1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Supreme Court will review Colorado ban on…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court will review Colorado ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ minors

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 10, 2025, 1:38 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether a Colorado ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ minors—which aims to change sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling—violates the First Amendment.

The high court agreed to hear a case challenging a Colorado law that imposes professional discipline on licensed counselors who engage in such therapy, report SCOTUSblog and Law.com.

At issue is whether the ban censors counseling based on the viewpoint expressed in violation of the free speech clause or whether it is a permissible regulation of conduct, as the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Denver held in the case.

The plaintiff challenging the law, licensed counselor Kaley Chiles, is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group, according to a March 10 press release. She is a counselor with “Christian worldview” who helps clients with gender-identity issues, the press release said.

“Though Chiles never promises that she can solve these issues,” the cert petition said, “she believes clients can accept the bodies that God has given them and find peace.”

The press release said it is significant that the Colorado law “only prohibits counseling conversations in one direction. For example, it allows counseling conversations that aim to steer young people toward a gender identity different than their sex but prohibits conversations that aim to help them return to comfort with their sex when they desire that.”

Circuits are split on whether bans on conversion therapy regulate speech or conduct, according to the cert petition. The 11th Circuit at Atlanta and the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia have ruled that the laws regulate speech, while the 10th Circuit and the 9th Circuit at San Francisco have determined that the laws regulate conduct.

Colorado’s brief opposing cert said its law was “based on overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective.”

The state argues that Supreme Court precedent “makes clear that the First Amendment allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatment, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech.”

The case is Chiles v. Salazar.

The SCOTUSblog case page is here.

See also:

9th Circuit upholds ban on conversion therapy for minors in First Amendment challenge

Supreme Court declines to consider challenge to conversion-therapy ban; 3 justices would have heard case

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former Duane Morris partner arrested on outstanding…

Criminal Justice

Former Duane Morris partner arrested on outstanding warrant related to Michigan assault case

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 10, 2025, 3:16 pm CDT

Updated: A former Duane Morris partner was arrested on an outstanding Michigan warrant at his condo in Chicago’s South Loop on Friday, the same building where his wife’s body was found in a stairwell in October 2024.

Adam Beckerink, 46, was ordered extradited to Michigan at a court hearing Monday, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The warrant was based on charges of domestic abuse and assaulting police officers arising from incidents at the home in Berrien County, Michigan, where Beckerink’s wife, 36-year-old Caitlin Tracey, lived before her death, WGN-TV reports.

Initial media reports said the warrant was issued after Beckerink did not show up for a pretrial hearing in the Michigan case in October 2024. He also missed his trial that was set to happen days later, the reports said.

But Chicago police said the warrant was for alleged violation of pretrial conditions in the Michigan case, without providing further information, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

Beckerink has not been charged in Tracey’s death. But in the extradition hearing Monday, Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Danny Hanichak referred to Beckerink as a suspect, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Beckerink’s lawyer, Jonathan Brayman, said Monday and at a court hearing Saturday the warrant was not valid, according to the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times.

Brayman said Monday that his client had attended all his hearings and had not violated any conditions of pretrial release, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Beckerink “is the absolute opposite of a fugitive from justice,” Brayman said on Monday, pointing out that Beckerink was arrested at home.

Beckerink was ousted from Duane Morris after the law firm became aware of domestic violence allegations against him made in court proceedings, including allegations made by his wife when she obtained an order of protection against Beckerink in 2023.

See also:

Duane Morris partner ousted after wife found dead in stairwell and her parents allege domestic violence

Judge denies bid by former Duane Morris partner to stop his wife’s funeral

Updated March 11 at 8:02 a.m. to add lawyer Jonathan Brayman’s assertion that former Duane Morris partner Adam Beckerink had attended all court hearings in Michigan.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Suit alleging dad bias at Jones Day resolved…

Law Firms

Suit alleging dad bias at Jones Day resolved after ruling on memo

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 26, 2025, 2:46 pm CST

Jones Day and two former associates have resolved a lawsuit alleging that the law firm’s family leave policy discriminates against male attorneys.

The firm and the plaintiffs, Mark Savignac and his wife, Julia Sheketoff, filed a stipulation to dismiss all claims Feb. 25, report Reuters, Law360 and Bloomberg Law.

The challenged policy granted 18 weeks of paid leave to new mothers who are primary caregivers but only 10 weeks to biological fathers in the same situation. The extra eight weeks for mothers were labeled disability leave, but the reality was that all biological mothers were given the extra paid time off, the August 2019 suit alleged.

The two lawyers say they complained about the Jones Day policies in a January 2019 email after Sheketoff left the firm to become an appellate public defender. Savignac was fired three business days later.

U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss of Washington, D.C., had allowed seven suit claims to go to trial in a September 2024 order, including sex-discrimination claims related to the family leave policy and retaliation claims related to Savignac’s firing.

In January, Moss ruled that Jones Day had to provide the plaintiffs with portions of a 1993 memo discussing the leave policy, according to Law360 and a prior Bloomberg Law story. A settlement conference in the suit happened Feb. 11.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Florida considers exception to lawyer confidentiality…

Ethics

Florida considers exception to lawyer confidentiality rule to protect minor clients

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 5, 2025, 3:59 pm CST

The Florida Bar’s board of governors could propose an ethics rule change as early as March that would allow lawyers to disclose confidential information to protect minor clients from harm.

The board of governors’ rules committee presented the proposed amendment to the ethics rule on lawyer confidentiality at a January board meeting, the Florida Bar News reports.

The proposed amendment adds a new section to Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6 “permitting a lawyer to disclose confidential information to protect a minor client from a substantial risk of danger or harm,” the article reports.

The rules committee acted after the Florida Supreme Court asked the board of governors to propose revisions by May 1, according to the article. In a Nov. 12 letter, the state supreme court referred to a 2013 appellate decision that quashed a judge’s order for attorneys ad litem to reveal the location of a minor client who ran away from foster care. The minor had requested confidentiality.

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal said in R.L.R. v. State it could not “carve out an altogether new exception to the attorney-client privilege,” which is a job for the legislature or possibly the Florida Bar, the appeals court said.

The Florida Supreme Court will make the final decision on a rule change, the Florida Bar News article reports.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. SCOTUS will decide whether schools can require…

U.S. Supreme Court

SCOTUS will decide whether schools can require LGBTQ-themed books at story time with no opt-outs

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 21, 2025, 10:27 am CST

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether schools can require teachers to read storybooks to elementary-age children with LGBTQ characters and themes over parents’ objections.

At issue is whether the required instruction with no possibility of opting out violates parents’ First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

SCOTUSblog, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Reuters and the Volokh Conspiracy are among the publications with coverage of the cert grant in Mahmoud V. Taylor.

The SCOTUSblog case page is here.

One of the books, Pride Puppy, is about a puppy that gets lost during a gay pride parade, according to SCOTUSblog. Another, My Rainbow, is about a mother who makes a colorful wig for her transgender daughter.

Both books were removed from the curriculum after the lawsuit was filed, the Washington Post reported in October.

Other books remain, including Love, Violet, which is about a young girl trying to make a valentine for a female classmate.

The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled 2-1 against the parents in May, holding that the parents weren’t entitled to a preliminary injunction because they had not shown that they or their children were forced to change their religious beliefs or conduct.

According to the cert petition, five circuits now hold that Supreme Court precedent “essentially provides parents no protection once they place their children in the public system.” Only one circuit has found that forced instruction burdens parents’ free exercise rights under the precedent, the 1972 Supreme Court case Wisconsin v. Yoder, the petitioners say.

The defendants in the case are the Montgomery County, Maryland, superintendent of public schools, the school board and its members. They argue that there is no circuit split on the issue.

“Every single court of appeals that has considered the question has held that mere exposure to controversial issues in a public school curriculum does not burden the free religious exercise of parents or students,” their brief says.

The parents who challenged the policy are represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit public interest law firm, which issued a Jan. 17 press release here.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Arizona judge who championed domestic violence…

Obituaries

Arizona judge who championed domestic violence survivors dies at 77

By Lee Rawles

January 9, 2025, 2:54 pm CST

Judge Elizabeth “Ellie” Finn, a champion of specialized courts who served as a judge in Arizona for more than 42 years, died Dec. 27 at age 77.

The ABA Journal featured Finn in its Members Who Inspire series in September, highlighting her work establishing the Glendale Mental Health Court in Glendale, Arizona, and crafting domestic violence legislation in the state.

Finn served as the presiding judge of the Glendale City Court in Glendale, Arizona, for the last 18 years of her career and wrote about her role for the Journal’s Defending Justice series.

“When I was appointed, the mayor and council indicated they did not really know what occurs at the court,” Finn wrote. “I realized an important aspect of my position would be that of a communicator, ensuring transparency and that there are no surprises.”

In addition, Finn had been active in the ABA since joining the association in 2005. She was a member of the House of Delegates and of the Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence. Finn was also a former chair of the National Conference of Specialized Court Judges and served on its executive committee. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer shortly after attending the ABA Annual Meeting in 2022.

“She was a dedicated passionate advocate and strong believer in the good work of the ABA and CDSV in advancing education of judges and lawyers on domestic violence, as well as advancing protective policies for survivors,” says Vivian Huelgo, a former chief counsel for the commission.

When asked why she became so involved with domestic violence policy, Finn told the Journal that it did not stem from personal experience with the issue or with a survivor.

“It was just something where I saw a need and felt like I could do something to help,” she said.

Finn is survived by her husband, Edward Turner, and her children, Sarah Turner and Jesse Turner. According to her obituary, Finn “enjoyed traveling with her husband, particularly to Southern California for the boating life. Her recreational passions included reading mystery and romance novels, dancing and officiating weddings for friends and family.”

Finn’s memorial service will be at the Glendale Civic Center on Jan. 12 at 1 p.m., followed by a reception. The family asks that in lieu of flowers, donations be made to A New Leaf, an Arizona nonprofit supporting the homeless and survivors of domestic violence.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Texas lawyer allegedly killed and cremated…

Criminal Justice

Texas lawyer allegedly killed and cremated son, saying he mistook him for intruder

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 9, 2024, 9:52 am CST

A Houston lawyer is accused of waiting about 17 hours to call police after allegedly killing his son and burning his body on a woodpile at his weekend home in Sabine County, Texas.

Texas lawyer Michael C. Howard, 68, was charged with murder and tampering with evidence after telling a Sabine County sheriff’s deputy that he shot his son, Mark Randall Howard, on Dec. 1 after mistaking him for an intruder, report Houston Public Media, the Independent, KBTX, KTRE and Fox 26 Houston.

Howard said he placed the body in the front-loading bucket of a backhoe tractor before taking it to a wood trash pile more than a mile away where he cremated it, sheriff’s investigator JP MacDonough said at a press conference. Howard said his son would have wanted cremation.

MacDonough also said the crime scene appeared to have been hosed off, which “I would take as indicative of nefarious purposes,” according to Houston Public Media.

Paul Robbins, the district attorney for Sabine and San Augustine counties, said he will seek a grand jury indictment with additional charges, including desecration or mishandling of a corpse, according to Houston Public Media.

A sheriff’s deputy was previously called to the property Nov. 29 in response to a report of a burglary in which a tractor and a trailer were stolen.

Howard’s son had been diagnosed with high-functioning Down syndrome.

According to the State Bar of Texas, Howard’s practice areas include ethics and legal malpractice, family law, litigation, personal injury, real estate and oil-and-gas law.

He was suspended in 1995 after pleading no contest to third-degree felony theft, according to the Texas Supreme Court Board of Disciplinary Appeals. The suspension was to last during the one-year probation term in the criminal case.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Duane Morris partner ousted after wife found…

Criminal Justice

Duane Morris partner ousted after wife found dead in stairwell and her parents allege domestic violence

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 12, 2024, 9:42 am CST

Updated: A judge in Cook County, Illinois, has granted a temporary restraining order that prevents a now-ousted partner at Duane Morris from retrieving the remains of his wife after her body was found in a stairwell in his South Loop residential building last month.

The lawyer, Adam P. Beckerink, was blocked from receiving the remains in a Nov. 7 TRO sought by the parents of Beckerink’s deceased wife, 36-year-old Caitlin Tracey, report CWBChicago, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times.

The parents alleged that Beckerink, a tax lawyer, had physically abused his wife, the articles report. The parents filed a separate action in Berrien County, Michigan, where Tracey had lived, that seeks authority to access her remains from the Cook County medical examiner and make funeral arrangements. A Michigan judge granted the request Tuesday.

Tracey’s body was found in a stairwell of Beckerink’s building in Chicago’s South Loop on Oct. 27. Her foot had been severed.

Beckerink was “swiftly removed” as a partner at Duane Morris, and he is no longer associated with the law firm, a firm spokesperson told the ABA Journal in a statement. Duane Morris was not previously aware of the domestic violence allegations, the statement said.

Two domestic violence charges are pending against Beckerink in Berrien County, according to the Chicago Tribune. He is also facing felony charges of resisting and obstructing arrest. He has not been charged with crimes related to his wife’s death.

Tracey had obtained an order of protection against Beckerink in Cook County in October 2023, but it was dismissed the following month after Tracey moved to vacate it, according to CWBChicago and the Chicago Tribune. In an affidavit supporting her bid for a protection order, Tracey said she filed two police reports for domestic battery against Beckerink in August and September 2023, the articles report.

The affidavit alleged that Beckerink physically abused her at a Ritz-Carlton hotel, at Beckerink’s South Loop residential building and at her Michigan home, according to CWBChicago and the Chicago Tribune. In one instance, she alleged, Beckerink struck her in the head with a pickle jar and poured vodka on her body, burning her wounds. In another, she alleged that Beckerink strangled her and slammed her head against a cabinet.

Tracey’s parents, Monica and Andrew Tracey, are represented by lawyer Andrew J. Cunniff of Galarnyk & Associates in the Cook County case and by Mowitt “Mitt” S. Drew III of Butzel Long in Michigan.

A lawyer for Beckerink, Todd Pugh, told the Chicago Tribune that there is no link between Beckerink and Tracey’s death.

“Caitlin was the love of Adam’s life, they’ve been married since April, her family has not had any contact with her in the several months since she married Adam,” Pugh said. “He wanted to include them in honoring her memory and wanted to do this at the funeral home that her family selected, but based on the filing that we just received, that wasn’t sufficient.”

Here is the full statement from Duane Morris to the Journal: “This is a shocking and tragic case, and we send our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Caitlin Tracey. Our firm was not aware of the domestic violence and other allegations against Adam Beckerink asserted in various legal proceedings until recent media accounts of her death. Once we confirmed key facts, the partners board swiftly removed Adam as a partner of Duane Morris LLP. He is no longer associated with our firm.

“This is a tragedy for all involved. Our deepest condolences go to Caitlin Tracey’s family. Counseling will be available for Chicago office employees this week.

“Out of respect for the legal process, it is not appropriate for the firm to speculate about the ongoing investigation, other than to say we hope justice will be served, and we stand ready to assist if we can be helpful to investigators.”

In a statement after the Michigan judge ruled for Tracey’s parents Tuesday, Drew said he and his clients are “incredibly grateful” for the expedited decision.

“The ruling allows Caitlin’s family not only to honor her life with the final services she deserves but also to grieve appropriately, supporting them in their journey through this difficult time,” Drew said.

Updated Nov. 12 at 11:35 a.m. to include information on the Michigan judge’s ruling and a statement by the parents’ attorney.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer accused of stealing over $31K from…

Criminal Justice

Lawyer accused of stealing over $31K from jailed woman after she signed power of attorney at his request

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 13, 2024, 9:51 am CST

A lawyer in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, has been accused of stealing more than $31,000 from an imprisoned woman awaiting a competency hearing after she agreed to sign an agreement giving power of attorney to his employee.

Lawyer John Allen Roth, 69, of Pennsylvania is accused of using the stolen money to support his gambling habit, according to a Nov. 7 press release.

TribLive (here and here) and WJAC-TV are among the publications with coverage.

Roth has been charged with nine felonies, including theft, financial exploitation, deceptive business practices and receiving stolen property.

In a preliminary arraignment last week, Roth asked to be released without cash bail.

Roth said he was struggling financially after losing clients because of a cancer diagnosis, according to TribLive’s coverage.

“I don’t have money to be able to post anything at all, I don’t even have $1,000 to post,” he said. “Cancer has ruined my life, and it has made it impossible for me to even make a living.”

Pennsylvania Judge Chris Flanigan set bail at $250,000. Roth has since sought a bail reduction and a venue transfer from Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.

The 70-year-old jailed woman told detectives that Roth visited her in prison and offered to represent her for $2,500, even though she already had a lawyer. He returned a few days later and allegedly asked the woman to sign the power of attorney. The woman signed the form in March, according to the press release.

Fourteen withdrawals ranging from $100 to $5,000 were made from the jailed woman’s account, court records indicate.

Roth’s “Player’s Club” account at the Live! Casino indicated that he made more than $382,000 in transactions at the casino from April to September, according to the press release.

The employee with power of attorney sometimes accompanied Roth to the casino, she told investigators. She is also facing charges in the case.

Roth was disciplined in 2016, receiving a public reprimand for alleged conflicts of interest in two cases. In one, Roth filed a divorce case against a client he was representing in a civil matter, the reprimand said.

In another, Roth filed a bankruptcy for a woman, even though he represented her husband in their divorce case. The husband was listed as a co-debtor for various creditors, the reprimand said.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 2nd Circuit sticks to its guns on constitutionality…

Second Amendment

2nd Circuit sticks to its guns on constitutionality of concealed-carry law after SCOTUS remand

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 28, 2024, 2:07 pm CDT

New York residents can’t carry handguns in sensitive locations and must show evidence of good moral character when applying for a concealed-carry license.

Those provisions of a New York law remain in effect as a result of a decision last week by a federal appeals court.

The Oct. 24 decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New York left intact most of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, according to an Oct. 24 press release by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The 2nd Circuit ruled after the U.S. Supreme Court directed the appeals court to reconsider its prior decision in the case in light of United States v. Rahimi. In the June Rahimi decision, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning gun possession by those who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders.

The statute in Rahimi is “quite different” from the law at issue in the 2nd Circuit case, the appeals court said. But the methodology used by the Supreme Court is significant, the appeals court said, because it recognizes that the Second Amendment isn’t a right to carry any weapons in any manner and for whatever purpose.

Based on that methodology, the appeals court allowed enforcement of New York’s gun ban in sensitive places that include behavioral and drug treatment centers, public parks, zoos, bars and theaters.

The appeals court didn’t rule on a ban on guns in houses of worship, however, because the challenge became moot after the state changed the law to allow designated security teams to carry guns in those locations.

The 2nd Circuit also allowed enforcement of provisions that require concealed-carry permit holders to demonstrate good moral character.

The New York law’s definition of character “is a proxy for dangerousness: whether the applicant, if licensed to carry a firearm, is likely to pose a danger to himself, others or public safety,” the appeals court said.

Given the nation’s history of laws banning misuse of firearms by those who threaten physical harm to others, the 2nd Circuit said, it can’t conclude that every denial on character grounds will violate the Second Amendment.

The appeals court did see constitutional issues, however, with provisions requiring concealed-carry applicants to disclose their social media accounts and creating a default presumption that guns are banned on privately owned property open to the public.

The decision still allows private property owners to ban guns on their property, including by posting signs, according to James’ press release.

Law360 and the Brooklyn Daily Eagle covered the opinion, while How Appealing linked to an additional news story.

Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America, a nonprofit organization, told Law360 that the 2nd Circuit ruling is “nearly identical” to the 2nd Circuit’s prior decision. The 2nd Circuit “got it wrong the first time,” and the new decision is “a slap in the face” to the Supreme Court and New York gun owners, Pratt said.

New York had adopted the Concealed Carry Improvement Act after the Supreme Court struck down its prior law that requiring a showing of “proper cause” to obtain a concealed-carry gun license. The Supreme Court’s decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, was issued in June 2022.

The 2nd Circuit’s decision is Antonyuk v. James.