1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Skadden improperly limited lawyer access…

Law Firms

Skadden improperly limited lawyer access to email distribution lists, group claims in NLRB filing

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 1:19 pm CDT

A workers’ rights group alleges that Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom improperly interfered with protected employee discussions about the law firm’s deal with President Donald Trump when it restricted email distribution lists.

The National Institute for Workers’ Rights filed an unfair labor practice charge with those allegations last week with the National Labor Relations Board, report Bloomberg Law, Law360 and Reuters.

Skadden’s deal, announced March 28 on Trump’s social media platform Truth Social, calls for the firm to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services to support causes favored by Trump and the firm. The agreement also said Skadden will not engage in illegal discrimination based on equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Skadden reached the deal to prevent becoming a target in a punitive executive order.

The charge said “associates used firm email to discuss these changes, submit resignations, plan coordinated rejections of recruitment activities, and express concerns about the impact on what they do, with whom they work, and their ethical obligations.”

A letter sent to the NLRB, along with the labor charge, cited an anonymous Skadden employee who said the firm “turned off firm email lists to silence people” before announcement of the deal.

Curtailing access to email lists interfered with employees’ ability to engage in mutual aid and protection outside of a union, the letter said.

The National Institute for Workers’ Rights submitted the charge because of its concerns about worker rights and was not acting on behalf of Skadden employees, according to the letter. Generally, the National Labor Relations Act allows anyone to file a charge for unfair labor practices, according to Bloomberg Law.

Jeremy D. London, a Skadden executive partner, did not immediately reply to the ABA Journal’s request for comment.

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

In what might seem like a weeks-removed bout of deja vu, a lawyer representing the Trump administration was harshly quizzed — and seemingly hardly believed — by a judge on Tuesday during oral arguments over the Pentagon’s planned transgender ban on service members.

During the hearing, Circuit Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, a Barack Obama appointee, was obviously and audibly askance of arguments advanced by U.S. Department of Justice attorney Jason Manion.

“How can you say that?” the judge asked the DOJ attorney at the outset — scorn apparent — taking issue with the government’s perspective out of the gate.

Manion, for his part, is no stranger to judicial dressing-downs.

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. DOJ opposes court-ordered return of immigrant,…

Attorney General

DOJ opposes court-ordered return of immigrant, suspends lawyer who said he shouldn’t have been deported

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 7, 2025, 2:23 pm CDT

Updated: The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a federal judge’s order to return an immigrant mistakenly sent to a prison in El Salvador in Central America—a move that followed the department’s decision to place one of its lawyers on indefinite leave, apparently for his admissions in the case.

The government is asking the high court to issue an administrative stay to block the order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of the District of Maryland and to vacate her injunction.

The Washington Post and the New York Times have coverage of the government’s April 7 filing, while the New York Times, CNN and NBC News are among the publications with coverage of the DOJ lawyer’s suspension. Additional stories are noted by How Appealing.

The government application claims that Xinis “ordered unprecedented relief: dictating to the United States that it must not only negotiate with a foreign country to return an enemy alien on foreign soil but also succeed by 11:59 p.m. tonight.”

“While the United States concedes that removal to El Salvador was an administrative error,” the application says, “that does not license district courts to seize control over foreign relations, treat the executive branch as a subordinate diplomat, and demand that the United States let a member of a foreign terrorist organization into America tonight.”

Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused Xinis’ deadline Monday afternoon to allow for a full review by the Supreme Court, the Washington Post reports.

Xinis is an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

The government had alleged that the mistakenly deported immigrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, is a member of MS-13, a gang designated a foreign terrorist organization by the United States. Xinis said the government had offered no evidence to show that he is a gang member.

The now-suspended DOJ lawyer, Erez Reuveni, was the acting deputy director of the department’s Office of Immigration Litigation. He had conceded in court that Abrego Garcia should not have been sent to El Salvador, and he had no evidence showing why the immigrant was even arrested, according to NBC News.

“The absence of evidence speaks for itself,” he said. “The government made a choice here to produce no evidence.”

When Xinis asked what kind of practical impediment kept the government from securing Abrego Garcia’s return, Reuveni said he asked the same question when the case was assigned to him.

“I have not yet received an answer that I find satisfactory,” he said.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi told the New York Times in a statement that Reuveni did not follow her order.

“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,” Bondi said. “Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.”

The case is Noem v. Abrego Garcia.

Updated April 7 at 3:25 p.m. to include reporting on Chief Justice John Roberts’ order.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer alleges BigLaw firm fired her 11 days…

Disability Law

Lawyer alleges BigLaw firm fired her 11 days after she disclosed epilepsy diagnosis, violating disability law

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 10, 2025, 9:00 am CDT

A former lawyer at Ballard Spahr has filed a lawsuit alleging that she was fired for taking medical leave after suffering gastrointestinal problems and a seizure.

Kimberly Steefel, a former of counsel for Ballard Spahr, filed the April 8 suit in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York, Law360 reports in a story noted by Above the Law.

Steefel learned that she was being fired in October 2022 on the day that she returned to the law firm’s New York office from medical leave, according to her suit. Only 11 days before she had disclosed her epilepsy diagnosis and her medical provider’s recommendation for an accommodation in the form of a flexible work schedule, the suit says.

Steefel suffered from gastrointestinal problems and what she thought was her first seizure before beginning the medical leave. She later sought “16 reasonable accommodations for her epilepsy,” the suit says.

The accommodations stemmed from the effect of epilepsy on stamina and concentration and the need to “avoid environments pervaded by anxiety and hostility,” which can lower the seizure threshold, according to the suit.

There was no attempt to discuss accommodations, the suit says. Steefel was initially told that her employment would end no later than mid-January 2023, but the date was later pushed back to mid-April 2023.

Before she learned of her firing, Steefel had “received nothing but praise and positive feedback” for her work, the suit says.

Her suit alleges discrimination, retaliation, hostile treatment and wrongful termination on the basis of Steefel’s disabilities and gender in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and state and local anti-discrimination laws.

The suit alleges that the firm has a history of discriminating against disabled people, pointing to Ballard Spahr lawyer job ads with “nonsensical physical requirements” that include the ability to “stand, walk, bend and stoop,” to sit for long periods of time, and to “lift up to 40 pounds.”

Steefel also alleges that her practice group, the employee benefits and executive compensation group, created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex.

The group had a “systematic practice” of “replacing the junior- or mid-level female attorneys with other female attorneys at the same or lower level, thus keeping the cycle of maintaining females at lower-level positions only, and at the same time, hiring into and promoting to more senior-level positions only males,” the suit says.

Ballard Spahr provided this statement to the ABA Journal: “The firm disputes the allegations contained in Ms. Steefel’s complaint, and in particular, that she was terminated due to an alleged disability or her gender. The firm will defend the case vigorously.”

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.

For decades, ABA Day has brought together legal professionals from across the country to advocate for critical issues affecting the legal profession and access to justice. In 2025, we are expanding this tradition to ensure that every lawyer—whether in Washington, online, or at home—can play an active role in shaping the future of the law.

This year, ABA Day 2025 will include three components:

ABA Day in Washington (April 8–10): The traditional cornerstone of our advocacy efforts, where ABA members meet face-to-face with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to discuss key legislative issues.

ABA Day Online (April 9): A live-streamed, interactive event featuring policy discussions, training sessions, and real-time advocacy opportunities, allowing participants from across the country to engage with Congress digitally.

ABA Day at Home (April 11–27): An in-district advocacy effort empowering ABA members to meet with their elected officials in their home districts, ensuring that our voices are heard at the local level.

As technology continues to shape the legal profession, it’s also transforming how we advocate. While the tradition of in-person meetings on Capitol Hill remains essential and continues to be the most effective way to move the needle on issues in Congress, we recognize that not every lawyer can travel to Washington, D.C. That’s why we are making ABA Day Online and ABA Day at Home a central part of our 2025 efforts. Click here to register today.

ABA Day Online: Advocacy at your fingertips

For those unable to attend in person, ABA Day Online provides a powerful opportunity to participate. This two-hour live broadcast on April 9 will feature:

• Messages from key members of Congress leading legislative efforts on our advocacy issues.

• Keynote speakers and panels on major legislative issues impacting the legal profession.

• Live training sessions to help advocates learn how to effectively engage with their representatives.

• Real-time advocacy opportunities using ABA’s digital tools to contact Congress instantly.

• Breakout sessions hosted by ABA Sections, Divisions, and Forums, providing targeted advocacy discussions on critical legal topics.

With the ability to watch from anywhere, participants can take immediate action while engaging with fellow advocates nationwide.

ABA Day At Home: Bringing advocacy to your community

Following ABA Day in Washington, we’re taking advocacy directly to lawmakers’ home districts. From April 11–27, ABA members are encouraged to meet with their representatives and senators in their local offices. These meetings will mirror those held in Washington but will focus on building long-term relationships with congressional staff and officials.

To assist with in-district meetings, ABA will provide:

• One-pagers and talking points on key advocacy issues.

• Guidance on scheduling and conducting meetings with congressional offices.

• Opportunities to invite lawmakers to visit legal aid organizations and pro bono clinics.

Why your participation matters

The legal profession plays a unique role in protecting democracy and ensuring equal access to justice. Through ABA Day 2025, we have an opportunity to unite as one voice—whether in-person, online, or at home—to advocate for policies that strengthen the profession and benefit the public.

This year’s key issues include:

• Access to legal services and disaster aid funding for LSC

• Judicial security and the JUDGES Act

• Tax fairness for law firms and professional service businesses

• Defending Public Service Loan Forgiveness

By participating in ABA Day 2025, you are making an impact, regardless of where you are.

How can you get involved?

• Register for ABA Day to participate and learn more.

• Plan an in-district meeting with your lawmakers between April 11–27.

• Spread the word—encourage your colleagues to get involved and share ABA Day resources on social media.

Join us and make your voice heard. Advocacy is stronger when we stand together.

To learn more and register, visit ambar.org/ABADay today.

---

This column is written by the ABA Governmental Affairs Office and discusses advocacy efforts by the ABA relating to issues being addressed by Congress and the executive branch of the U.S. government.

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. Lawyer convicted in fatal shooting of man…

Criminal Justice

Lawyer convicted in fatal shooting of man who attacked him in law firm parking lot

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 10, 2025, 10:07 am CDT

A Connecticut lawyer was found guilty of first-degree manslaughter Friday for fatally shooting a man who attacked him in the parking lot of his law firm.

Robert L. Fisher Jr., 78, of Connecticut was convicted after jurors deliberated for three hours, report Law360, CT Insider and the Register Citizen.

Connecticut law imposes a “duty to retreat” before using force that can cause death or serious injury, according to the Register Citizen and a previous Connecticut Insider story. The duty applies only when a person can safely retreat and is outside the home or the office.

The state does not have a stand-your-ground law, which allows the use of deadly force without a duty to retreat, even outside the home or the workplace, when a person reasonably thinks that it is necessary to prevent death or serious injury.

The June 2021 incident began, Fisher had testified, when Matthew Bromley pulled him from his car and began punching him, claiming that the lawyer had “ruined my life,” according to CT Insider. Then Bromley spit in his face, according to Fisher’s testimony, described by CT Insider.

“I was in fear,” Fisher said. “He was so impossibly angry his face was contorted with rage. I have never seen anything like it. I undid my seat belt and kicked him, so he would be farther away. … I got out of the car to face him. … He charged me in the chest. He was shouting. ‘I am going to kill you.’”

Fisher, who was 74 years old at the time of the incident, said he fired his gun when Bromley charged toward him and reached for his arm. Prosecutors said Fisher could have retreated to his car and locked the door, rather than shoot Bromley.

Prosecutors had cited eyewitness accounts that Fisher stepped forward from his car’s open door before shooting. The forward step showed that the shooting was in revenge for the attack, rather than self-protection, the prosecution claimed.

In his closing argument, Litchfield County State’s Attorney David Shannon described what he thought that Fisher could have been thinking, according to Law360.

“How dare this little man in his beat-up old Saab, wearing his wife beater tank top and his cargo shorts, assault him?” Shannon said. “How dare he [Bromley] do that? He [Fisher] was going to refuse to be a victim. That’s what happened here.”

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge’s life ‘in ruins’ despite mistrial…

Criminal Justice

Judge’s life ‘in ruins’ despite mistrial in prosecution for fatally shooting wife, defense lawyer says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 12, 2025, 9:09 am CDT

Jurors in Los Angeles were unable to agree on a verdict in the case of a California judge who texted court personnel after fatally shooting his wife, saying he won’t be at work the next day because “I just lost it. I just shot my wife.”

A mistrial was declared Monday after jurors were unable to reach a verdict on a second-degree murder charge against Judge Jeffrey Ferguson of the Orange County Superior Court in California, report Law360, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press.

Eleven out of 12 jurors had voted for conviction. They had deliberated for eight days.

Ferguson’s lawyer had argued that Ferguson accidentally pulled the trigger while trying to place his gun onto the coffee table. He had killed his wife, Sheryl, in August 2023 while watching the AMC TV show Breaking Bad at their home and arguing about finances.

At the time, Ferguson was 72 years old, and he had fumbled the gun because of shooting pain from a shoulder injury, causing the gun to fire, his lawyer argued. Ferguson’s blood alcohol level was about twice the legal limit for drivers when the shooting happened, a prosecution expert said.

An adult son who was in the home had testified that he had stepped outside as his parents argued and heard his mother say words to the effect, “Why don’t you point a real gun at me?” The son said he turned around and saw his father fire the gun that he kept in an ankle holster.

Ferguson had testified that his wife instead said, “Why don’t you put the real gun away from me?”

Ferguson’s lawyer, Cameron Talley, told reporters after the mistrial was declared that neither Ferguson’s children nor his slain wife’s family members wanted him prosecuted, according to Law360.

“At the end of the day, Judge Ferguson’s life remains in ruins: He’s a broken, 74-year-old man who lost his wife and has health problems,” Talley said.

Talley said he hoped that he could reach a resolution to the case in future discussions with prosecutors.

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said his office is “absolutely prepared to retry this case,” according to Law360.

Spitzer also said his office would be reviewing Ferguson’s cases because he admitted during trial testimony that he was sometimes under the influence of alcohol on the bench.

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