1. Home
2. Daily News
3. McElroy Deutsch settles suit claiming over…

Law Firms

McElroy Deutsch settles suit claiming over $3M embezzlement by former executives

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 15, 2025, 9:32 am CDT

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter has reached a settlement in a lawsuit accusing its former chief financial officer and his wife of stealing more than $3 million from the law firm.

McElroy Deutsch notified the court in Union County, New Jersey, that the case had settled in an April 11 letter, Law360 reports. A stipulation of dismissal said the suit and all counterclaims would be dismissed.

The settlement follows former CFO John Dunlea’s May 2024 guilty plea to embezzling more than $1.5 million from the firm over a six-year period and to failing to pay $22,000 in state income taxes. Dunlea was sentenced to five years in prison in July 2024 and ordered to pay more than $1.5 million in restitution to McElroy Deutsch.

The firm’s suit had claimed that Dunlea paid himself unauthorized bonuses of at least $1.6 million, and that he and his wife, Nicole Alexander, treated themselves to lavish vacations in “business-card abuse” totaling more than $1.6 million.

Alexander was the firm’s former director of business and professional development. She had filed a countersuit alleging that McElroy Deutsch retaliated against her for her complaints about alleged legal violations and made unwarranted assumptions by wrongly accusing her of being aware of her husband’s alleged embezzlement.

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

A New Jersey mother says she is taking legal action against a day care that has given her no explanation for how her 2-year-old daughter came home last week with one of her “cornrow” hair braids missing from her head — claiming they didn’t know if her child “pulled it out” herself or whether something more nefarious happened.

“You have to use some type of force for a braid to be removed,” Tamara Hemingway told New York ABC station WABC about her daughter, Myla, and what happened to her.

“It was a cornrow so it was braided down to her scalp,” Hemingway said. “There’s no way that, I don’t know who could have done it, but I know for a fact she or a kid would not have done that.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Third federal appeals court rejects Trump…

Constitutional Law

Third federal appeals court rejects Trump administration bid on birthright citizenship

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 12, 2025, 12:05 pm CDT

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston on Tuesday refused to allow President Donald Trump’s order on birthright citizenship to take effect, joining two other federal appeals courts that also ruled against the administration on the issue.

The 1st Circuit refused to stay pending appeal a federal judge’s Feb. 13 nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the order. The appeals court joined the 9th Circuit at San Francisco and the 4th Circuit at Richmond, Virginia, which issued similar rulings.

Law360, Reuters, the Associated Press and the Volokh Conspiracy covered the March 11 decision.

Trump’s Jan. 20 order bans birthright citizenship when a mother is in the country illegally or temporarily and when a father was not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time.

U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts had granted a preliminary injunction to 18 states that challenged the order, finding that they were likely to succeed in their argument that it violated the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. The District of Columbia and San Francisco were also plaintiffs.

On appeal, U.S. Department of Justice lawyers did not “make any developed argument” that the government was likely to succeed in showing that Trump’s order was constitutional, the 1st Circuit said. Instead, lawyers claimed that the plaintiffs did not have standing.

The states had countered that they had standing because the order would result in a loss of federal funds for health care, special needs education, child welfare and applications for Social Security numbers.

The 1st Circuit sided with the states, finding that the government had not made the strong showing needed to overcome state arguments.

1st Circuit Chief Judge David J. Barron, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote the opinion in the case, New Jersey v. Trump.

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin applauded the decision in a statement cited by Law360.

“Every court to consider President Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship by executive order has found it is flagrantly unconstitutional, and every appellate court has rejected DOJ’s effort to put his order back in place,” Platkin said. “We are thrilled with the 1st Circuit’s decision, and we look forward to standing up for our birthright citizens no matter how far the Trump administration takes this case.”

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

A New Jersey woman hired to babysit a toddler was found inside the family’s home, allegedly passed out drunk, while her charge was spotted wandering around outside alone.

In a statement posted on Facebook, the Brigantine Police Department said that officers responded to a call from a “concerned citizen” who noticed a toddler walking around the neighborhood by himself and crying. The caller was a neighbor who recognized the boy and took him inside out of the freezing cold. While on the phone with dispatchers, the neighbor took the toddler back to his home, where they found the babysitter, 35-year-old Jena Davidson, unconscious and smelling of alcohol.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Online ‘gangsta rap’ discussion wasn’t real…

Law Firms

Online ‘gangsta rap’ discussion wasn’t real reason for McCarter associate’s firing, suit alleges

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 7, 2025, 12:30 pm CST

A former McCarter & English staff associate alleges that the law firm subjected him to a hostile workplace based on his status as a military combat veteran and fired him on the pretext of violating the firm’s social media policy.

Lawyer William D. Brown Jr., a former Navy SEAL who served in the Iraq War, said he was actually fired for complaints about unequal pay and his push to include veterans in the firm’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

Law.com has coverage of the Dec. 24 lawsuit (previewed here), filed in Essex County, New Jersey, superior court.

Brown said he made $100,000 per year in 2023 after six years at the firm as a career bankruptcy associate, compared to $170,000 in base pay for newly hired regular associates. His bankruptcy work was trimmed after a new chairman took over, and he was assigned to child sexual-abuse defense work despite his distaste for the matters, the suit says.

The LinkedIn post that purportedly led to his firing discussed the glorification of violence and drugs in “gangsta rap” lyrics and “radical culture within the Islamic world” that glorifies violence, Law.com previously reported. The firm said the post promoted negative stereotypes of Muslim and Black Americans.

Brown claimed that there were separate standards of conduct at McCarter & English in its interaction with employees “who adhered to political left orthodoxy” and those “who happened to not endorse the same leftist worldview.”

Brown cited an incident in which a tax partner asked him how many people he had killed. The partner later apologized. But the question led Brown to think that rather being perceived as an honorable person who served his nation, he was “feared, loathed and discounted as a mere ‘killer,’” the suit says.

Brown also said a partner asked him “if he was mentally sound” after he asserted on LinkedIn that veterans are paid less than others for substantially the same work and denied opportunities when they speak up for themselves.

A McCarter & English spokesperson provided a statement to Law.com.

“As always with an initial complaint, it tells one side of the story,” the statement said. “Once the full history is brought to light, we are confident we will be fully vindicated. We intend to defend this case against the firm and clear the names of those individuals referenced within the complaint.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. New Jersey bar can reserve positions for…

First Amendment

New Jersey bar can reserve positions for members of underrepresented groups, appeals court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 23, 2024, 2:22 pm CST

The New Jersey State Bar Association has a First Amendment right to expressive association that would be violated if forced to change a diversity program for leadership positions, a state appeals court has ruled.

The Superior Court of New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruled Dec. 20 against Rajeh A. Saadeh in his lawsuit alleging that the program violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Law360 has coverage.

The diversity program reserves 13 out of 94 leadership positions in the bar for members of certain underrepresented groups. Saadeh is a Palestinian Muslim American attorney who was not eligible for the positions.

The bar association had maintained that it had a First Amendment right to select leaders consistent with its values regarding diversity in the legal profession. The appeals court agreed.

Requiring the New Jersey State Bar Association to change or eliminate its program would “significantly burden the expression of its views, thus running afoul of the association’s First Amendment right of expressive association,” the appeals court said.

The appeals court cited the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, which held that the Scouts had a First Amendment right of expressive association that protected its decision to oust an openly gay assistant scoutmaster.

“Applying Dale to the undisputed facts in this record establishes beyond peradventure that the bar association qualifies as an expressive association, and that compelling it to end its practice of ensuring the presence of designated underrepresented groups in its leadership would unconstitutionally infringe its ability to advocate the value of diversity and inclusivity in the association and more broadly in the legal profession,” the appeals court said.

The appeals court did not decide whether the program amounted to unlawful discrimination because of the First Amendment holding.

A trial judge had ruled that the diversity program was a “quota system” that violated the law.

Saadeh “will promptly seek correction” of the appellate decision, Lindsay McKillop, his lawyer, told Law360.

The New Jersey State Bar Association applauded the decision in a Dec. 20 press release.

The Federal Aviation Administration has issued a temporary ban on drone flights in more than 20 New Jersey communities — prohibiting them from entering their local airspace until Jan. 17 for “special security reasons” — as authorities investigate over 5,000 reported sightings that have come in the last few weeks, according to FAA officials, sparking widespread speculation.

“At the request of federal security partners, the FAA published 22 Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) prohibiting drone flights over critical New Jersey infrastructure,” the FAA told Law&Crime in a statement Thursday. The agency’s official ban alert calls for temporary flight restrictions “from the surface up to and including 400 feet AGL (above ground level),” per the online description.

“No UAS (unmanned aircraft systems) operations are authorized,” the alert says.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge who allowed secretary to work remotely…

Judiciary

Judge who allowed secretary to work remotely didn’t violate ethics rules, state supreme court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 29, 2024, 8:45 am CDT

The New Jersey Supreme Court has tossed a pending ethics complaint against a judge who sometimes allowed his secretary to work remotely in violation of office policy.

The New Jersey Supreme Court found no ethics violations by New Jersey Judge Douglas H. Hurd in an Oct. 16 order, report Law360 and Law.com. Hurd is civil presiding judge in the Mercer vicinage in Trenton, New Jersey.

It is rare for the New Jersey Supreme Court to dismiss a disciplinary case before a ruling by the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, sources told Law.com.

New Jersey courts were working remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. When in-person operations resumed, a new policy allowed remote work for one and then two days per week. But the new policy did not apply to judges, secretaries of judges, and judicial law clerks, according to the Jan. 30 ethics complaint.

Despite the requirement for in-office work, Hurd’s secretary was allowed to work remotely “on a periodic basis” for about six months in 2022, the ethics complaint said.

Hurd thought that he had discretion to allow remote work in light of the secretary’s “incredible work ethic,” according to an amended answer to the ethics complaint.

The secretary worked remotely about three to six days per month during a five- to six-month period. Hurd immediately ended his approval for remote work when he was advised that he didn’t have the discretion to allow it.

Hurd declined to comment on the dismissal of the complaint when Law360 contacted a representative.

Law.com spoke with lawyers who were relieved to hear that the ethics complaint was tossed.

Michael Donahue, managing shareholder of Stark & Stark in Hamilton, New Jersey, told Law.com that Hurd had “an unblemished reputation.” While the complaint was pending, Hurd “kept his head up and the vicinage running,” Donahue said.

“I am incredibly relieved and gratified to hear the news that the New Jersey Supreme Court has seen the right side of this issue,” Donahue said.

A new policy adopted after the ethics complaint was filed allows law clerks and secretaries to work remotely up to four days per month with judicial approval, according to Law.com.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former Moody’s GC gets prison time for tax-filing…

Criminal Justice

Former Moody’s GC gets prison time for tax-filing failure on $54M income while life ‘all fell apart’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 29, 2024, 9:06 am CDT

Updated: The former general counsel at the Moody’s Corp., a financial services company, was sentenced to eight months in prison last week for failing to file tax returns while earning $54 million.

Former general counsel John Goggins, 63, of Chatham, New Jersey, was sentenced Oct. 24 after pleading guilty to willfully failing to pay tax returns during a four-year period. He has already paid court-ordered restitution of $3.11 million and faces an additional fine of $40,000, according to an Oct. 24 press release from the Department of Justice.

Law360 had coverage of the sentencing hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Andre M. Espinosa of the District of New Jersey.

Trial attorney Kenneth Vert of the DOJ’s Tax Division argued that Goggins deserved 22 months in prison, according to Law360. Vert said Goggins “only filed returns where the tax authority caught him for not filing,” and his behavior amounted to “deliberate defiance of the tax law.”

The lawyer for Goggins, Sharon L. McCarthy, sought probation for her client, Law360 reported. She acknowledged that the case was “puzzling.” Goggins was able to perform well in his job while his personal life “all fell apart,” she said.

His problems included failing to renew his law license and failing to make car payments, resulting in the vehicle being repossessed twice.

Goggins was stressed by a difficult marriage, memory impairment and the 2015 death of his daughter, according to courtroom remarks cited by Law360. He is now getting mental health treatment.

Goggins “regrets and accepts full responsibility” for failing to file tax returns, according to a statement provided to Law.com and Law.360.

“He is grateful to the court for considering the comprehensive measures of accountability and restitution he has taken in connection with his misdemeanor offenses,” the statement said. “He looks forward to putting this matter behind him and will be timely filing all tax returns going forward.”

Updated Oct. 29 at 2:05 p.m. to correct the amount of the fine and a misattribution.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Overturning 45-year precedent, New Jersey…

Ethics

Overturning 45-year precedent, New Jersey gives disbarred lawyers second chance

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 16, 2024, 11:55 am CDT

Former New Jersey lawyers who are disbarred will in most cases be allowed to apply for reinstatement after five years, the New Jersey Supreme Court has decided.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s Oct. 15 order and determination reject the approach that it adopted in a 1979 case that imposed automatic and permanent disbarment for knowing misappropriation of funds. Now, lawyers disbarred for misappropriation, as well as lawyers disbarred for other reasons, can apply for readmission in five years as long as several conditions are met.

Law360 and Law.com are among the publications with coverage.

New Jersey now joins 41 other states and the District of Columbia in allowing disbarred attorneys to seek readmission. Most of those jurisdictions allow an application for reinstatement after five years.

But not every lawyer can apply for reinstatement in New Jersey. The state supreme court retained the authority to impose permanent disbarment in future egregious cases and to block successive applications for reinstatement for particular attorneys, according to an Oct. 15 press release on the new admission process.

The path back to a law license won’t be easy. Lawyers seeking readmission must meet several conditions, including requirements that they prove fitness to practice law, that they take and pass the New Jersey bar exam and the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, that they complete specified continuing legal education courses, and that they file a statement of restitution paid to former clients and a client protection fund.

The New Jersey Supreme Court acted on a recommendation of the so-called Wade Committee, also known as the state supreme court’s Special Committee on the Duration of Disbarment for Knowing Misappropriation. It is named for lawyer Dionne Larrel Wade, who was disbarred after a random audit showed that she sometimes took money from her client trust account to pay bills. She always repaid the money, however, and she had no prior discipline.

Wade had represented underserved clients and was honored for her pro bono work.

“Everything I’ve done in my life was to become an attorney and to help people,” Wade told the ABA Journal in a December 2022 article.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion disbarring Wade convened the special committee to evaluate whether disbarment should always be permanent. Twenty-one of the committee’s 28 members recommended a path to readmission.

New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner commented on the readmission decision in the press release.

“Going forward, New Jersey’s legal system will have a robust and fair review process that not only protects the public but also affords disbarred attorneys, who have taken appropriate steps, a chance to practice law again after five years,” Rabner said.