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. 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. 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.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 2 firms speak out after Trump seeks lawyer…

Law Firms

2 firms speak out after Trump seeks lawyer sanctions for ‘unreasonable and vexatious’ suits against US

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 24, 2025, 11:20 am CDT

Two law firms have issued statements criticizing President Donald Trump after he issued a memo late Friday calling for sanctions, ethics referrals and reassessment of security clearances against lawyers and firms that engage in “frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation” against the United States.

The two firms taking a stand are litigation boutiques Selendy Gay and Keker, Van Nest & Peters, Bloomberg Law reports. BigLaw firms, on the other hand, “have been quiet” since Trump issued executive orders revoking security clearances for three large firms because of their client representations, the article says.

One of the three targeted firms—Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison—has since reached an agreement with Trump that lifts the sanctions that he had imposed. The other two targeted firms are Perkins Coie, which has filed suit, and Covington & Burling.

Selendy Gay said it supports “Perkins Coie, Covington and the American Bar Association in their courageous defense of the rule of law.” The statement said Selendy Gay “rejects the notion that the government can punish lawyers for their choice of clients or threaten judges for presiding over cases adverse to the administration.”

The Keker Van Nest statement said an attack on lawyers who “represent unpopular people and causes, including in matters adverse to the federal government” is “inexcusable and despicable.” The statement also encouraged firm leaders to sign an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie in its challenge to the executive order.

Trump’s latest memo targeting firms, which is dated March 22, cited the ability of the federal government to seek sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, agency regulations governing attorney conduct and state attorney ethics rules.

Far too many lawyers have ignored Rule 11’s ban on frivolous litigation “when litigating against the federal government or in pursuing baseless partisan attacks,” and Attorney General Pam Bondi should seek sanctions in such situations, according to the memo.

Bondi should also seek referrals to ethics regulators for conduct that appears to violate professional conduct rules, “including rules governing meritorious claims and contentions and particularly in cases that implicate national security, homeland security, public safety or election integrity,” the memo said.

In complying with the directive on ethics referrals, the memo said, Bondi “shall consider the ethical duties that law partners have when supervising junior attorneys, including imputing the ethical misconduct of junior attorneys to partners or the law firm when appropriate.”

The memo also directed Bondi to recommend additional steps, including reassessment of security clearances, for sanctionable or unethical litigation conduct in present litigation, or in litigation against the United States over the last eight years.

The memo said the immigration system is “replete with examples of unscrupulous behavior by attorneys and law firms.” Citing an example, the memo said “the immigration bar and powerful BigLaw pro bono practices frequently coach clients to conceal their past or lie about their circumstances when asserting their asylum claims, all in an attempt to circumvent immigration policies enacted to protect our national security.”

Another example cited in the memo was alleged “grossly unethical misconduct” by former Perkins Coie lawyer Marc Elias, now chair of the Elias Law Group, who hired the firm that compiled a “false ‘dossier’” with unsubstantiated allegations about Trump’s alleged connections. The allegations led to an FBI investigation.

The memo alleges that Elias “intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client—failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton—in the dossier.”

Publications covering Trump’s latest memo include the New York Times, the Washington Post, Law360 and Reuters.

Legal advocacy groups and at least 12 major firms have been involved in many of the 100-pluis lawsuits challenging executive actions, according to Reuters.

Selendy Gay is challenging the administration’s rejection of job protections for career government employees, according to Bloomberg Law. Keker Van Nest is involved in six ongoing suits against the Trump administration, the publication reports.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Prosecutor gets suspension for invading jury’s…

Ethics

Prosecutor gets suspension for invading jury’s ‘inner sanctum’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 27, 2025, 10:27 am CDT

An Oklahoma lawyer has been suspended for six months for watching real-time jury deliberations on a monitor in a murder case that he prosecuted.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court suspended former assistant district attorney Isaac Seth Brantley Shields in a March 25 decision.

The Legal Profession Blog published highlights.

Shields violated “the inner sanctum of a jury,” which is “a high breach of trust and a serious interference with the administration of justice,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said. “It is common knowledge that observing jury deliberations is unacceptable.”

Shields was accused of watching the deliberations video July 1, 2022, in the trial of Chouteau, Oklahoma, man Robert Kent Kraft, according to prior coverage by KJRH.com. There was no audio, according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Shields was an assistant district attorney in Oklahoma’s District 12, which consists of Craig County, Mayes County and Rogers County. He was the lead prosecutor in the trial of Kraft, who claimed that he fatally stabbed another man in self-defense.

Jurors were deliberating in an adjacent courtroom to give them more space during the COVID-19 pandemic. The room was equipped with three security cameras that remained on during deliberations. Facial expressions and hand gestures were visible on the high-quality video, but it was not possible to read words on paper.

Two hours into the deliberations, an officer allowed Shields into the locked security office where the video played. Shields claimed that he was asked to enter because of a security situation involving the defendant’s family trying to enter the courtroom; security personnel said the security incident happened hours later, but they did not know why Shields was allowed in.

Shields said he did not immediately leave because he was curious about what was taking the jurors so long and because he had nothing else to do, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said. He left and returned several times. He later told another assistant district attorney who was the second chair in the trial to come the security room. Shields controlled the cameras to zoom in and zoom out and discussed his observations with security officers and the other prosecutor.

At first, there appeared to be a holdout juror, but Kraft was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder. His case is on appeal after a mistrial was granted because of the prosecutors’ jury observations.

A deputy reported his concerns about the prosecutors watching the video. When asked what happened, Shields told his supervisors that he was in the room for “30 minutes. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less,” according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. He also said the video was grainy.

Shields actually observed the jury for more than two hours, according to the state supreme court. Shields “misrepresented and was deceitful regarding the reason he entered the security room, the length of time he watched the jury, and what he observed,” the state supreme court concluded.

Shields “not only observed the jury for over two hours, he failed to disclose that he was doing so to the court, or opposing counsel, even when dealing with jury questions. This is egregious behavior,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said.

Shields and the other prosecutor self-reported the matter to the Oklahoma Bar Association.

Shields agreed to resign and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in which he acknowledged violating a law that bans observing or recording jurors. He specified, however, that he had no intent to break the law.

Shields argued that he received no advantage by observing the jury, and he had watched others—including judges and prosecutors—listen to juries when deliberations got loud.

The state supreme court cited several mitigating factors. They included Shields’ military service, his acceptance of responsibility for his actions, his self-reporting of the incident to the Oklahoma Bar Association, and his cooperation in the investigation that followed.

He has been “diligent in completing the terms” of the deferred prosecution agreement and has entered into an agreement with Lawyers Helping Lawyers, a referral service for lawyers, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said.

Shields’ lawyer, Sheila Naifeh, told the ABA Journal that she and her client have no comment on the suspension.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Missouri judge suspended for ‘grossly untimely…

Judiciary

Missouri judge suspended for ‘grossly untimely performance of his duties’ while deflecting blame

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 5, 2025, 9:23 am CST

Updated: A Missouri judge has been suspended for a year without pay for taking years to issue some rulings while falsely telling judicial regulators and attorneys that he had delivered judgments to court clerks in unresolved cases.

The Missouri Supreme Court suspended Judge Joe Don McGaugh of Carroll County, Missouri, in a Feb. 28 opinion that ordered a higher suspension than the six months sought by the Missouri Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline.

The Missouri Independent and KTTN have coverage.

The state supreme court accepted the commission’s recommendation that McGaugh must submit to an independent mental health exam before the end of his suspension. The results will determine whether McGaugh enters a disability retirement or resumes work with continued monitoring of his treatment.

In some instances, McGaugh took as long as five to six years to issue rulings after taking cases under advisement.

“This is an egregious case of multiple instances in which a judge completely failed to timely perform his duties,” the Missouri Supreme Court said in an opinion by Judge Ginger K. Gooch.

McGaugh’s “performance issues extend well beyond his own grossly untimely performance of his duties,” Gooch said. “The uncontested allegations also establish he was untruthful with attorneys, parties and the commission on multiple occasions. He repeatedly failed to respond to court staff and, even worse, blamed court staff when he knew he failed to perform his judicial duties.”

In one instance, McGaugh told the commission that he had submitted a judgment to his law clerks and would follow up when he returns from the state fair the following week. The state supreme court noted that judicial duties are required to take precedence over personal activities.

The state supreme court identified 10 cases in which McGaugh dragged his feet on rulings. The delays “directly harmed multiple parties, among them some of Missouri’s most vulnerable citizens, including families and children; those facing financial difficulties; and those seeking orders of protection,” the state supreme court said.

In one case, an attorney told McGaugh that a divorce litigant’s mortgage was in default, and she could lose her home in foreclosure without a judgment. McGaugh took the case under advisement in September 2021 but did not rule until 2024.

McGaugh was even slower to rule in some of the other cases cited by the Missouri Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline.

In one instance, McGaugh took a motion to modify child custody and support under advisement in April 2018 but did not enter a judgment until April 2024. In another, he took two consolidated cases involving minor guardianship and child custody in May 2019 and issued a judgment in one of the cases in April 2024. The judgment in the other case was still pending at the time that the commission made its allegations.

McGaugh had admitted the allegations and offered to attend mental health counseling, as well as judge training. He had requested a suspension of only three months but later changed his request to no suspension or a suspension served under a disability retirement.

The Missouri Supreme Court said it had no authority to convert a suspension proceeding to a disability retirement, but the commission could conduct future disability proceedings.

Two dissenting judges said the state supreme court did not have constitutional authority to deviate from the six-month suspension recommended by the commission. If it was constitutionally permissible, one of the dissenters said, he would vote to remove McGaugh from office.

McGaugh was a former state lawmaker who began serving as a judge in 2017.

A clerk who answered an ABA Journal phone call to the state supreme court said McGaugh is no longer there. A contact number for McGaugh was not listed in the Missouri bar directory.

McGaugh did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email sent to a court address provided by the commission.

Updated March 5 at 1:28 p.m. to report that Judge Joe Don McGaugh of Carroll County, Missouri, did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s email.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Ex-Wisconsin justice who led election review…

Ethics

Ex-Wisconsin justice who led election review should be compelled to sit for deposition in ethics case, motion says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 6, 2025, 10:00 am CST

A former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice should be compelled to sit for a deposition before a disciplinary review board, a lawyer for the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation argued in a Feb. 28 motion.

The motion asks the Wisconsin Supreme Court to require Justice Michael J. Gableman’s appearance March 20 and 21 and to state that a failure to appear will result in his admission to the facts in a disciplinary complaint. Filed in November 2024, the complaint alleges ethical misconduct in Gableman’s investigation of the 2020 election for the Wisconsin State Assembly.

The motion to compel was filed after Gableman said through his attorney he would not show up for a scheduled February deposition “after much consideration, including Fifth Amendment concerns.”

WisPolitics.com and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel covered the motion to compel.

Gableman was initially hired by Republican Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to help a legislative committee gather facts about how recent elections were conducted in Wisconsin and to suggest possible legislative changes. Gableman’s duties were later expanded, and he was named a special counsel. He was fired in August 2022.

Gableman included in an appendix to his legislative report his legal opinion that the state could decertify the results of Wisconsin’s 2020 general election in which former President Joe Biden was declared the winner.

Gableman’s election review did not find significant fraud, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

“Taxpayers paid more than $2.3 million for the investigation,” the newspaper reports, “which yielded a steady drumbeat of explosive court hearings and rulings in lawsuits over his desire to jail election officials and mayors who refused to be interviewed behind closed doors, and his decision to ignore requests from the public for records related to his probe.”

Besides serving as a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, Gableman was a former prosecutor, a circuit court judge and an adjunct law professor teaching professional responsibility. Before agreeing to represent the committee, he worked in the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for the first Trump administration.

He had “by his own admission, no understanding of how Wisconsin elections worked,” the ethics complaint says.

Part of the ethics complaint concerns Gableman’s quest for information from the cities of Madison, Wisconsin, and Green Bay, Wisconsin, and their mayors. After issuing subpoenas to the mayors, Gableman negotiated agreements that made their appearances unnecessary, the complaint says.

Yet Gableman allegedly failed to tell the legislative committee about the agreements or about his receipt of thousands of pages of documents from the cities. He also falsely said he issued writs of attachment against the mayors because they “failed without reason or excuse to appear for their depositions,” the ethics complaint alleges.

Gableman is also accused of including false statements in the petitions for writs of attachment when he claimed that the two mayors had failed to appear for a deposition “without justification.”

Another part of the complaint alleges that Gableman made improper comments during and after a court hearing on a public interest group’s public-records request. Gableman was called to testify.

Gableman allegedly criticized Judge Frank Remington of Dane County, Wisconsin, who was presiding, instead of responding to questions. He claimed that 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.”

In a later June 2022 decision and order, Remington said Gableman made his accusations in a “sneering” fashion, raised his voice and pointed and shook his finger at the judge.

During a hearing recess, when the microphone was still live, Gableman allegedly made remarks that “demeaned and belittled opposing counsel by making allegations of improper collusion with the court and by portraying her as an incompetent lawyer whose only role was to aid Judge Remington in his bias,” the ethics complaint says.

After the hearing, in remarks to the press, Gableman again alleged that Remington had abandoned his neutral role.

“The deck was stacked,” he told reporters.

Another allegation in the complaint is that Gableman wrongly revealed information about his representation of the state Assembly committee as a guest on video broadcasts organized by Mike Lindell, the founder and CEO of MyPillow and a supporter of President Donald Trump.

Gableman said he supported an effort to recall Vos, that Vos did not want a serious investigation, and that Vos was a “serial liar who is interested only in his personal monetary financial gain.”

To support his allegation that Vos didn’t want a serious investigation, Gableman described discussions with Vos and staff members, revealing information related to the representation, the ethics complaint says.

The motion to compel says Gableman has a right to refuse to answer deposition questions when he has reasonable cause to think that his answers could expose him to criminal liability, but he does not have the right not to appear for the deposition.

Gableman is represented by lawyer Peyton B. Engel, who did not immediately reply to the ABA Journal’s request for comment via email and voicemail.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former law firm partner censured over sex…

Ethics

Former law firm partner censured over sex with associate and legal assistant, stay-quiet offers

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 26, 2025, 8:55 am CST

A former partner at a Boise, Idaho, law firm has been publicly censured after he allegedly tried to entice an associate and a legal assistant to keep quiet about an incident in which he had sexual relations with them at the office.

The Idaho Supreme Court publicly censured Boise lawyer W. Dustin Charters in a Feb. 6 order, the Idaho Statesman recently reported.

The enticements involved money and a lightened workload, according to the public censure.

Charters was a mentor for the associate and supervised her work. She had joined the firm in August 2023, the month before the sexual incident, according to the censure order. The associate was 26 years old, and Charters was 37 years old, according to allegations cited by the Idaho Statesman.

Afterward, the order said, Charters offered compensation to both women if they did not report his conduct. He also offered to complete work for the associate that she could bill as her time and suggested that she falsely bill his completed work on a case as client development, according to the order.

Both women turned down the offers, and the associate did not falsely bill her time. They reported Charters’ conduct to the firm Sept. 26, 2023, three days after the incident, according to the allegations. Charters was fired two days later.

A stipulation in the case said Charters had no previous discipline and had acknowledged his misconduct, according to the Idaho Statesman. The stipulation also said he had received counseling and agreed to perform 100 hours of community service.

Charters did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s request for comment made in an email and a voicemail.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former practice chair allegedly overbilled…

Ethics

Former practice chair allegedly overbilled clients by over $3.5M at 2 BigLaw firms, ethics complaint says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 26, 2025, 12:13 pm CST

A former partner in the Chicago offices of two large international law firms is facing an ethics complaint alleging that he falsified billing records and caused clients to be overbilled by more than $3.5 million over a period of 20 years.

William Michael Doyle Jr. is accused in a Feb. 19 ethics complaint filed by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, the Legal Profession Blog reports.

The ethics complaint does not name the firms. But an online press release from 2022 said Doyle was the trusts and estates practice chair at Winston & Strawn before he joined Greenberg Traurig as a shareholder in August 2022.

“Doyle is a renowned tax and estate-planning expert with more than four decades of experience representing many of the wealthiest families in the United States and around the world,” the press release said.

While working at both firms, Doyle directed other lawyers and staff members to perform tasks for clients and reviewed their time-keeping records. Doyle was supposed to review the records and approve them for submission to the accounting department, which then billed clients.

The ethics complaint alleges that Doyle caused clients to be overbilled for the work that he oversaw and performed by recording time for services not provided, by inflating the hours worked, by billing for time spent on other clients, and by recording time that should have been written off.

The ethics complaint alleges that Doyle caused Winston & Strawn clients to be overbilled by $2,529,378 over 18 years. He is accused of causing Greenberg Traurig’s clients to be overbilled by $973,910 over a period of less than two years.

After learning of the time misrepresentations, both firms reviewed client invoices and offered to refund the amounts based on false information.

“Some, but not all, of the clients agreed to accept the refunds offered by the firms,” the ethics complaint says.

When reached by phone, Doyle said he could not comment without first speaking with his lawyer.

A Greenberg Traurig spokesperson gave this statement to the ABA Journal: “Mr. Doyle was with our firm for less than two years. As soon as we became aware of questionable billing practices, we investigated, and within weeks, took corrective actions, including notifying the Illinois bar [the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission], fully cooperating with the ARDC and offering a full refund of amounts that appeared to have been questionably billed to impacted clients. By the conclusion of our investigation, Mr. Doyle was no longer associated with our firm.”

A Winston & Strawn spokesperson gave this statement to the ABA Journal: “Bill Doyle left Winston & Strawn in August 2022 and has not been associated with our firm since that time. We are committed to upholding the highest ethical standards and have zero tolerance for any actions that compromise our integrity or the trust our clients place in us. The complaint does not name Winston or cite any misconduct by the firm but instead alleges that Mr. Doyle made misrepresentations to the firm’s billing department that resulted in the improper invoices. Since learning of this matter, we have conducted a thorough investigation and taken appropriate measures to address any harm to our clients.”

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

1. Home
2. The Modern Law Library
3. ‘The Licensing Racket’ takes aim at professional…

The Modern Law Library

‘The Licensing Racket’ takes aim at professional licensing system in America

By Lee Rawles

February 19, 2025, 9:02 am CST

Should you need a license for that? For law professor and antitrust expert Rebecca Haw Allensworth, there are huge problems with professional licensing in America—and her solutions might not make anyone completely happy.

In her new book, The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work, & Why It Goes Wrong, Allensworth takes a deep dive into the history and function of licensing in the United States. While licensing boards are put forth as a way to protect consumers, Allensworth says in practice, their decisions can be arbitrary, and their disciplinary functions can be flawed.

In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, Allensworth and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles chat about a range of professions that currently require licenses, from hairdressing to law and medicine. While disciplinary procedures for lawyers are not open to the public, she was able to attend a number of proceedings for health care workers accused of wrongdoing, and what she found sometimes shocked her—and even shocked some of the people responsible for making those disciplinary decisions. She shares some of those stories in the episode.

The Licensing Racket argues that licensing should be done away with for many professions. For those that remain, however, Allensworth thinks that much more must be done by government agencies, rather than allowing professions to self-police themselves through volunteers and licensing boards.

In This Podcast:

Rebecca Haw Allensworth. (Photo by Chad Driver)

Rebecca Haw Allensworth studies antitrust and professional licensing. Her work on antitrust focuses on how to adapt competition policy to address competition problems posed by tech platforms, and her research on professional licensing explores how lawmakers should balance the need for expertise in regulating the professions with the problems that can arise from self-regulation. She is the author of The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work, & Why It Goes Wrong (Harvard University Press, February 2025), a deep dive into the pathologies of professional licensing in America. More about the book and her research have recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Freakanomics Radio and the Atlantic. Her work has also been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court and has received the 13th annual Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award for Antitrust Scholarship.