1. Home
2. Daily News
3. After US prosecutors mistakenly file confidential…

Trials & Litigation

After US prosecutors mistakenly file confidential memo, is their challenge to congestion pricing doomed?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 9:51 am CDT

Federal prosecutors have been kicked off a challenge to congestion pricing in New York City after they mistakenly filed a confidential memo saying the government is “very unlikely” to be successful.

The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York will be replaced on the case by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division, according to a statement by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Law360, Courthouse News Service, ABC News and the New York Times (here and here) have coverage.

“Are SDNY lawyers on this case incompetent or was this their attempt to resist?” the Transportation Department said in a statement cited by news media. “At the very least, it’s legal malpractice. It’s sad to see a premier legal organization continue to fall into such disgrace.”

The U.S. attorney’s office said in a statement the court filing “was a completely honest error and was not intentional in any way. Upon realizing the error, we immediately took steps to have the document removed.”

The confidential memo dated April 11 said there is “considerable litigation risk” in defending efforts by Sean Duffy, the secretary of the Transportation Department, to block the congestion pricing program using an argument that it was not statutorily authorized.

The Federal Highway Administration might be able to properly end the program, however, under regulations concerning the termination of cooperation agreements that no longer further agency priorities, the memo said.

U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York said in an April 24 order the mistaken filing raises two questions. The first is whether there is sufficient basis to seal the document after it was published by media outlets. The second is whether the mistaken disclosure waives the applicable attorney-client privilege.

Liman, an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term, is temporarily keeping the memo under seal and is asking for parties’ responses with due dates of May 2 and May 7.

Disclosure of the memo is “a lawyer’s nightmare,” but it is unlikely to be a deciding factor in the case, said Eric A. Goldstein, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group that supports congestion pricing, in an interview with the New York Times.

Little in the memo was surprising, and Liman, the judge in the litigation, is already familiar with the issues after hearing four other challenges to congestion pricing, Goldstein said.

Corey Bearak, a lawyer who opposes congestion pricing, told the New York Times that the Trump administration should consider other ways to challenge the program, including by joining litigants fighting congestion pricing in state court.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Acting US attorney once orchestrated Facebook…

Prosecutors

Acting US attorney once orchestrated Facebook posts criticizing judge presiding in his case, report says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 11:12 am CDT

The acting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., formerly helped ghostwrite posts criticizing a judge presiding in a civil case in which he was the defendant, according to lawsuit documents cited by ProPublica.

U.S. attorney nominee Edward R. Martin Jr. helped his associate, Priscilla Gray, write the posts that began in 2016 after the Illinois judge “dealt Martin a major setback in the case,” according to the report by ProPublica, noted by Bloomberg Law’s Wake Up Call. Martin is filling the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia position on an acting basis.

Gray’s posts on the judge’s Facebook page called the judge a “politician” with the “lowest rating for a judge in Illinois.”

Martin had urged Gray to call the judge’s actions “unfair and rigged over and over,” according to ProPublica. He also urged Gray to privately message the judge, the article reports.

The judge was presiding in a case seeking to oust Martin from association with a grassroots group that he once headed, the Eagle Forum. The plaintiff was Anne Schlafly Cori, an Eagle Forum board member who was the daughter of the group’s founder, Phyllis Schlafly.

The truth about Martin’s involvement in the criticism “emerged as Cori’s lawyers gathered evidence for her lawsuit,” according to ProPublica.

President Donald Trump has nominated Martin, who has no prosecution experience, to remain in the U.S. attorney position. Martin did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment. Gray also declined to comment to the publication.

Andy Schlafly, a former Eagle Forum board member who supported Martin, told ProPublica that Gray “speaks for herself” and had every right to express her outrage. He also said no court has ever sanctioned Martin for his “First Amendment advocacy.”

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

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. Executive orders against firms threaten rule…

Law Firms

Executive orders against firms threaten rule of law, Susman Godfrey says in suit against Trump administration

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 14, 2025, 12:39 pm CDT

Updated: Susman Godfrey has alleged in a lawsuit filed Friday that President Donald Trump’s campaign of executive orders targeting the law firm and other well-known firms is an unconstitutional threat to the rule of law.

“The president is abusing the powers of his office to wield the might of the executive branch in retaliation against organizations and people that he dislikes. Nothing in our Constitution or laws grants a president such power,” according to the April 11 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “If a president can with impunity seek to destroy a law firm because of the clients it represents, then the rule of law itself is in grave danger.”

If the executive orders against Susman Godfrey and other firms are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they retaliate against different perceived enemies, the suit says.

“Put simply, this could be any of us,” the suit says.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law are among the publications with coverage.

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C., granted a temporary restraining order Tuesday to block sections of the executive order denying access to government property and calling for an end to government contracts in which the firm provides services.

“The executive order is based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm,” AliKhan said during the hearing, according to a report by Reuters. “And, frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would view it as a shocking abuse of power.”

Publications covering the ruling, in addition to Reuters, include Law.com and Law360.

Three other firms that sued over executive orders have also obtained TROs.

Susman Godfrey, a firm with 235 attorneys, describes itself as “the nation’s foremost trial firm” in the suit, Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President. Susman Godfrey is represented in the suit by a legal team at Munger, Tolles & Olson headed by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who was the U.S. solicitor general in the Obama administration and also was a former Jenner & Block partner.

The April 9 executive order targeting Susman Godfrey alleged that the firm “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.” Susman Godfrey is one of the firms that filed a defamation suit against Fox News for false claims that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems were used to help former President Joe Biden win the 2020 election. The case settled for $787.5 million.

The executive order against Susman Godfrey seeks the suspension of security clearances issued to any of the firm’s lawyers; restricts access to government buildings for firm employees; bans the government from providing resources to Susman Godfrey, including compartmentalized information facilities; bans government hiring of Susman Godfrey employees; and calls for termination of government contracts for which Susman Godfrey has been hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Trump’s executive order “effectively seeks to create a new condition of government contracting—that contractors not work with Susman Godfrey,” the suit says.

That is an unconstitutional condition that interferes with a First Amendment right to associate and a due process right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, according to the suit, which also cites other alleged constitutional violations.

Susman Godfrey is the fourth firm to sue over executive orders. The others are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie.

Firms that have reached agreements with Trump to avoid executive orders are Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

See also:

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

Updated April 16 at 8:45 a.m. to include information on the temporary restraining order.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyers will seek stipulated dismissal of…

Law Firms

Lawyers will seek stipulated dismissal of fired associate’s bias suit against Kirkland & Ellis

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 14, 2025, 2:35 pm CDT

A fired associate and Kirkland & Ellis plan to ask a court to toss the lawyer’s federal lawsuit against the law firm alleging gender bias and retaliation, according to an April 8 docket entry.

The former associate, Zoya Kovalenko, had alleged in an October 2022 suit that male associates in the intellectual property litigation group at Kirkland & Ellis were treated better and paid more money than women. Kovalenko claimed that she was fired in September 2021 after complaining about disparate treatment and was then falsely told that poor performance was the reason that she was let go.

U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California ruled in September 2024 that Kovalenko could sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, violation of California anti-discrimination law and violation of the Equal Pay Act. But Gilliam tossed a defamation claim based on a performance review.

Law360 reported earlier this month on Kovalenko’s plan to seek a stipulated dismissal, revealed in a case management statement.

Kovalenko did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email seeking comment.

Kirkland & Ellis is represented by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe lawyers, who did not immediately reply to the Journal’s email request for comment.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Suit is ‘almost a word-for-word carbon copy’…

Ethics

Suit is ‘almost a word-for-word carbon copy’ of prior complaint filed by different lawyers, federal judge says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 15, 2025, 8:53 am CDT

Updated: A federal judge in Puerto Rico has said she is considering sanctions for a San Juan, Puerto Rico, lawyer who filed a lawsuit that is “almost a word-for-word carbon copy” of a suit filed by different lawyers representing different plaintiffs.

In an April 9 order, U.S. District Judge Aida M. Delgado-Colon of the District of Puerto Rico found that the conduct by lawyer David Efron “runs afoul not only of attorney Efron’s duty of competence to his client but also his duty of candor to the court.”

Law 360 has the story.

Efron told the ABA Journal that there was no plagiarism because the plaintiffs in both cases are cooperating.

Efron is representing San Juan in a December 2023 suit alleging that activities by several oil-industry defendants caused damages because of their impact on climate change. Delgado-Colon said Efron’s suit and some of his other case filings are similar to documents in a prior suit filed by about 40 other municipalities.

“Just a review of the first couple of paragraphs of the complaint is enough to warrant suspicion,” Delgado-Colon wrote.

The opening language, footnotes and citations are identical to the corresponding paragraphs in the municipalities’ case, with a few exceptions, Delgado-Colon said. They include “sprinkling some adverbs such as ‘incredibly’ at the beginning of a paragraph,” referring to the correct plaintiff and “breaking a paragraph in two.”

As pointed out by the defendants, Efron’s suit was so “rife with examples of plagiarism” that it refers to documents that were never filed, it sometimes refers to the singular plaintiff as “municipalities,” and it repeats typos in the other suit, Delgado-Colon said in her order. Efron also refers to “this class action,” even though San Juan denied bringing such a case, the judge said.

“Attorney Efron lifted not only the entire theory of San Juan’s case from the municipalities’ case but went so far [as] to use virtually the very same words and ideas, usurping the thought processes and legal theories a client hires an attorney to develop and perform,” Delgado-Colon said.

Delgado-Colon said Efron was also late in filing case documents and ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned $7,000 for “untimely filings and lack of diligence in the management of case deadlines.” Efron had said he was in a federal jury trial at the time.

As for the alleged plagiarism, the judge said a monetary sanction on its own would be “insufficient to address the seriousness of the circumstance,” and she would be issuing a separate order to address that issue.

“This opinion and order should serve as a cautionary tale for all members of the bar,” Delgado-Colon wrote.

Efron told the Journal in an email that the judge had “rushed to judgment” without getting the full story.

“There was no plagiarism,” Efron says. The plaintiffs in both cases “are collaborating for the same cause in the interest of controlling climate change. The judge without even conferring with counsel rushed to judgment without knowing that counsel in both cases are collaborating.”

Efron also says the order “is not final and has been referred for further proceedings after we are given an opportunity to respond and show cause.”

Updated April 15 at 11:23 a.m. to add lawyer David Efron’s comments.

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 consider scope of Sixth…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court will consider scope of Sixth Amendment right to counsel during trial recess

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 15, 2025, 2:37 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when a judge banned him from discussing his ongoing testimony when meeting with his lawyers during an overnight trial recess.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of David Asa Villarreal on April 7, report SCOTUSblog, Law360 and Law.com.

Villarreal was the only defense witness at his trial for fatally stabbing his boyfriend Aaron Estrada, according to prior coverage by SCOTUSblog. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison.

Two prior Supreme Court decisions have led to a lower-court split on whether defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to talk to their lawyers about their testimony when it is interrupted by an overnight break, according to the cert petition and a brief opposing cert filed by prosecutors in Texas.

In Geders v. United States, a decision in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are violated when a judge prohibits the defendant from conferring with their lawyer during an overnight break.

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Perry v. Leeke that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are not violated by a ban on consulting with their lawyer during a 15-minute recess between direct and cross-examination.

Six federal appeals courts and three state supreme courts have held that defendants have a right to confer with a lawyer about testimony during an overnight recess, according to the cert petition. The top state supreme courts or criminal courts in four other states—including Texas, in a ruling against Villarreal—have reached the opposite conclusion, according to the cert petition.

The case is Villarreal v. Texas.

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

Fourteen years ago, I wrote an article for a business journal that summarized a dinner conversation I had with my 4-year-old daughter. She asked me to explain “What is a re-sezz-ee-un?” By the end of our conversation, her greatest concern shining through her little green eyes was whether Santa Claus himself would be experiencing any effects of that “re-sez-ee-un.”

Much has changed since that conversation. That particular recession eventually ended, only later to be replaced by what some economists called a second one. The Cubs finally won a World Series. We sent an unmanned spacecraft to Pluto. An unprecedented world pandemic wreaked its havoc, and Donald Trump became our president, not once but twice.

My daughter has seen quite a journey as well. She became a singer, musician, artist, model, cheerleader and even an actress, playing the lead Dorothy in “The Wizard of Oz” at the Apollo Theater. She is a self-taught competitive gymnast and part of a team that made the national finals in Orlando, Florida. Perhaps most important, my little green-eyed girl grew up and graduated from high school, and she is now a college freshman trying to find her place in this crazy world.

Now we sit together, sometimes late into the evening, and we talk. She has never had any interest in becoming a lawyer, but she has always shown an interest in why I do it. Recently, she asked me a question that I haven’t heard in a while. She asked the difference between being a lawyer today and when I started many years ago.

“The difference is I don’t consider myself just a trial lawyer anymore,” I told her. “Clients once hired me to try their cases. They don’t want that today. Now they hire me to help their business avoid trials.” She looked up at the ceiling, raised her eyebrows and nodded, as if she understood me perfectly.

“Does that apply to all lawyers or just you?” Of course she would follow my answer with an even more difficult question. I had to think about that one.

The truth is that the legal industry has changed along with the rest of our world. First came cellphones. Then came the internet. Then came cellphones with internet and all the knowledge of the world instantly at our fingertips. With that came the expectation for instant satisfaction and an acute lack of patience. People want problems solved instantly, with relatively little discussion. When business owners experience unforeseen and unbudgeted issues, they want them resolved quickly. From Caterpillar to the corner restaurant, the last thing companies want is to devote their resources toward litigation. When businesses hire a lawyer, their historic desire for Perry Mason now takes a back seat to the need for Harvey Specter. Businesses no longer want to retain the best trial lawyer; they want the lawyer who can quickly fix the problem without the need for such elaborate time and expense.

This reality has resulted in a generational swing in which lawyers, just like those in other industries, are forced to adapt to be competitive. Don’t get me wrong: A trial lawyer still needs the skill and experience to try a good case; otherwise, the bluff will get challenged every time. Nevertheless, possessing excellent trial skills just isn’t the sole (or even primary) skill anymore that businesses are seeking. The real talent is solving the situation by avoiding the trial.

I believe this is true no matter what kind of trial lawyer you are. Ask an experienced personal injury lawyer how many cases insurance companies settle today compared with 10 years ago. Ask a criminal defense attorney how many accused are going to trial versus entering into a plea bargain.

Ask any business owner what he or she thinks about litigation. Don’t just ask ones who have been sued and lost; also ask those who have sued and won but didn’t consider it a victory because of the amount of legal fees they paid. I have tried hundreds of cases in my 30-year career. I have heard every criticism of our legal industry that exists, and many of them I agree with. Perhaps the worst of all is the notion that the cost of victory can be just as devastating as the agony of defeat. On the other hand, I have never received criticism from a client after we managed to avoid a trial.

I still have plenty of time left to practice law on this journey I began 30 years ago. Fortunately, my kids keep me “young at heart” and provide me with the tools to reinvent my career when needed. One thing is certain: More change lies ahead. Interest rates, government regulations and debtors’ ability to repay their loans were once easy problems to forecast, analyze and solve—but not anymore. Fortunately, I know I can always count on my daughter’s inquisitive green eyes to help me through the journey.

---

Joseph VanFleet is an experienced trial lawyer, focusing his practice on small businesses and community banks in addition to Fortune 100 publicly traded entities and large-scale lenders he has always represented. He has represented clients throughout the country and in numerous complex and multidistrict cases, and he has obtained victories in well over 100 trials, appeals and alternative disputes.

---

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge finds probable cause to hold US in…

Constitutional Law

Judge finds probable cause to hold US in contempt; is Trump administration ‘at the cusp of outright defiance’?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 16, 2025, 3:53 pm CDT

A federal judge who banned the Trump administration from removing Venezuelan immigrants from the United States ruled Wednesday that there is probable cause to find the government in criminal contempt for willfully disobeying his directive.

The federal government transferred the deportees to a prison in El Salvador in Central America hours after he issued an injunction, the judge said, and officials’ boasts implied that it was done “deliberately and gleefully.”

Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of the District of Columbia said he would give the Trump administration a chance to purge itself of contempt, and if the government doesn’t act, he would identify the people responsible for noncompliance. The final step would be a contempt prosecution, possibly by an appointed prosecutor.

CNN, the Washington Post, Law360 and the New York Times are among the publications with coverage of Boasberg’s April 16 order.

Boasberg ruled a day after U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland ordered the administration to provide answers about why it apparently failed to “facilitate” the release of an immigrant mistakenly sent to the El Salvadoran prison, as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 10.

The government’s clashes with Boasberg and Xinis have led to the government’s arrival “at the cusp of outright defiance,” the New York Times reports in a separate article. Other examples of the administration’s defiant stance include its freezing of funds that have been ordered released and its refusal to allow the Associated Press to participate in the press pool, despite a federal judge’s decision requiring access.

Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia Law School, told Courthouse News Service that the executive branch “is intent on pushing the bounds of its authority as far as possible and now beyond the breaking point of our constitutional democracy.”

In the case before Xinis, the government has argued that facilitating the return of the immigrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, means only that it must “remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here.”

The government argument “does not pass the laugh test,” Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law SchooL, told the New York Times.

The New York Times concludes that defiance may not be in the form of an outright refusal to follow a judge’s order.

“It may be an appearance by a hapless lawyer who has or claims to have no information. Or it may be a legal argument so outlandish as to amount to insolence,” the article says.

Boasberg initiated contempt proceedings, even though the Supreme Court ruled April 7 that the case had been filed in the wrong venue. The Supreme Court said the immigrants could only challenge their deportation under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 through a habeas action, which must be brought in the district in which they are confined.

Boasberg said the Supreme Court decision, which lifted his temporary restraining order preventing the deportations, “does not excuse the government’s violation.”

Every judicial order must be obeyed until it is reversed, he said.

“If a party chooses to disobey the order—rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process—such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order,” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg said the government could purge itself of contempt by giving the deportees sent to El Salvador a chance to challenge their removal in a habeas proceeding by asserting custody over them. The government would not have to release people or bring them back to assert custody.

If the government does not purge itself of contempt, Boasberg will require declarations and possibly testimony, he said. The next step, if needed, would be to seek a contempt prosecution by the Department of Justice, and, if that is declined, to appoint another prosecutor.

The Trump administration planned to seek “immediate appellate relief” from Boasberg’s ruling, according to the New York Times.

The case is J.G.G. v. Trump.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law students sue EEOC over investigative…

Law Students

Law students sue EEOC over investigative letters sent to 20 BigLaw firms

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 17, 2025, 9:43 am CDT

Three law students have filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to order the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to withdraw investigative letters sent to 20 BigLaw firms and to return and delete information that it gathered from them.

The April 15 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, says the EEOC acted beyond its authority when it demanded that law firms turn over sensitive personal information about their applicants and employees dating back six to 10 years.

The law students, who filed the suit using pseudonyms, are represented by Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal services organization, according to a April 15 press release.

Law.com and Reuters have coverage.

Reuters called the suit “the latest pushback against President Donald Trump’s efforts to rein in major law firms and eradicate workplace diversity, equity and inclusion programs.”

The plaintiffs are three law students who either applied to or worked at one of more of the 20 targeted firms. Information sought from the firms includes “sensitive personal information about plaintiffs and their employment history: their name, sex, race, contact information, academic performance and compensation,” the suit says.

Now that the EEOC and Andrea Lucas, the acting EEOC chair, have demanded the information, the suit says, the plaintiffs “are deeply worried that their data will be divulged, and that they may be targeted as a result.”

The law creating the EEOC provides that an investigation can be conducted only after a specific charge has been filed, the suit says. The law also “imposed strict confidentiality requirements on those charges and investigations, as well as on efforts to obtain voluntary compliance,” according to the suit.

Those requirements have not been met, according to the allegations.

The EEOC sought the information in a March 17 letter and announced the action in a press release. The targeted firms are: Perkins Coie; Cooley; Reed Smith; A&O Shearman; Debevoise & Plimpton; Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Goodwin Procter; Hogan Lovells; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; McDermott Will & Emery; Milbank; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Morrison & Foerster; Ropes & Gray; Sidley Austin; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; White & Case; and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

Six of the targeted firms have since reached deals with Trump to avoid becoming a target of punitive executive orders that would withdraw their lawyers’ security clearances and could imperil their representation of government contractors.

According to Law.com, those six firms are: Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Milbank and Skadden. It’s unclear whether agreements reached with Skadden and Milbank resolve the EEOC request. The other four firms agreed to compliance monitoring as part of those deals, but it’s not known if they agreed to provide the requested information.

See also:

EEOC chair requested ‘extensive’ info from law firms on DEI practices and hiring; did it cross a line?

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