1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Columbia law prof facing probe over campus-protest…

Law Professors

Columbia law prof facing probe over campus-protest comments says firm ‘abruptly’ dropped her as client

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 22, 2024, 3:50 pm CDT

A Columbia Law School professor has said in an ethics complaint a law firm “abandoned” her as a client during a probe of her comments about campus protests “with no notice and no explanation.”

Professor Katherine Franke said she had hired employee-side firm Outten & Golden to represent her in a school investigation of her January comments supporting pro-Palestinian students in an interview with Democracy Now!, an independent news program. She learned that she had been “abruptly” dropped in a July 12 letter, according to an Oct. 16 press release posted last week on X, formerly known as Twitter, along with her ethics complaint.

The Outten & Golden lawyer representing Franke, Kathleen Peratis, resigned in protest.

Reuters, Bloomberg Law and the Columbia Spectator have coverage.

Franke filed the Sept. 12 ethics complaint with an attorney grievance committee in New York. In a letter attached to the complaint, Peratis alleged that Outten & Golden dropped Franke as a client “because they believed that Professor Franke had become politically controversial.”

Adam Klein, managing partner at Outten & Golden, said in a statement the firm did not violate ethics rules, according to the Columbia Spectator. Klein said the firm dropped Franke after deciding that it would not handle employee speech matters related to the Israel-Gaza conflict.

“We did this after much consideration, and with the good of our firm and the well-being of our diverse workforce in mind,” the statement said.

The law school investigation initially stemmed from this comment by Franke: “So many of those Israeli students who come to the Columbia campus are coming right out of their military service and have been known to harass Palestinian and other students on our campus.” The school was investigating whether the comment constituted harassment based on national origin.

In the press release, Franke said firms have an ethical duty of loyalty to their clients after they agree to represent them.

Franke said on X her treatment by Outten & Golden “is part of a larger profession-wide problem, a McCarthy-ite reprisal against anyone who defends the dignity and rights of Palestinians. In job interviews, firms are asking my law students: ‘Are you, or have you ever been, a defender of Palestinians?’”

Klein told the Columbia Spectator that Outten & Golden was representing Franke on a pro bono basis, but the required internal approvals were not secured. Peratis told Bloomberg Law that any allegation that she circumvented firm rules before taking on the case were “absolutely, flatly false.”

Peratis told Bloomberg Law that she continues to represent Franke through the Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is probing comments made by Donald Trump at an event in the battleground state, where he reportedly told attendees that former Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney wouldn’t be much of a “war hawk” if she had “nine barrels shooting at her.”

“The Arizona Attorney General’s Office is looking into whether Donald Trump’s comments about Liz Cheney violated Arizona law,” Richie Taylor, the AG’s communications director, confirmed in an email to Law&Crime on Friday.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge resigns amid Jan. 6 rally probe; ‘I…

Judiciary

Judge resigns amid Jan. 6 rally probe; ‘I would do it over again’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 30, 2024, 11:49 am CDT

A New York village and town court judge has agreed to resign amid an investigation into his attendance at a Jan. 6, 2021, rally in Washington, D.C.

Judge Donald R. Spaccio of New York agreed to resign effective Oct. 7, according to a Sept. 27 press release and a Sept. 19 decision by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Spaccio, who is not a lawyer, agreed to never again seek judicial office.

Spaccio had testified during the commission investigation that he didn’t participate in the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6. But he told the New York Law Journal at Law.com that he participated in a rally beforehand.

“Yeah, I went to [former President Donald] Trump’s rally. There’s a lot of things that are wrong with our country right now, so that’s why I felt I needed to be there,” Spaccio told the legal publication. “I would do it over again. We lose our rights when we go on the bench, and it’s not right.”

Judges can’t participate in political activities outside a period when running for office, according to the judicial conduct commission.

Spaccio has been a judge on the Montour Falls Village Court since November 2001 and the Montour Town Court in Schuyler County, New York, since January 2005, according to a stipulation.

The commission was also investigating complaints that Spaccio:

  • Shouted at police officers and invoked his judicial office when they asked him to remove a propane cannon from the roof of his building.

  • Yelled profanities at a Montour code enforcement officer during a dispute.

Spaccio told the New York Law Journal that he put up the propane “bird cannon” because a neighboring business had a vacuum on its roof that was just as loud, and he was frustrated by village inaction. His plan was to run the bird cannon when the vacuum was running.

Spaccio said he shouted at police officers when they threatened to arrest him for disorderly conduct over the propane cannon.

Spaccio also told the New York Law Journal that he resigned because he couldn’t afford the cost of a lawyer.

Robert H. Tembeckjian, the commission’s administrator, commented on Spaccio’s resignation in the press release.

“Judges may not engage in political activity except for a limited time when running for office, and even then, there are constraints on what they may do,” Tembeckjian said. “Whether or not a judge was a candidate, attending the rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, was impermissible. So is invoking one’s judicial title in the midst a testy personal dispute.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal appeals judge, 96, fails to overturn…

Judiciary

Federal appeals judge, 96, fails to overturn suspension order for refusing to cooperate in fitness probe

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 7, 2024, 3:32 pm CST

A 96-year-old federal appeals judge who refused to cooperate with medical testing to determine her mental fitness for the bench has failed to persuade a reviewing body that she is entitled to resume deciding new cases.

The U.S. Judicial Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability ruled Wednesday against Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Newman was suspended from hearing new cases for a year in September 2023. The judicial council of the Federal Circuit imposed the suspension because Newman refused to submit to medical evaluations, provide medical records and sit for an interview. Newman had cited the opinions of her doctors, who say she is fit for the job.

The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability affirmed the judicial council’s order.

The committee rejected Newman’s argument that the case should have been moved to another circuit, finding that the transfer decision is discretionary. It rejected Newman’s argument that rule violations by the council justified her failure to cooperate. And it rejected her contention that she was denied due process.

“Here, Judge Newman was afforded all the process she was due under the rules,” the committee said.

The committee also cited “voluminous evidence” justifying the order for medical testing. Affidavits and Newman’s emails illustrate interactions “that suggest memory loss, confusion, lack of comprehension, paranoia, anger, hostility, severe agitation and an inability to perform tasks that Judge Newman previously could perform with ease,” the committee said.

The committee also concluded that the one-year suspension of new case assignments, subject to renewal, was appropriate.

“Although the sanction is subject to renewal, unlike other suspensions, Judge Newman has the power to trigger reconsideration or modification if she decides to cooperate,” the Feb. 7 opinion said.

Law360, Bloomberg Law and Reuters have coverage of the opinion.

Bloomberg Law included a comment from Newman’s lawyer, Greg Dolin of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonprofit civil rights organization.

“Obviously, we’re disappointed, but we intend to continue to press our claims” in a separate federal lawsuit pending in Washington, D.C., Dolin said.

The suit challenges the constitutionality of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which governs the proceedings against Newman.

Dolin said Newman is prepared to take her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.

See also:

“Speaking at ABA meeting, federal appeals judge, 96, doesn’t address her suspension but mentions opinion pace”

“Investigations of federal judges are rare and should happen more, former clerk says”

“Federal circuit judge, 95, flunked security training, displayed hacking paranoia, exam order alleges”

“Lawyer for federal appeals judge barred from new cases finds orders ‘incredible’ and ‘stunning’”

“Federal appeals judge should be suspended for failing to cooperate in mental fitness probe, report says”

“How can aging judges know when it’s time to hang up the robe?”

“Weekly Briefs: 96-year-old judge must mediate suit to keep job; DOJ reverses stance on Trump shield”