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. Supreme Court will decide whether family…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court will decide whether family can sue over mistaken raid by FBI SWAT team

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 28, 2025, 11:49 am CST

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether the U.S. Constitution prevents a family from suing the FBI for its mistaken 2017 SWAT team raid of their Atlanta home.

At issue is whether the lawsuit is barred by the Constitution’s supremacy clause and by a liability exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act for federal employees’ discretionary acts undertaken to advance federal policy.

“If the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a cause of action for anything, it’s a wrong-house raid like the one the FBI conducted here,” the cert petition filed by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, argues.

The Institute for Justice represents the plaintiffs, Curtrina Martin; her son (represented by Martin); and Martin’s partner, Hilliard Toi Cliatt.

The family members were awakened before dawn one morning in October 2017 by a flashbang grenade exploding in their living room. Martin’s 7-year-old son was separated from his mother while officers stormed the bedroom with guns drawn, according to the institute’s Jan. 27 press release.

Cliatt pushed Curtrina Martin into the closet and was reaching for his shotgun when an FBI agent threw him to the ground. FBI agents soon realized that they had raided the wrong place.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta ruled against the family in an unpublished decision in April 2024.

The Federal Tort Claims Act was enacted in 1946 to waive U.S. sovereign immunity and allow damages for certain torts of federal employees when there would be liability under the same circumstances in the state where the acts happened, according to SCOTUSblog and the government’s petition opposing certiorari. Most intentional torts, however, were not allowed.

The law was amended in 1974 to make clear that intentional actions of law enforcement officers could be the basis of suits, according to the Institute for Justice.

“But the FTCA includes a host of exceptions, and circuit courts can’t agree on when they apply,” the press release said.

The 11th Circuit ruled against the family on two grounds. First, the appeals court said intentional-tort claims covered by the law enforcement amendment—for false imprisonment, assault and battery—were nonetheless barred by the supremacy clause because they concern acts with some nexus to furthering federal policy.

No other circuit has taken this position, according to the Institute for Justice.

“The 11th Circuit has created a unique supremacy clause bar to the FTCA that overrides congressional intent,” the cert petition says.

Second, the appeals court barred claims for torts falling outside the law enforcement amendment—for trespass, interference with private property and infliction of emotional distress. The 11th Circuit held that the claims are barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, which bars claims arising from a government official’s performance of a duty or a function that involves discretion.

The appeals court reasoned that FBI agents had discretion in preparing for execution of a warrant, and their decisions are susceptible to policy analysis.

The courts are “badly split” over the discretionary function exception, the cert petition says.

The case is Martin v. United States. The SCOTUSblog case page is here.

Publications covering the cert grant include SCOTUSblog, Law.com and the Washington Post.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer’s mistaken Zelle transfer leads to…

Ethics

Lawyer’s mistaken Zelle transfer leads to ethics complaint

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 5, 2024, 9:30 am CST

An Ohio lawyer mistakenly sent $550 via money transfer app Zelle to an Illinois resident, peppered him with emails and texts while a bank fraud department investigated, and then sued him after the money was returned, according to an ethics complaint by the Dayton Bar Association.

An Oct. 31 ethics complaint alleges that Dayton, Ohio, lawyer Christine M. Baker violated attorney ethics rules by filing a lawsuit with false statements without basis in law or fact.

The ethics complaint also alleges that Baker engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law by “aggressively waging a campaign of attack” against the mistaken Zelle recipient and his wife.

The Legal Profession Blog summarized the ethics complaint.

Baker denied the allegations in an interview with the ABA Journal. Everything in the suit is true, she says, and one of its aims was to recover damages for the “serious legwork” that she did trying to get her money back.

Baker had intended to send $550 to her husband, Zachary Reynolds, on Sept. 19 and 20 in 2023. Instead, she typed an email address that apparently differed from her husband’s by one character and sent the money to an Illinois resident named Zack Reynolds, the ethics complaint says.

On Sept. 21, 2023, Reynolds in Illinois contacted his bank after noticing the mistaken transfer. He was informed that the bank’s fraud department would handle the matter, and he should not send funds related to the Zelle transfer.

By Sept. 22, 2023, Baker had learned Illinois Reynolds’ cellphone number, email address, personal address, employer, charity affiliations, wife’s identity, contact information for his wife’s employer and his wife’s email address.

According to the ethics complaint, Baker sent electronic communications Sept. 22, 2023, that allegedly included:

  • A text to Illinois Reynolds, telling him that his retention of the money is “unlawful,” and if he did not return the money in 24 hours, “collection, garnishment and all available recovery methods will commence, including notifying your employer of your conduct.”

  • Another text threatening to sue Illinois Reynolds, informing him that he is a “thief,” threatening to tell a charity affiliated with Reynolds that he committed a “theft,” and saying she should share the information with “anyone with a basic internet connection.”

  • Yet another text telling Illinois Reynolds that he and his wife were being named in a civil action for unjust enrichment. The text included an address thought to be his “in an effort to intimidate” him and his wife, according to the complaint.

  • An email threatening a suit to Illinois Reynolds’ wife, a third grade teacher, using her school email address.

In additional texts, Baker forwarded materials to Illinois Reynolds’ employer and co-worker “in an effort to cast him in a negative light and to disparage him,” the ethics complaint says.

On Sept. 24, 2023, Illinois Reynolds was advised that the funds were being returned to Baker.

“At no time did Mr. Reynolds try to prevent the funds from being returned or attempt to keep the funds,” the ethics complaint says. “He simply followed the advice of his bank about not returning the funds himself since the nature of the transaction was suspicious for fraud.”

The funds were available in Baker’s account Oct. 3, 2023, yet Baker filed suit Nov. 17, 2023, the ethics complaint says. She filed an amended suit in December 2023.

The suit was removed to federal court and dismissed without prejudice at her request, according to a February order.

Court records for Montgomery County, Ohio, indicate that Baker filed a new suit
for alleged defamation, conversion and emotional distress against Reynolds on Oct. 30.

Alleged false statements in the amended suit included:

  • An allegation that Illinois Reynolds advised Baker “that he would take no steps to return the money.” In reality, Illinois Reynolds said, “Considering this is your error, I find your threats offensive, and they are noted. You can follow the appropriate channels with [name of his bank] to recoup your mistake.”

  • An allegation that Illinois Reynolds told Baker that she would have to serve him with papers to recover her money. In reality, Reynolds said, “As I mentioned to you, as advised by my bank and attorney, [name of bank]’s fraud department is handling the dispute. … Based on your behavior, all involved assume this is a scam. If it’s not a scam, you should be ashamed and embarrassed by your behavior.” Baker responded by saying if Illinois Reynolds is represented by a lawyer, he should refer the lawyer to her. Reynolds responded, “I suggest you call [bank’s name] or formally serve me papers. I will no longer respond to any attempts to contact me.”

Baker told the Journal that the ethics charges are “if not inflated, falsified.”

“I think the DBA alleges that I filed a lawsuit with misleading or untruthful information, and that I didn’t cooperate with the DBA’s initial inquiry,” she says.

“I of course deny both of those claims. Everything I’ve ever said to anyone about this matter was, is and will always be true. I also was very cooperative with the Dayton Bar Association. What they referred to as my noncooperation was my request, rather insistence even, to meet with the Dayton Bar Association’s broader panel via Zoom,” she says.

Baker said her suit had claimed that Illinois Reynolds defamed her in statements during the Dayton Bar Association investigation and to a representative in Illinois. It also sought $2,500 in damages for conversion.

“Conversion is taking or keeping something that isn’t yours,” Baker says. Illinois Reynolds “told me that he wasn’t going to return my money unless I pursued it, and it took me hours of time to pursue it.”

“And for that, the DBA is responding I think disproportionately,” Baker says. The conversion allegation is “a true claim, it’s a claim with a basis in law and fact.”

A gang member learned his fate this week for shooting and killing a 14-year-old boy who he mistook for a rival during a gang war as the boy played basketball at a New York playground.

Sean Brown, 21, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for the death of Aamir Griffin. Brown pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree, conspiracy in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, prosecutors said in a news release. The manslaughter and weapon sentences are to be served consecutively, with the 30 years to be followed by five years of post-release supervision, officials said.