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. Did 9 firms making deals with Trump violate…

Law Firms

Did 9 firms making deals with Trump violate bribery, anti-fraud laws? Democratic letters seek answers

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 24, 2025, 2:26 pm CDT

Sixteen Democratic lawmakers have sent letters to nine law firms that ask them to disavow deals with President Donald Trump and to answer questions about their legality.

Among the 16 Democrats are two lawmakers leading the effort: U.S. Rep. Dave Min of California and U.S. Rep. April McClain Delaney of Maryland, who are both lawyers, according to an April 24 press release and ABC News.

HuffPost reporter Jennifer Bendery posted a link to the documents on X, formerly known as Twitter.

The nine firms getting the letters are Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

Firms making the deals pledged to devote millions of dollars in pro bono hours to issues supported by the firms and Trump. Their agreements allowed them to avoid executive orders that, among other things, call for the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances and imperil their clients’ government contracts.

According to the letters, continued performance under the agreements may be unenforceable under contracts law, would have negative effects on the legal system, could expose the firms to civil and criminal liability, and creates potential ethics violations with respect to conflicts of interest and limits on future law practice.

Agreements of this kind “signal acquiescence to an abuse of federal power, raising serious questions about how or whether your firm would represent clients or take on matters that might be seen as antagonistic to President Trump or his agenda,” the letters said.

The letters asked firms to explain whether the deals open themselves up to liability for:

  • Violating federal bribery laws by offering something of value to influence official acts.

  • Aiding and abetting violations of the Hobbs Act, which makes it a crime to affect commerce by extortion.

  • Violating federal anti-fraud laws that prohibit schemes to defraud the public of the honest services of public officials.

  • Violating the federal law that prohibits participation in a racketeering enterprise.

  • Violating state statutes that ban providing public servants with benefits to influence actions.

The April 24 letters follow inquiries sent to firms from U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who are both Democrats, according to Reuters and an April 22 press release.

The first batch of letters by Blumenthal and Raskin sought more information on attempts made to poach lawyers and clients from one of the targeted firms and asked six firms to retain records pertaining to the executive orders. A second group of letters asked five firms for more information while asserting that their “capitulation” allowed Trump to suppress their speech.

“Your agreement makes you complicit in efforts to undermine the rule of law and to turn private attorneys into President Trump’s personal law firm, ready to do whatever he decides,” Blumenthal and Raskin wrote.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Vacation, mistaken filing led to order to…

Trials & Litigation

Vacation, mistaken filing led to order to show cause, lawyers for MyPillow CEO say

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 2:29 pm CDT

Human error led lawyers representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to file a draft document with incorrect case citations instead of the final version, according to a response to a federal judge’s order to show cause.

The lawyers didn’t realize that they had filed the wrong document, an early draft without corrections, until questioning 55 days later by the judge, according to their April 25 response.

Law360 has the story.

U.S. District Judge Nina Y. Wang of the District of Colorado had ordered the lawyers on April 23 to show cause why they shouldn’t be referred for discipline. Wang said she identified “nearly 30 defective citations” of cases, including citations to cases that don’t exist, in the lawyers’ Feb. 10 brief.

Lawyer Christopher I. Kachouroff said in a declaration his co-counsel filed the draft document instead of the final version that they “had carefully cite-checked and edited.” At the time, Kachouroff was on a one-week vacation to Mexico, where there were “limitations on internet service.”

But what happened wasn’t clear, Kachouroff said, when he was questioned in court by Wang. Kachouroff was “taken by complete surprise” because he was unaware of the mistake, he said in the declaration.

“In the face of the court’s detailed questioning, I was utterly flustered and embarrassed, and due to my ignorance of what was going on, found myself at a loss for words,” Kachouroff said.

Kachouroff said he routinely uses artificial intelligence to analyze the structure and the logic of legal arguments. He does not, however, rely on AI to do legal research or find cases.

“Regardless of whether I use AI in a particular pleading,” he wrote, “I always conduct verification of citations before filing.”

Kachouroff and his co-counsel, Jennifer T. DeMaster, are seeking leave to replace the draft document with the correct one.

Lindell is being sued for defamation by Eric Coomer, a former executive with Dominion Voting Systems. He alleges that Lindell and his related companies are “among the most prolific vectors of baseless conspiracy theories claiming election fraud in the 2020 election.”

Lindell allegedly amplified false allegations that Coomer may have been involved in a rigged election and a criminal conspiracy, leading to “credible death threats” against him and banishment from the elections industry, Coomer’s second amended complaint alleges.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Suit is ‘almost a word-for-word carbon copy’…

Ethics

Suit is ‘almost a word-for-word carbon copy’ of prior complaint filed by different lawyers, federal judge says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 15, 2025, 8:53 am CDT

Updated: A federal judge in Puerto Rico has said she is considering sanctions for a San Juan, Puerto Rico, lawyer who filed a lawsuit that is “almost a word-for-word carbon copy” of a suit filed by different lawyers representing different plaintiffs.

In an April 9 order, U.S. District Judge Aida M. Delgado-Colon of the District of Puerto Rico found that the conduct by lawyer David Efron “runs afoul not only of attorney Efron’s duty of competence to his client but also his duty of candor to the court.”

Law 360 has the story.

Efron told the ABA Journal that there was no plagiarism because the plaintiffs in both cases are cooperating.

Efron is representing San Juan in a December 2023 suit alleging that activities by several oil-industry defendants caused damages because of their impact on climate change. Delgado-Colon said Efron’s suit and some of his other case filings are similar to documents in a prior suit filed by about 40 other municipalities.

“Just a review of the first couple of paragraphs of the complaint is enough to warrant suspicion,” Delgado-Colon wrote.

The opening language, footnotes and citations are identical to the corresponding paragraphs in the municipalities’ case, with a few exceptions, Delgado-Colon said. They include “sprinkling some adverbs such as ‘incredibly’ at the beginning of a paragraph,” referring to the correct plaintiff and “breaking a paragraph in two.”

As pointed out by the defendants, Efron’s suit was so “rife with examples of plagiarism” that it refers to documents that were never filed, it sometimes refers to the singular plaintiff as “municipalities,” and it repeats typos in the other suit, Delgado-Colon said in her order. Efron also refers to “this class action,” even though San Juan denied bringing such a case, the judge said.

“Attorney Efron lifted not only the entire theory of San Juan’s case from the municipalities’ case but went so far [as] to use virtually the very same words and ideas, usurping the thought processes and legal theories a client hires an attorney to develop and perform,” Delgado-Colon said.

Delgado-Colon said Efron was also late in filing case documents and ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned $7,000 for “untimely filings and lack of diligence in the management of case deadlines.” Efron had said he was in a federal jury trial at the time.

As for the alleged plagiarism, the judge said a monetary sanction on its own would be “insufficient to address the seriousness of the circumstance,” and she would be issuing a separate order to address that issue.

“This opinion and order should serve as a cautionary tale for all members of the bar,” Delgado-Colon wrote.

Efron told the Journal in an email that the judge had “rushed to judgment” without getting the full story.

“There was no plagiarism,” Efron says. The plaintiffs in both cases “are collaborating for the same cause in the interest of controlling climate change. The judge without even conferring with counsel rushed to judgment without knowing that counsel in both cases are collaborating.”

Efron also says the order “is not final and has been referred for further proceedings after we are given an opportunity to respond and show cause.”

Updated April 15 at 11:23 a.m. to add lawyer David Efron’s comments.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former DOJ lawyer faces disbarment for entanglement…

Ethics

Former DOJ lawyer faces disbarment for entanglement in ‘one of the largest kleptocracy schemes in history’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 17, 2025, 3:07 pm CDT

A lawyer who worked for the U.S. Department of Justice is facing disbarment after pleading guilty for his role in an illegal foreign influence scheme that allegedly stemmed from his friendship and legal work for hip-hop artist Prakazrel “Pras” Michel.

Lawyer George A. Higginbotham, a former senior congressional affairs specialist at the DOJ, prepared fake loan documents, investment agreements and consulting agreements to hide the source of tens of millions of dollars intended to be used to lobby the U.S. government, according to the April 16 opinion by the Appellate Division’s Second Judicial Department of the New York Supreme Court.

The Legal Profession Blog published highlights.

Higginbotham’s work was intended to facilitate lobbying for the extradition of a political dissident to China and to resolve an investigation of a foreign national who orchestrated a multibillion-dollar embezzlement scheme involving a Malaysian sovereign wealth fund.

Higginbotham was working on behalf of Michel, who wanted help with his dealings with the foreign national, Jho Low, according to Higginbotham’s testimony, as reported by Reuters, at Michel’s trial in April 2023.

Higginbotham entangled himself in a conspiracy to avoid prosecution “in one of the largest kleptocracy schemes in history,” the appeals court said. “Anything less than a disbarment is unwarranted.”

Higginbotham pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to make false statements to a bank in November 2018, according to a press release. He did not influence any aspect of the DOJ investigation involving the investment company known as 1MDB.

Higginbotham was sentenced to probation in November 2023 and ordered to forfeit $70,000, the amount of money that he was paid after submitting invoices for work in the scheme.

Michel was convicted of conspiracy and other charges in April 2023 for using straw donors in the lobbying campaign.

Low was convicted and sentenced in absentia to 10 years in a Kuwaiti prison, the New York Post reported in March 2023.

See also:

Despite lyrics mistake by AI, lawyer wasn’t ineffective for using tech in rapper’s case, federal judge says

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Recruitment of lawyers from Trump-targeted…

Law Firms

Recruitment of lawyers from Trump-targeted firms is ethics violation, Democrats’ letter says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 9, 2025, 2:40 pm CDT

Updated: Two Democratic lawmakers are asking White House counsel David Warrington and six BigLaw firms for information related to deals made with President Donald Trump to avoid punitive executive orders.

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland sent letters to four firms that reached deals, as well as two others mentioned in a story by the New York Times on attempts to poach lawyers and their clients from one of the targeted firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

Law.com, Law360 and Reuters have coverage.

Trump’s executive orders have targeted firms “for representing clients and advocating for causes that he abhors,” Blumenthal and Raskin wrote to the White House counsel. “As far as we can tell from public reports, these executive orders have turned into an illegal shakedown of the legal profession.”

Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp previously told employees that he had hoped that the legal industry would support the firm. Instead, “certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys,” he had said.

Seeking to profit by luring away Paul Weiss lawyers would, if true, be a violation of the ban on conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, said the letters sent to Sullivan & Cromwell and Kirkland & Ellis.

The letters ask the two firms for information about efforts to recruit Paul Weiss lawyers.

Both firms deny the poaching allegations, made in a March 26 story in the New York Times based on anonymous sources.

Within days of the executive order targeting Paul Weiss, “some of the biggest competitors were calling top lawyers at the beleaguered law firm—one of the nation’s most prestigious—asking if they wanted to jump ship along with their lucrative clients,” the New York Times reported. “Several firms, including Sullivan & Cromwell and Kirkland & Ellis, were looking to exploit the moment, according to five lawyers with direct knowledge of the poaching.”

A Sullivan & Cromwell spokesperson gave this statement about the Paul Weiss lawyer poaching allegations to Law.com, Law360 and Reuters: “This allegation is completely false. To the contrary, our firm management made a deliberate decision not to approach any attorneys in response to the executive order,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

A Kirkland & Ellis spokesperson gave this statement to the same publications: “The assertion that Kirkland was among firms reaching out to Paul Weiss lawyers or clients and trying to recruit them is categorically false. That did not happen.”

Paul Weiss was one of four settling firms sent letters seeking information about the deals with Trump, according to an April 7 press release by Blumenthal. The others are Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

In the deals with Trump, firms pledged to devote millions of dollars in pro bono services to issues that the firms and Trump support. Firms also committed to merit-based employments practices and agreed that they won’t deny service to clients based on political viewpoint.

“If every law firm targeted by the president were to accede to his unlawful demands, the resulting threat to Americans’ constitutional protections would erode our democratic values and cherished civil liberties, as well as cost the legal profession dearly and for many years to come,” the letters to settling firms said.

The Trump administration has published five executive orders targeting law firms. Paul Weiss was one of them. The others were Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, and Jenner & Block. All but Covington & Burling and Paul Weiss have filed lawsuits.

The executive orders typically called for suspension of lawyers’ security clearances, restricted employee access to government buildings, blocked government hiring of firm employees, and required agencies to take steps to terminate contracts with the firms and their clients—if the firm provided services in connection with the client contract.

“The courts that have considered these vendetta orders to date have universally ruled against them,” Blumenthal and Raskin wrote.

The order against Covington & Burling was less sweeping. It called for the suspension of security clearances issued to Covington & Burling lawyers who aided former special counsel Jack Smith and called for government agencies to end engagements with Covington & Burling.

According to David Schaefer, a Covington & Burling spokesperson, the order only affected the security clearance of one lawyer at the firm. And the firm is not a federal contractor, he said.

See also:

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

Updated April 9 at 5:04 p.m. to clarify that the order targeting Covington & Burling was less sweeping.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t…

Judiciary

Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t harm public confidence in judiciary, judicial council rules

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 10, 2025, 11:36 am CDT

A judge on the U.S. Court of International Trade did not violate ethics rules by refusing to hire law clerks who attended Columbia University, according to the judicial council of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago.

In an April 8 decision, the council dismissed the complaint against Judge Stephen A. Vaden, one of 13 federal judges who participated in the boycott and explained why in a letter to the school.

Law360, Reuters and the Volokh Conspiracy have coverage.

President Donald Trump has nominated Vaden to be the deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Reuters reports. A U.S. Senate panel had a hearing on his nomination Tuesday.

The judges had refused to hire law clerks who attended Columbia University or Columbia Law School because of the university’s handling of disruptions caused by pro-Palestinian protesters. Columbia has become “an incubator of bigotry,” the judges said in their letter to Columbia, and the judges have lost confidence in the institution.

Vaden’s boycott and his signature on the letter do not harm the integrity of the judicial office, do not harm public confidence in the judiciary, and do not cast doubt on his impartiality, the judicial council said.

“A judge may refuse to hire law clerks from a law school or university that has, in the judge’s view, failed to foster important aspects of higher education, like civility in discourse, respect for freedom of speech and viewpoint nondiscrimination,” the opinion said.

The chief judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade had transferred the ethics complaint against Vaden to the 7th Circuit’s judicial council for review. The person who filed the ethics complaint is in prison for his role in firebombing and vandalizing Jewish synagogues.

Vaden was represented by the First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit conservative legal organization, and Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly.

Judicial councils have also tossed ethics complaints against 11 of the other 12 boycotting judges, including, apparently, two federal appeals judges: Judge James C. Ho of the 5th Circuit at New Orleans and, according to Reuters, Judge Elizabeth L. Branch of the 11th Circuit at Atlanta.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ‘Stay out of my shorts,’ other discourteous…

Judiciary

‘Stay out of my shorts,’ other discourteous comments led to censure for New York judge

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 10, 2025, 2:11 pm CDT

Updated: A New York judge who didn’t want to transition to new case-tracking systems has agreed to a censure for gratuitous and discourteous remarks that he made while expressing his displeasure to colleagues and to officials who transferred him to a new court.

The remarks by Judge Daniel L. Seiden of the Binghamton City Court in New York contributed to a hostile work environment, according to an April 8 press release by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Seiden raised his voice and told the chief clerk and the deputy chief clerk to “stay out of my shorts” when they came to his office in April 2023 to discuss a change to a check-box case-history system, according to a March 28 determination and an agreed statement of facts signed in February.

Seiden said the “stay out of my shorts” comment was intended to convey “stay out of my business as a judge.”

Then when the administrative judge announced that the court was going to implement a new web-based case-filing system, Seiden declared in an email that he will always ask the clerks for physical files when he is on the bench.

Seiden emailed senior court officials in October 2024 after he was told of his reassignment.

“The game that you are playing, using an administrative trick to de facto remove me from my elected position for your own nefarious purposes, is a dangerous one: trying to get in the back door what you will probably never get through the front door, all the while depriving the citizens of Binghamton of their elected official while brazenly violating several state statutes,” he wrote.

He also said the officials’ “arrogance is breathtaking,” they “are utterly out of control and intoxicated by power and privilege,” and they used “administrative sleight of hand.”

During the ethics proceeding, Seiden was “cooperative and contrite,” according to the statement of facts. He has also completed civility training.

Seiden apologized to the clerks and judges for his “unprofessional remarks” and “appreciates that an apology to them at the time would have been appropriate,” the statement of facts said.

Robert H. Tembeckjian, the judicial conduct commission’s administrator, said in a statement judges must be patient, dignified and courteous.

“Petulant quarreling with colleagues is neither productive nor conducive to the administration of justice,” Tembeckjian said.

In a separate action, Seiden sought to be transferred back to the Binghamton City Court. The court to which he was reassigned is 45 miles from his residence, and his transfer there was arbitrary and capricious, he argued in a Jan. 7 mandamus petition that is pending in the Appellate Division’s Third Judicial Department of the New York Supreme Court.

The petition said Seiden’s statement to “stay out of my shorts” was misinterpreted as sexual in nature and may have been used to justify the July 23, 2024, transfer order, which was made without notice and without explanation. The same day that he received the order, he was escorted from the Binghamton City Court premises “in full view” of his colleagues, the petition said.

The petition also referenced “a corrosive culture in Binghamton City Court” because of the marriage of two officials that is “perhaps not technically nepotistic or illegal.”

A Feb. 25 letter indicated that the parties were in settlement negotiations.

Seiden declined the ABA Journal’s request for comment but informed the Journal in an email that he is scheduled to resume regular duties in the Binghamton City Court on April 28, and he is still working in the Cortland City Court in New York.

His judicial term expires in 2034, but he will have to retire at the end of 2028 because he turns 70 years old that year.

Hat tip to the Legal Profession Blog, which noted the censure.

Updated April 11 at 11:04 a.m. after Judge Daniel L. Seiden declined to comment and provided his return-to-office date. Updated April 11 at 2:29 p.m. to include information on Seiden’s mandamus petition.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice agrees…

Judiciary

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice agrees to license suspension for alleged election-review misconduct

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 11, 2025, 11:00 am CDT

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Gableman has agreed to the suspension of his law license to resolve an ethics complaint that stems from his investigation of the 2020 election for the Wisconsin State Assembly.

Gableman and the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation agreed a three-year suspension of Gableman’s law license is an appropriate sanction in a stipulation signed on April 7 and filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court must approve the suspension.

The stipulation acknowledges that Gableman can’t successfully defend against the misconduct allegations.

The Associated Press, Reuters and the Washington Post have coverage. Law Forward had filed a grievance against Gableman, according to a press release.

Gableman’s $2.3 million election review did not find significant fraud, according to past reporting by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The ethics complaint accused Gableman of failing to tell a legislative committee about cooperation by the cities of Madison and Green Bay in Wisconsin and falsely stating in court documents that the cities’ mayors had failed to appear for depositions without justification.

He was also accused of criticizing a judge instead of responding to questions during a court hearing on a group’s public-records request in Dane County, Wisconsin. He claimed that Judge Frank Remington “has abandoned his role as a neutral magistrate” and later said, “You want to put me in jail, Judge Remington? I’m not gonna be railroaded.”

“With this deal,” said Jeff Mandell, president and general counsel of Law Forward, “Gableman stipulates that he misled courts, lied in public meetings, and violated government transparency laws.”

Gableman served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 2008 to 2018. He filed the stipulation a week after a Democratic-backed candidate won election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, giving the court a 4-3 liberal majority, the Washington Post points out.

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.