1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 2 Irell & Manella lawyers should be sanctioned…

Ethics

2 Irell & Manella lawyers should be sanctioned after witness ‘was tricked’ with altered document, special master says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 20, 2025, 3:02 pm CDT

An Irell & Manella associate who decided to alter a date on a schematic drawing to prove a point during a deposition should be sanctioned, along with a partner who missed an email revealing the plan, a special master has recommended.

The associate, Benjamin Manzin-Monnin, came up with the idea to show that such dates can be unreliable, according to the March 18 opinion by special master David Folsom. Manzin-Monnin questioned a witness about the document before revealing that it had been altered.

Law360 has the story.

Folsom noted that all lawyers from Irell & Manella attend in-house ethics seminars. Folson said Manzin-Monnin should be required to attend 30 additional hours of ethics courses, along with the partner he notified in an email chain, Jason Sheasby.

Folsom also recommended that Irell & Manella pay fees and costs incurred by the special master and defendant Samsung Electronics in connection with the sanctions motion. And he said Irell & Manella’s client, CogniPower, should lose an hour of trial time in its patent infringement case, filed against Samsung Electronics in federal court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The deposition witness was an executive at a company that, according to Samsung Electronics, had an invention that predates CogniPower’s patents, Law360 explains.

A law firm employee had advised Manzin-Monnin in September 2024 to “get clear directions” from a senior attorney regarding the “mocked up dates on evidence floating around.” Manzin-Monnin replied that he had emailed “Jason,” an apparent reference to Sheasby.

But Sheasby said he “missed” the email from Manzin-Monnin while acknowledging that it was his responsibility to read it.

In a declaration, Sheasby said during the deposition, Manzin-Monnin had shown the expert witness “the correct document, then later the altered version, and then immediately the correct and altered side by side, and then told the witness he altered on[e] of the documents.”

The witness “was tricked” and “obviously confused” by questions about the altered date, Folsom said in the opinion. The fact that Manzin-Monnin did not mark the altered document as an exhibit during the deposition “is immaterial,” Folsom said.

Sheasby said in the declaration Manzin-Monnin has been subject to “professional strictures” as a result of his behavior. In addition, the firm’s general counsel had scheduled a mandatory March 19 ethics seminar for all the firm’s attorneys to address the events and to “ensure that nothing of this nature happens again.”

Neither Manzin-Monnin nor Sheasby immediately responded to the ABA Journal’s email request for comment. Nor did a firm spokesperson immediately reply to a Journal email.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Poker-playing SCOTUSblog founder has net…

Criminal Justice

Poker-playing SCOTUSblog founder has net worth of negative $3.3M, criminal court document says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 6, 2025, 3:21 pm CST

A U.S. magistrate judge wrongly concluded that SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein could finance his defense in a tax evasion case with his bank accounts, the former U.S. Supreme Court litigator asserted in a court filing Wednesday.

Goldstein currently has a negative net worth of more than $3.3 million, according to a pretrial services report that Goldstein cited in a Feb. 5 motion.

Law360, Bloomberg Law and PokerNews have coverage.

Among the allegations in Goldstein’s Jan. 16 indictment are that he schemed to understate gambling winnings on tax returns that he earned in “ultrahigh-stakes” poker matches while using his boutique law firm to pay debts.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan of the District of Maryland had required Goldstein to use his marital home as collateral to guarantee his criminal court appearance while rejecting the lawyer’s request last month to substitute property owned by family members.

Goldstein wants to tap the equity in his marital home to fund his defense.The magistrate judge’s refusal to substitute properties violates his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, Goldstein said.

The substitute properties are worth more than the $3.2 million marital home when the outstanding $1.8 million mortgage is taken into account, the motion said.

Refusing to allow substitute collateral also prejudices Goldstein’s wife, “who all agree is an entirely innocent party,” Goldstein wrote. Goldstein is married to SCOTUSblog co-founder and reporter Amy Howe.

In addition, Goldstein wrote, “The magistrate judge’s conclusion that Mr. Goldstein might flee—and strip his closest family members of by far their most significant assets—is not supported by the record,” including a pretrial services report that recommended no secured bond.

Goldstein described himself as “a deeply respected member of the bar who practiced at the highest levels for decades.”

Bloomberg Law reports he argued 45 cases before the Supreme Court before he retired in 2023.

The indictment also accuses Goldstein of failing to report cryptocurrency transactions, using his firm’s money to pay women he was pursuing or with whom he was involved, and failing to report money owed in debts and taxes when he applied for a mortgage.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Court scolds Weil partner for brief found…

Appellate Practice

Court scolds Weil partner for brief found to ‘incorporate by reference’ nearly 2,000 words from another document

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 20, 2024, 1:34 pm CST

A partner with Weil, Gotshal & Manges apparently missed an opinion telling his law firm that incorporating an argument by reference can’t be used to exceed word-count limits in briefs, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The partner, Mark Perry, would have exceeded limits by more than 1,300 words if he had been allowed to “incorporate by reference” nearly 2,000 words from a prior brief in a related case, the Federal Circuit said in its Feb. 16 order, issued sua sponte.

Reuters, Law360 and IPWatchdog have coverage.

When opposing lawyers objected to the attempt to incorporate the material by reference, citing the prior case involving Weil, Perry “chose to do nothing,” the Federal Circuit said.

The better course, when it becomes apparent that a lawyer has violated a court order, would be to bring it to the court’s attention and withdraw the improper argument, the Federal Circuit said.

Instead, Perry had argued that the Federal Circuit never ruled on incorporating an argument by reference when it involves the same party’s brief in a companion appeal.

The position “is unreasonable given this court’s prior opinions,” the Federal Circuit said.

“Since appellee has made this argument, it gets this order,” the appeals court said.

Perry had argued that his intent was to “enhance efficiency,” “streamline the briefing,” and “save the time and resources of the court.” The Federal Circuit said those goals were not served.

“Requiring the court to cross-reference arguments from multiple briefs in multiple, separate cases does not increase efficiency nor does exceeding the word count. But we accept this mistake was made in good faith,” the appeals court said.

The prior case involving Weil is Microsoft Corp. v. DataTern Inc., a 2014 decision. The Federal Circuit also cited a 2023 decision, Medtronic Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd.

“We hoped not to have to write this order,” the appeals court said. “Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure seems clear. Microsoft seems clear. Medtronic seems clear. These cases hold it is improper to exceed the word count through incorporation by reference.”

According to coverage by IPWatchdog, Rule 28 limits most references in appellate briefs to documents that are part of the intrinsic record of the case. Parties may also adopt part of another brief by reference in appeals with multiple appellants or appellees.

Perry’s incorporation by reference was part of a footnote.

“In retrospect, it would have been better not to have included it,” he said in his supplemental brief arguing against sanctions.

The Federal Circuit did not sanction Perry but said “future litigants should appreciate” that future violations will likely result in sanctions.

The appeals court’s order was issued in in patent infringement litigation between Comcast Cable Communications and the Promptu Systems Corp., a speech-recognition technology company. Perry represents Comcast in four related appeals.

Perry and Weil did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email requesting comment.

If the legal work your firm handles involves lots of document creation, then you would benefit from document automation software. It facilitates quick and easy document assembly by creating templates that reduce redundant data entry.

Historically, this type of software required significant time investment and sometimes even coding skills, but no more. Rapid technological advancements are setting the stage for truly automated document drafting.

I last wrote about document automation tools for lawyers three years ago, and a lot has changed since then. During those intervening years, strategic acquisitions by key players in the legal tech market have enabled several law practice management software companies to incorporate or tightly integrate enhanced document automation capabilities into their platforms.

This period also has marked the beginning of the next stage of legal technology with many companies promising to introduce generative AI into document creation and automation functions in 2024. As these shifts occur, the capabilities of document assembly software will increase, offering law firms more sophisticated tools to automate their document creation processes.

The impact of these changes is multifaceted. For starters, the enhanced document automation capabilities resulting from recent acquisitions allow for more seamless integrations of complex document drafting tasks into the daily workflows. This means tasks that once required significant manual input can now be automated more efficiently, reducing time spent on document creation and allowing legal professionals to focus on higher-value and less tedious tasks.

Additionally, the integration of generative artificial intelligence into legal software tools in the coming months represents more than simply marginal improvements; generative AI capabilities will fundamentally enhance the document assembly process. Because AI-driven tools are programmed to understand the context and nuances of legal language, documents can be generated quickly without the need for timely editing and revision. This development will significantly reduce the learning curve as well as the tedious manual input traditionally required by document automation software.

Choosing document automation software

Below, we’ll examine many of document automation software’s current offerings and capabilities. The tools covered are not all-inclusive, and there are others on the market. The goal of this update is to provide law firm decision-makers with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions about the software tools that will best meet the needs of their firms in this changing legal tech landscape.

Notably, many of the companies discussed below have announced plans to roll out generative AI functionality into their platforms, including features to streamline document creation and automation. Some already have these features in beta, and others will implement them in the near future. So keep an eye out for updates to the platforms you choose since AI implementation will undoubtedly impact document creation and assembly.

Before diving in, it’s essential to understand that the document automation tools discussed below are cloud-based, meaning that all data will be housed on servers owned by a third party. The duty of technology competence requires you to thoroughly vet the technology provider that will be hosting and storing your data. This ethical obligation requires you to fully understand how that company will handle the data; where the servers on which the data will be stored are located; who will have access to it; and how and when it will be backed up, among other things.

With that in mind, let’s look at some cloud-based document automation tools available to law firms today. Frequently, you’ll find that these tools are built into the law practice management software system already used by your firm, but you can also use stand-alone software if you’re seeking a more robust feature set or even consider practice-area-specific tools.

Document automation options

If your firm has invested in law practice management software, there’s a good chance that document automation tools are included as part of the platform. This functionality is often included in a higher pricing tier.

For example, if your firm uses Caret law practice management software, robust document automation empowered by HotDocs is available. HotDocs was acquired by AbacusNext in November 2017, which recently rebranded as Caret. This platform offers document assembly tools for organizations and law firms of all sizes, and advanced document automation is included in the Enterprise Advance Plan, which starts at $139/user/month when billed annually.

Another example is MyCase, which was acquired by AffiniPay in 2022. In 2021, MyCase acquired Woodpecker document automation software and subsequently added those features into the MyCase law practice management platform. The advanced document automation features are available in the Advanced tier at $89/month/user when billed annually.

The practice management company Clio also offers document automation functionality resulting from its acquisition of Lawyaw in 2021. Earlier this month, Lawyaw was rebranded as Clio Drafts and is available as an add-on in Clio from the Essentials tier to the Complete tier. The Essentials tier pricing starts at $69/user/month when billed annually, and the Clio Drafts add-on is an additional cost, the amount of which is not disclosed on the website.

Many different practice-area-specific law practice management software tools include advanced document automation functionality as well. For immigration lawyers, Docketwise, which was acquired by AffiniPay in 2022, includes immigration forms and automated templates. Pricing starts at $69/month/user billed annually.

Similarly, NextChapter offers practice management software for bankruptcy lawyers that includes guided forms. Annual pricing starts at $999 per year, which includes basic forms, and a $500 add-on for access to advanced document creation and automation tools.

For personal injury lawyers, CASEpeer, which was acquired by AffiniPay in 2021, includes document automation templates for personal injury lawyers in all pricing tiers, starting with the Basic tier, which costs $69/user/month.

Specifio is software that automates patent applications. It converts pages from claims into patent application shells. Pricing starts at $799/month for solo lawyers.

Another example is WealthCounsel, which provides software for estate planning and elder law attorneys. It was acquired by LEAP legal software in 2022. The Essential and Elder Law Professional membership tiers include the Wealth DocX core comprehensive document drafting tool. Pricing is not available on the website.

Last but not least, there are also stand-alone document assembly products. If you’re not already using software that has advanced document automation functionality available, they might be a good choice for your firm.

Knackly is one example. Using Knackly, you can create online client intake forms and automate other types of document creation. Knackly pricing starts at $1,000 annually for up to four users.

Another stand-alone option is Gavel, which was previously known as Documate until a rebrand occurred in 2023. Pricing starts with the Lite tier at $83/month for a single user. If more than one person in your firm will need access, you’ll need to upgrade to the Pro plan, which includes two Builder seats and three organizational user seats and costs $290/month.

The sky’s the limit

We’re in the midst of a rapid technology evolution that is resulting in more powerful document automation software. The addition of advanced document automation features to the legal practice management platforms your firm already has in place due to acquisitions and the eventual availability of generative AI technology into legal software tools represent significant milestones. These advancements have expanded the capabilities of existing tools and set a new standard for efficiency and effectiveness in the creation and management of legal documents.

These tools offer promising solutions to streamline operations and enhance productivity, so legal professionals must maintain technology competence by staying on top of these developments. The reason? Practitioners who effectively leverage the latest in legal document automation technology will increasingly distinguish their practices from the rest and stand out in today’s increasingly competitive legal landscape.

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is senior director of subject matter expertise and external education 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.