives government immunity but not for court orders to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money along the lines of the order by U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun of the District of Massachusetts, the Supreme Court said.

Instead, the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to hear such suits, the high court said.

Writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, said the ruling “should quickly knock out many other ‘spending’ cases and redirect them to the Court of Federal Claims. This is a court most people have never heard of but will soon become very important.”

The Supreme Court’s decision stayed a March 10 temporary restraining order issued by Joun, report Politico, Reuters, Howe on the Court, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the decision but did not issue or join a dissent. The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices also dissented.

The Trump administration had canceled the grants because they included diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The states that sued are California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.

Joun’s order had required the government to pay past-due grant obligations and to continue paying the obligations as they accrue. The judge based the decision on a finding that the challengers were likely to succeed on their claim that the freeze was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court disagreed with that finding.

Generally, TROs cannot be appealed, but the order issued by Joun was more akin to a preliminary injunction, the majority said.

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the general rule is that Administrative Procedure Act suits go to federal district courts, even when a remedial order may result in the disbursement of funds.

“So the court’s reasoning is at the least underdeveloped, and very possibly wrong,” she said.

Kagan also criticized the majority for making a decision based on the government’s emergency application.

“The risk of error increases when this court decides cases—as here—with barebones briefing, no argument and scarce time for reflection,” she wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“It is beyond puzzling that a majority of justices conceive of the government’s application as an emergency,” Jackson wrote. “It is likewise baffling that anyone is persuaded that the equities favor the government when the government does not even argue that the lower courts erred in concluding that it likely behaved unlawfully.”

The decision is Department of Education v. California.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Co-founder of defunct firm LeClairRyan may…

Law Firms

Co-founder of defunct firm LeClairRyan may be able to avoid tax liability after 4th Circuit decision on his exit

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 12, 2025, 10:44 am CST

The co-founder and former CEO of the defunct law firm LeClairRyan may be able to avoid tax liability in connection with the firm’s collapse because of a ruling Friday by a federal appeals court.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, ruled for former partner Gary LeClair in a Feb. 7 opinion, Law360 reports.

The Legal Profession Blog published highlights.

The 4th Circuit ruled that LeClairRyan’s operating agreement didn’t bar LeClair from withdrawing as a partner after a vote to dissolve in July 2019. Bankruptcy and federal courts had reached the opposite conclusion, which made LeClair liable for some tax obligations because he was considered a partner on the day that the firm filed for bankruptcy in September 2019.

The firm had included LeClair on a list of equity holders filed with the bankruptcy court. LeClair wanted to amend the list to remove his name.

The 4th Circuit remanded for a determination.

“We leave it to the bankruptcy court on remand to determine whether any equitable considerations warrant denial of the motion to amend despite LeClair’s correct interpretation of the operating agreement,” the appeals court said.

See also:

Too big too soon: How LeClairRyan went under

LeClairRyan bankruptcy trustee targets firm co-founder, compares firm to movie ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. DC church controls Proud Boys trademark as…

Trademark Law

DC church controls Proud Boys trademark as result of judge’s decision

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 4, 2025, 1:59 pm CST

A Washington, D.C., judge has transferred interest in a trademark owned by Proud Boys International, a far-right group, to a church that its members vandalized in December 2020.

The judge’s injunction also banned Proud Boys International from selling or licensing its trademark without court approval or the consent of the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, which had sued over the attack.

Judge Tanya M. Jones Bosier of the District of Columbia Superior Court entered the injunction Feb. 3 after the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., sued to enforce a $2.8 million default judgment against the Proud Boys.

The New York Times, the Independent, the Guardian and the Hill are among the publications with coverage.

Bosier’s ruling “effectively means that Proud Boys chapters across the country can no longer legally use their own name or the group’s traditional symbols without the permission of the church,” the New York Times reports. “The ruling also clears the way for the church to try to seize any money that the Proud Boys might make by selling merchandise, like hats or T-shirts emblazoned with their name or with any of their familiar logos, including a black and yellow laurel wreath.”

The Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., had obtained the default judgment in a June 2023 decision by Judge Neal E. Kravitz of the District of Columbia Superior Court. He ruled after the church alleged that the Proud Boys trespassed on church property during a march and destroyed its large Black Lives Matter sign.

The church was represented by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

One of the defendants in the lawsuits was Enrique Tarrio, a former Proud Boys leader who had been sentenced to 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and other crimes for helping to plan the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack. Tarrio was not at the Capitol during the attack, however, because he was banned from the city after he was arrested on vandalism charges, the New York Times explains.

Last month, Tarrio received a full pardon of his Capitol attack convictions from President Donald Trump.

Tarrio commented on the trademark injunction in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. He accused the church of engaging “in a campaign of harassment and falsehoods.” The judge’s conduct, he said, “necessitates impeachment and investigation.”

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Giuliani contempt decision blocks him from…

Tort Law

Giuliani contempt decision blocks him from doing this, putting his Florida condo at risk

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 7, 2025, 10:34 am CST

Disbarred lawyer Rudy Giuliani is “in dire jeopardy” of having to turn over his Palm Beach, Florida, condo to two Georgia election workers who sued him for defamation after a federal judge held the former New York City mayor in civil contempt Monday, according to a report by Politico.

U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York barred Giuliani from presenting evidence on the primary defense that would allow him to keep the Florida condo after he failed to provide information that would help determine whether the property was his primary residence, Politico reports.

Liman’s decision allows him to draw negative inferences about Giuliani’s Florida residency, report the New York Times and Law.com.

The trial on whether 80-year-old Giuliani is entitled to keep the condo is scheduled for next week before Liman. At issue is whether the condo is Giuliani’s homestead entitled to protection under the Florida Constitution.

Publications with coverage, in addition to Politico, Law.com and the New York Times, include Reuters, the Associated Press and CNN.

The election workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, won a $148 million defamation verdict against Giuliani after he accused them of election fraud in the 2020 election. Giuliani was formerly a lawyer for President-elect Donald Trump.

Giuliani had claimed in now-dismissed bankruptcy proceedings that his New York co-op apartment was his homestead residence, which protected a portion of it in bankruptcy proceedings, according to a Dec. 27 decision denying Giuliani’s motion for summary judgment. After the bankruptcy dismissal, Giuliani declared Florida to be his domicile.

The contempt finding was for Giuliani’s failure to provide evidence about his primary residence, according to the New York Times.

Giuliani did not turn over full names of his doctors or provide a full list of other professional service providers, leading the judge to conclude that none was in Florida before Giuliani changed his residence there in January 2024, the AP explains. Liman also barred Giuliani from presenting testimony or electronic communications to establish the Florida homestead.

Giuliani could also be held in contempt separately for failing to turn over property, the New York Times says.

Giuliani has already turned over designer watches and a 1980 Mercedes-Benz convertible. He is also moving to turn over his Manhattan apartment in New York City. He did not provide a framed jersey of baseball player Joe DiMaggio, however, which he said he can’t find. Nor did he turn over his grandfather’s pocket watch, which he pulled out during the hearing Monday, saying he fears that it will be lost.

The liability verdict was delivered in a trial held only to determine damages after a different federal judge entered a default liability judgment against Giuliani for failing to provide meaningful discovery. That federal judge, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District of Columbia, has scheduled a separate contempt hearing against Giuliani for Friday for alleged violation of an agreement not to make new defamatory claims about the election workers, Politico reports.

Giuliani said in his podcast Monday evening the New York court’s request for information was “enormously burdensome,” and he had already released “hundreds and hundreds of pages of discovery.” according to reporting by CNN. He said he didn’t have to testify because the judge “had already made up his mind.”

Giuliani’s spokesperson, Ted Goodman, released a statement. Freeman and Moss “might be happy to fight to take away Mayor Giuliani’s most cherished personal belongings, including his signed baseball jersey of his childhood hero and his grandfather’s pocket watch, but they can never take away his extraordinary record of public service,” Goodman said.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Supreme Court orders reconsideration of appellate…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court orders reconsideration of appellate decision on youths carrying guns

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 15, 2024, 2:46 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday told a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision that blocked a Pennsylvania ban on youths openly carrying guns during a state of emergency.

The high court vacated the decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia and directed it to reconsider in light of U.S. v. Rahimi.

In the June Rahimi decision, the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on gun possession by those who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders.

The 3rd Circuit ruled in January that youths who are 18 to 20 years old are among the people protected by the Second Amendment, and they can’t be barred from openly carrying guns during a state of emergency.

Pennsylvania requires people carrying concealed firearms to be at least 21 years old and to have a license. Those who want to openly carry guns are generally allowed to do so. But in states of emergency, they must have a license, or they must qualify under other exceptions. The practical effect of those laws is to ban those who are 18 to 20 years old from openly carrying guns during states of emergency.

When the suit was filed, Pennsylvania had been in a state of emergency for nearly three years because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the opioid addiction crisis and Hurricane Ida.

CNN and Bloomberg Law have coverage of the Supreme Court’s order in the case, Paris v. Lara.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer chooses lethal injection for inmate…

Death Penalty

Lawyer chooses lethal injection for inmate who didn’t want to make decision

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 10, 2024, 8:50 am CDT

A South Carolina lawyer has picked lethal injection as the execution method for a client who didn’t want to make the decision because of religious qualms.

Lawyer Emily Paavola of Columbia, South Carolina, said in a statement she made the best decision that she thought was possible on behalf of her client, Freddie Owens, given the information available to her, Law.com reports.

Owens didn’t want to make the decision because he considers the choice to be tantamount to suicide, which his Muslim religion considers a sin, according to the Associated Press.

If Paavola had not made the choice, Owens would be executed by the state’s default method, the electric chair. A third option is a firing squad.

Owens’ execution for the 1997 shooting death of a store clerk is scheduled for Sept. 20. In the past, South Carolina has used a three-drug combination in executions but switched to just one drug, pentobarbital, because it was easier to obtain.

In a statement that Paavola gave to the AP and Law.com, she said she made the decision “in light of the information currently available to me.” She had sought more information from the state about testing and storage of the drug to ensure that it would not cause her client unbearable pain or agony.

But the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled last week that prison officials had released sufficient details, according to Law.com, the AP and the Post and Courier.

See also:

South Carolina’s execution menu is not cruel and unusual, state supreme court says

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Did DC Circuit ‘put an asterisk next to’…

Constitutional Law

Did DC Circuit ‘put an asterisk next to’ decision denying Trump immunity? Court keeps case on speedy path but implies limits

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 7, 2024, 12:49 pm CST

The prosecution of former President Donald Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election could stay on a speedy path as a result of deadlines set Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The appeals court said Trump must file any request for a stay of its immunity decision with the U.S. Supreme Court by Feb. 12, report the Washington Post, CNN, Just Security and the New York Times.

If Trump instead seeks a hearing before the full appeals court, the case can still return to the trial judge after Feb. 12, the appeals court indicated.

The appeals court’s Feb. 6 opinion held that Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election were not part of his official duties, and he did not have immunity.

“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results,” the D.C. Circuit said. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”

The appeals court concluded that the interest in criminal accountability outweighs the potential risks of chilling presidential actions. The D.C. Circuit cautioned, however, that its analysis “is specific to the case before us.” In the eighth footnote, the appeals court added, “We do not address policy considerations implicated in the prosecution of a sitting president or in a state prosecution of a president, sitting or former.”

A columnist for the Washington Post noted the “specific to the case” wording and concluded that the appeals court is “trying to put an asterisk next to its ruling. It is hinting—as the Supreme Court hinted in Bush v. Gore—that this is an extraordinary case and that in other cases, the same logic might not apply.”

The per curiam opinion was written by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, and two appointees of President Joe Biden, Judge J. Michelle Childs and Judge Florence Y. Pan. Biden had once considered Childs for a Supreme Court nomination.

If Trump asks the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the high court agrees, the Supreme Court could act quickly, or the justices could take their time, the New York Times reports.

One possibility is for the Supreme Court to grant the stay, with or without limitations. If there is no time limit, Trump would have 90 days to file a cert petition, according to Just Security. Or the Supreme Court could place a time limit on the stay, which would dissolve unless Trump files a cert petition within the time period.

Another possibility is for the Supreme Court to treat a stay application as a petition for certiorari and grant immediate review.

“We consider this a more likely option,” according to Just Security.

If the Supreme Court requires expedited briefing, oral arguments could be in March, and an opinion might be issued a month later, the blog said.

If Trump loses and a trial happens in July, it could conclude by October.

“Of course, it is within the Supreme Court’s power not to enforce an expedited appellate schedule,” Just Security pointed out. “If so, they could conceivably wait until the end of this year’s term in late June to issue its decision. Under that approach, the trial would not begin until approximately Oct. 1 and would not conclude until around Jan. 1, 2025.”