DOJ revokes job offers to young lawyers in elite honors program By Mark Smith, LL.M., Certified Paralegal & Legal Documents Preparer February 5, 2025

The Justice Department has abruptly revoked recent job offers from the Attorney General’s Honors Program—a prestigious and competitive opportunity for top law school graduates to work in entry-level positions across the department. The Trump administration’s cancellation of the program was confirmed by multiple people familiar with the decision, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it. It is one of several unusual decisions made at the Justice Department since President Donald Trump took office Monday, including the reassignment of senior officials in multiple divisions; a directive that prosecutors consider criminal charges against local officials who don’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts; a freeze on new or uncharged civil rights cases; and a review of police-reform agreements negotiated with localities in recent months. Those who know the honors program said the cancellation is unprecedented and has the potential to demolish one of the Justice Department’s main recruiting efforts to get the nation’s top law school graduates into the public sector. The program has operated for more than 60 years, hiring young lawyers through Democratic and Republican administrations. The decision was announced via short emails from the Justice Department on Wednesday afternoon, which cited a government-wide hiring freeze announced Monday, shortly after Trump was inaugurated. “Pursuant to the hiring freeze announced Jan. 20, 2025, your job offer has been revoked,” said the email, multiple copies of which were obtained by The Washington Post. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The number of lawyers given offers through the program varies, but people familiar with it said upward of 100 can be hired each year. The most recent hires had staggered start dates throughout the second half of this year in divisions including antitrust, national security, criminal and more, the people familiar with the situation said. They were interviewed for the positions toward the end of the Biden administration and accepted their positions after the election knowing that Trump would be president, the people said. Lawyers are hired for two years, with the aim of placing them in permanent career-track jobs after that. People familiar with the program said it was a key tool in replacing top legal talent lost through the usual attrition process. Current students and graduates of Harvard, Duke, Georgetown, Berkeley, Stanford and the University of Virginia law schools are among those affected. Deans at those schools who oversee public-interest law programs are reeling from the news and scrambling to help their students and graduates, according to people familiar with the matter. “Since 1953, the Attorney General’s Honors Program has been recognized as the nation’s premier entry-level federal attorney recruitment program,” the Justice Department website states. “The Honors Program attracts candidates from hundreds of law schools across the country representing a broad cross-section of experiences and interests.” In issuing the hiring freeze Monday, Trump ordered vacant positions to remain unfilled and said no new positions would be created. Hiring fellowship programs, such as the honors program, have typically been exempt from such freezes, according to federal guidelines.

Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump's 'blatantly unconstitutional' birthright citizenship order By Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP February 5, 2025 2:40 pm

A federal judge on Thursday issued a two-week restraining order blocking the Trump administration from moving forward on an effort to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors, calling the directive “blatantly unconstitutional.” U.S. District Court John C. Coughenour’s decision, which applies nationwide, came in response to a lawsuit from a coalition of states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon—that argued that the White House executive order, which President Donald Trump signed Monday, violates the 14th Amendment. Coughenour was skeptical throughout the brief hearing before issuing his ruling from the bench, telling Justice Department lawyers that the executive order “boggles the mind,” according to the Associated Press. It was not immediately clear when Coughenour, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, would hold another hearing in the case. “Trump’s birthright citizenship EO is halted for now,” Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown said in a social media post on X. “Today a judge granted our temporary restraining order nationwide, saying he had not seen an order this blatantly unconstitutional in 40 years on the bench. We’ll continue fighting for Washingtonians’ freedoms.” The case is one of several lawsuits challenging Trump’s executive order, which the president said would take effect in mid-February. Another coalition of 18 states and Washington, D.C., filed a similar lawsuit in Massachusetts, and at least three different civil rights groups are pursuing their own legal challenges. Trump’s executive order stipulates that his administration will no longer recognize automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to immigrant parents who are in the country without authorization, provided that neither parent is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. It would also bar automatic citizenship for children born to noncitizen parents who are in the country on temporary work, student or tourist visas. Birthright citizenship was established by the 14th Amendment and passed by Congress in 1868, and includes a clause reading: “All people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Trump aides said the executive order stipulates that the administration has authority to ban birthright citizenship because unauthorized immigrants are in the country illegally and, therefore, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States government. In the lawsuit filed in federal court in the Western District of Washington, attorneys for the four states said the order violates the Constitution and argued that thousands of newborns in their jurisdictions would be harmed each year. Across the country, the filing states, an estimated 153,000 children are born to two undocumented parents annually. The attorneys argued that their states would be required to undertake “disruptive” new operational and administrative burdens to help enforce the new policy and would lose revenue from the federal government to help provide Medicaid and other public benefits for children who are impacted. “The individuals who are stripped of their United States citizenship will be rendered undocumented, subject to removal or detention, and many will be stateless—that is, citizens of no country at all,” the filing states, adding that they “will be placed into lifelong positions of instability and insecurity as part of a new underclass in the United States.” The Trump administration responded in a court filing late Wednesday that the states lack legal standing to sue the federal government. Justice Department attorneys also argued that the executive order does not require state governments to pay for public benefits for the children who are denied citizenship or undertake new administrative procedures. “These asserted harms are greatly outweighed by the harm to the government and public interest that would result from the extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request,” according to the administration’s response to the lawsuit. “As the Supreme Court has recognized, Executive officials must have ‘broad discretion’ to manage the immigration system.”

In 'stunning fall from grace,' med-mal lawyer is convicted of trying to extort medical system for $25M By Paralegal Mark Smith, LL.M., Certified Legal Documents Preparer November 27, 2024, 8:50 am CST

A medical-malpractice lawyer once regarded as a top plaintiff’s attorney in Maryland was convicted of attempted extortion Friday, a day after a federal judge found him in contempt and ordered his detention overnight for violating court orders while representing himself. The conviction of 77-year-old lawyer Stephen L. Snyder for proposing a $25 million consulting deal with the University of Maryland Medical System is “a stunning fall from grace,” the Baltimore Sun reports. He was convicted on one count of attempted extortion and seven counts of violating the federal Travel Act for using interstate travel, emails, a text message and phone calls to further the alleged extortion scheme. Prosecutors had contended that Snyder promised to refrain from disparaging the medical system’s transplant program in exchange for the consulting deal, which would prevent him from suing on behalf of medical-malpractice clients because of a conflict of interest. Snyder has said he offered to become a consultant to “help prevent any future tragedies.” Snyder is known around Baltimore for his slogan, “Don’t just sue them, Snyder them.” At the beginning of the trial, Snyder told jurors that the government “really turned around and Snyder’d me. And they Snyder’d me in a dishonest way,” according to the Baltimore Sun. Snyder contended that he was entrapped by the medical system, which strung him along while the FBI recorded several of his phone calls. He also said he had consulted with two ethics experts who said the consulting agreement would be legal and ethical. The Baltimore Banner reports that Snyder has won multiple nine-figure settlements and jury verdicts over the course of his 50-year career. “But by his own admission,” the publication reports, “Snyder is not at the top of his game. He has told the court that he is in poor health and struggling. He repeatedly ran afoul of the judge. Most of his direct and cross-examinations were peppered with sustained objections for not following court rules and [the judge’s] orders, including 100 in one day of testimony.” U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman of the District of Maryland found Snyder in contempt after he delivered his closing argument Thursday, WBAL-TV reports. According to WBAL-TV, Boardman had “warned Snyder not to argue with witnesses, not to testify through statements, not to bring up topics he was aware the judge barred from the case in October—but he kept doing it anyway, including four times during his 75-minute closing argument.” Sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 25. Snyder faces up to 20 years in prison for attempted extortion and each violation of the Travel Act. Hat tip to Law360, which also covered the verdict.

Florida judge cites crosswording juror in mistrial grant; 'I didn't know it was a bad thing,' juror says By Paralegal Mark Smith, LL.M., Certified Legal Documents Preparer November 26, 2024, 8:45 am CST

A Florida judge granted a defense motion for a mistrial in a murder case involving the Home Depot after a juror worked on crossword puzzles during testimony and deliberations. Judge Coleman Robinson of Escambia County, Florida, granted the mistrial in the case of Sheila Agee, who is accused of helping her son plan the murder that happened in August 2023 at the Home Depot in Pensacola, Florida. The victim was the mother of the son’s child, and the son allegedly blamed her for his sexually transmitted disease. The Pensacola News Journal, WEAR News (here and here), WKRG and Fox News covered the mistrial decision. Sallie Sue Smith told WEAR News that she was the crosswording juror. “Well, I didn’t know it was a bad thing,” Smith said. “I do that when I concentrate and I’m listening. You couldn’t see the bench or witness stand very well ’cause it was dark. But I could hear it.” When she was told that she wasn’t allowed to do crossword puzzles during testimony, she stopped, Smith said. She did, however, have another crossword puzzle with her when she went into the jury room for deliberations, she acknowledged. Robinson considered several issues with the trial. One juror told the judge in open court that there was a loud disagreement during deliberations, and she thought that one juror’s physical safety was at risk, according to the Pensacola News Journal. The juror also said some of the disagreements became racially motivated. Two jurors said they felt threatened, while a third with a pacemaker cited an increased heart rate during deliberations, according to WKRG. In granting the mistrial, Robinson also cited the crosswording juror. “There is a particular juror who has not treated this case, and it’s evident, with the seriousness it should have,” Robinson said. Smith told WEAR News that during deliberations, “It became obvious to me right away that I was in the minority of one versus 11 other people. … At first, it started out reasonable. A lot of shouting, and I can shout, too.” “You don’t just lightly consider a first-degree murder charge,” Smith told WEAR News. “You think about it and talk about it.” Agee is due back in court Feb. 5. Agee allegedly sent a text message to her son that said if he didn’t kill the victim, then he was “a mf b- - - -,” according to past coverage by the Pensacola News Journal. The son, Keith Agee, was convicted of murder in December 2023.

Lawyer mailed feces to federal judges, GOP politicians, ethics complaint says; he blamed his 'rage' on racism By Paralegal Mark Smith, LL.M., Certified Legal Documents Preparer November 27, 2024, 11:09 am CST

An Ohio lawyer on inactive status is accused of violating disciplinary rules by mailing human feces to federal judges and politicians along with messages accusing them of racism and kowtowing to President-elect Donald Trump. Richard John Steinle of Mogadore, Ohio, who was admitted to practice in 1981, is accused in a Nov. 25 ethics complaint noted by the Legal Profession Blog. He was accused after he was sentenced to two years of probation in March and fined nearly $9,700 in federal court for sending injurious articles through the mail. Mental health treatment was a condition of probation. Steinle sent feces and messages to judges in federal courthouses in Cincinnati and El Centro, California, according to the federal plea agreement cited in the ethics complaint. He also mailed parcels to Ohio state senators and the campaign donation address for a U.S. congressman. The targeted congressman was Republican U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, according to Cleveland.com’s coverage of Steinle’s sentencing. The letters were also mailed to every Republican state senator in Ohio. Messages to the federal judges included, “S- - - goes down good after sucking Trump’s d- - -” and the word “racist” in all caps, the ethics complaint said. Messages to the politicians included, “Pigs eat s- - -—eat up oinker.” Steinle was 79 at the time of his sentencing, Cleveland.com reported in March. During the sentencing hearing, Steinle said he took full responsibility for his “vile and repulsive actions,” Cleveland.com reported. He said he had acted out of “frustration and rage” stemming from the state of the country, including problems of racism and gun violence. Steinle came to investigators’ attention after a postal inspector opened an investigation into letters to Ohio state senators that contained suspected human feces and the words “racist” and “pig” written on enclosed papers. The letters and parcels had printed return labels with the address of an Ohio state appeals court, the initials of an employee who worked there and two other return addresses not identified in the ethics complaint. The employee told investigators with the U.S. Marshals Service that she didn’t mail the items and suggested that Steinle could be involved. The employee said Steinle had been fired from his position as a court mediator. The employee’s husband had refused to represent Steinle in a civil lawsuit, and Steinle blamed her, the employee alleged. Steinle had blamed his 2017 firing on retaliation for his letter to the editor criticizing Ohio’s governor and the workers’ compensation system, according to a suit that he did file that was cited by Cleveland.com. A postal inspector conducting surveillance of Steinle in July 2022 saw him mail a letter while wearing a glove. The inspector retrieved the letter, which was addressed to a U.S. congressman, and opened it. The contents included a greeting card, what appeared to be feces and a one dollar bill. By Aug. 2, 2022, more than three dozen letters and parcels containing suspected feces were mailed to elected officials in Ohio; Kentucky; California; and Washington, D.C., the ethics complaint said. All had the court employee’s initials and the same addresses used on the items mailed to Ohio state senators. The ethics complaint alleges violations of ethics rules prohibiting lawyers from engaging in illegal acts that reflect adversely on their honesty or trustworthiness and that prohibit conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law. The ABA Journal was unable to reach Steinle at a number listed on the Ohio Supreme Court’s attorney directory. A lawyer who represented Steinle in the criminal case did not immediately respond to a Journal email seeking comment.

Under Pressure: Understanding alcohol addiction in the legal profession By Paralegal Mark Smith, LL.M., Certified Legal Documents Preparer November 25, 2024, 8:53 am CST

Chad Pinkerton was 12 years old when he had his first alcoholic drink. By the time that he was a senior in high school, he says, he was abusing alcohol. And by his late 20s, he was a full-blown alcoholic. Just before starting law school in 2001, Pinkerton got pancreatitis and was told that he had to stop drinking or he would die. He stopped for two years. During his third year of law school, Pinkerton resumed drinking to deal with the stress of school and with the conflicts in his new marriage. “I was drinking extremely heavily,” Pinkerton says. “I had 10 to 12 drinks per day, four days a week.” Despite his heavy drinking schedule, Pinkerton graduated third in his law school class at the University of Houston Law Center in Texas, and in 2004, he started working at Ware, Snow, Fogel & Jackson (now known as Ware, Jackson, Lee, O’Neill, Smith & Barrow). “It’s very acceptable to drink in the practice of law,” says Pinkerton, who’s now a personal injury attorney in Houston. “You get together after a case, and you drink. This particular firm worked very hard and played very hard.” It’s no secret that lawyers have a high rate of problem drinking. According to data from the ABA, “as many as one in five lawyers is a problem drinker—twice the national rate.” Chad Pinkerton headshot_400px “I’ve always been able to focus and grind when it was necessary,” says Texas lawyer Chad Pinkerton. “I would work when I needed to work, but when I was off, I would drink with the partners.” These drinkers are able to keep their jobs because they’re considered to be either gray area drinkers or functional alcoholics. The former display early signs of an alcohol use disorder, while the latter appear to be somewhat in control of their drinking. “I’ve always been able to focus and grind when it was necessary,” Pinkerton explains. “I would work when I needed to work, but when I was off, I would drink with the partners.” Others aren’t so sure that gray area drinkers or functional alcoholics are able to function as well as they think. Jennifer Anderson, a legal consultant, a ghostwriter and a former attorney on Vashon Island in Puget Sound—west of Seattle—says gray area drinkers and functional alcoholics are easy to spot within the legal community. “They are the ones who are constantly rallying the troops to go out for drinks after work,” she says. “Once there, they tend to drink more and drink faster than their colleagues.” In larger law firms, Anderson says, you may see attorneys who are otherwise introverted sign up for social events with interns and summer associates, as the events associated with recruiting tend to be fueled by alcohol. In the morning, their eyes are swollen, they’re chugging water, and their thoughts are foggy. Anderson says she used to hear the managing partner of a small firm loudly vomiting in the restroom nearly every morning. For years, Anderson told herself that this level of drinking went hand in hand with a legal career. “I told myself for years that it was just a part of the job,” she says. “I knew so many people who drank too much too often. Being a lawyer is a stressful job—alcohol is a way to relieve some of the pressure.” Patrick Krill, a co-author of a 2021 study on the link between lawyers, mental illness and alcohol use, doubts that gray area drinkers or functional alcoholics are actually operative. “I view the term ‘functional alcoholism’ as a myth—a lie we like to tell ourselves in the face of nagging doubt about our or someone else’s drinking,” says Krill, founder and principal at Krill Strategies, a Pittsburgh-based behavioral health consulting company exclusively for the legal profession that helps reduce the effects on attorney mental health and substance abuse. Patrick R Krill headshot horizontal_400px “I view the term ‘functional alcoholism’ as a myth—a lie we like to tell ourselves in the face of nagging doubt about our or someone else’s drinking,” says Patrick Krill, founder and principal at Krill Strategies. (Photo by Bethany Jackson) No harm done? Todd Kinney, an attorney in Omaha, Nebraska, who considered himself to be a gray area drinker until he quit in 2019, thinks that gray area drinking is never truly harmless. But for some people, the negatives that come with it aren’t enough to prompt a change. Kinney usually constricted his drinking to weekends and social events, comparing his habits to a lot of suburban, professional dads, though on the inside, he says he had a tortured relationship with alcohol. Drinking for him was the main attraction—the main event. When he wasn’t drinking or recovering from drinking, he was thinking about the next time that he would be drinking. Finally, in 2019, after looking at his last six years of drinking, he says he finally quit, starting with a 90-day break and then committing to a six-month break. He extended the time again and again until he says he was committed for life. “The negatives of drinking began to outweigh the positives,” Kinney says. “There were too many benefits of quitting to ignore.” Functional alcoholism was also getting trickier for Pinkerton, who was now drinking his way through law school and also through dozens of trials. Pinkerton was becoming irritable, and he started struggling not to drink every day. Things took a nosedive for Pinkerton while on a business trip to Florida with his boss at the time. On the plane, Pinkerton drank an entire bottle of vodka, and he got close to having a fist fight with his boss, who didn’t think that Pinkerton was prepared for his deposition. His boss sent him home early, and Pinkerton checked into rehab, managing to stay sober for 10 months. Pinkerton then decided to start a firm—he’s the founder of the Pinkerton Law Firm. But after settling his first big case at his firm for $1.8 million, Pinkerton drank 14 Whiskey and Cokes, and he proceeded to fall down a flight of stairs. “That was the beginning of the end,” says Pinkerton, who returned to rehab and says he has been sober for 16 years. Anderson, too, says she was able to quit drinking, thanks to naltrexone, a medicine that blocks the highs that come with consumption.

BigLaw firm and ex-partner who sued for age bias agree on dismissal By Paralegal Mark Smith, LL.M., Certified Legal Documents Preparer November 26, 2024, 2:09 pm CST

A former Fox Rothschild equity partner who claimed that he was demoted to a position with lower pay and required to work under a series of one-year contracts has ended his age-bias lawsuit against the law firm. Former partner Michael J. Kline and the firm stipulated to dismissal of the suit without fees or costs against either party, Law360 reports. The stipulation does not say whether the suit settled. Kline, a former chair of the corporate department at Fox Rothschild, was 79 when he filed the suit in May in Mercer County, New Jersey, superior court. He alleged that, when he turned 73 in 2018, he was required to transition to the role of income partner and to accept a reduced annual salary of $200,000. He was later appointed as an assistant general counsel with lower pay of $150,000. When he complained about lower pay, the firm offered to pay him a $500,000 vested retirement benefit, at $100,000 per year for five years, to supplement his income, the suit said. Kline said the firm pressured him to sign a final contract that ended in March 2024. When he complained, he allegedly was told that it was time to “hang up [his] spurs.”