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.”

How Reading for Leisure Can Improve Your Legal Writing

Reading is part of the lawyer’s job. Reading becomes integral to our day-to-day job as we research, edit, and perfect our best arguments for our clients. In this career, we get sucked into the technical world of legalese and formulate arguments to win our cases. So why spend time outside of work reading for leisure? Because it helps us humanize the very people we represent and helps us be creative in our legal writing. Reading Humanizes Your Legal Clients Ultimately, we represent human beings with issues that affect their lives, much like the characters in the books we read for fun. Reading nonlegal material, whatever it may be, must have a problem that needs to be resolved. The main character must navigate the world alone or with others to solve their problem. Much like the characters in books, we must find a way to solve our clients’ problems. Yet characters in books inevitably find themselves along their journey. They learn something about themselves that helps them solve the problem. A hero, for example, learns they cannot rely solely on themselves to defeat the enemy; they must rely on the best characteristics of others. As lawyers, we often forget this human aspect of our work. We are narrowly focused, researching and arguing to best advocate for our client. Yet how do we accomplish this without knowing the client? What caused the client’s problem that now needs to be solved? What is the client’s goal? Winning a case is always a positive goal, but what do we learn along the journey? These questions highlight why reading for leisure has many benefits in this profession. It humanizes us and keeps us in tune with the realities of the world and how imperfect it is. Reading reflects the world back at us and presents us with challenges for which we may not have solutions. This is a good thing. It makes us change our thinking, taking us outside our respective boxes to see how to achieve our goals and tackle new challenges. Reading translates to creative legal writing. Inspiration can lie within the pages of a good, fast-paced book that may have nothing to do with the issue you are tackling at work. The creativity and humanity we gain from reading can help our legal writing by showing the reader that you are advocating for a real person, for real change. Arguments become more compelling and enlightened. Reading Clears Your Mind and Develops Your Vocabulary Reading for fun also has the benefit of cleansing the mind’s palate. It erases thoughts related to the legal task at hand and transports you into the plot of the book. With a clear head, your mind has a clean slate to build from and create better arguments in your legal writing. Reading for fun can expand your knowledge about the world, increase your vocabulary, and help you develop creative solutions to problems. Reading has brought me many benefits that are reflected in my legal writing. The mental clarity that comes with reading fiction gives my mind the respite it needs to develop better arguments for my clients and better advocate for them. Reading has exposed me to many different worlds, some of which are even like the world in which my clients live. This exposure helps me write in a compelling manner so that I can educate the reader about the kind of situation my client is going through and help them develop empathy for my client. Reading fiction has not only helped me keep my legal writing client-focused but has also helped me cultivate innovative arguments to appeal to the reader’s sense of empathy and humanity. Reading for pleasure has also helped me develop a vocabulary the reader can relate to and understand. The wide variety of material gives me insight into how readers think and relate to the world around them. Hence, when writing, I consciously try to use the tools and skills developed in my reading to make the writing understandable to the reader. While still necessary in legal writing, I try to minimize the use of complex legal jargon so the reader can easily understand legal concepts. And when legal jargon is used, I explain it in terms that the reader can comprehend. Thus, reading for fun develops my writing skills to provide understandable legal writing to my readers. Reading Keeps Us Connected In a world that is evolving toward the increased use of artificial intelligence and its influence on the legal world, reading keeps us grounded; it reminds us that we are making the best of our human minds to develop legal answers for people. Reading for fun helps us connect with one another in meaningful ways, and when you become the writer, those connections expand and reach people in ways automated writing cannot. As lawyers, we tend to think that we must read only those books that will help us in our careers, books that boost our skills in our profession. Reading for fun, even for the avid reader, becomes secondary and often abandoned because of negative biases. I used to think that my reading had to be limited to books related to law, legal writing, and books that would generally stimulate my mind to become a better lawyer. Like how parents play Mozart for their children, I was stuck in the mindset that there were only intelligent books, and those were the ones with the most value to my career and my legal writing. Reconnecting with other genres, even the most trivial ones, helped reset my mindset. It reminded me that inspiration can come in many forms. In my reading journey, I have found mystery and thriller novels to be the most helpful with my legal writing. They present a problem, a mystery that seems unsolvable at first. But as the story develops, more clues appear, leading the reader closer and closer to the ultimate revelation. Sometimes, authors add plot twists that throw you through a loop—an unexpected event the reader could not predict. The same thing happens to us in real life. Our clients’ lives are not linear and predictable. At times, your writing will need to reflect developing events. As an immigration attorney, this is especially true when developing declarations for clients. Circumstances such as trauma or newly discovered information can alter how their story will develop before a judge or immigration officer. My line of work requires me to reflect on these changes in writing and formulating arguments that match the facts of each case. Reading mystery and thriller novels has helped me narrate my clients’ stories in a way that points the reader to the ultimate revelation: the reason my clients are in the United States. Regardless of your reading level on your off time, consider reading for fun. Not only will it reshape the way you think and approach issues in real life, it will definitely improve your legal writing skills.

Lawyer went the extra 29 miles to shut down refinance scam - Paralegal and Certified Legal Document Preparer Mark Smith, LL.M.

A lawyer in Charlotte, North Carolina, put the knowledge that he gained at a fall conference to use when he visited a homeowner and averted a financial scam. WSOC-TV has the story on lawyer Charles W. Hands III of the Hands Law Firm and his paralegal Devera Alston, who became suspicious when a man seeking a cash-out refinance was a no-show for a Zoom meeting. The man claiming to be the homeowner was in touch with the broker, UMortgage, by phone and text. He provided all the needed documents, including a copy of the homeowner’s driver’s license and tax records. Hands had attended a conference that discussed refinancing fraud and advised lawyers to always meet the homeowner face to face. Hands and Alston decided that they should visit the property being refinanced and made a 29-mile round trip to the home of Samuel Helmick. Hands told WSOC-TV that Helmick’s face matched that of the driver’s license sent to them online, but Helmick “had no idea who we were or knew anything about a refinance with us at all.” Helmick’s home was completely paid off. He told WSOC-TV that he was “absolutely stunned” to learn that someone was seeking about $450,000 in cash by refinancing his home. “They shut everything down, thank God,” Helmick said of Hands and Alston. “They took the time to come to my home, knock on the door and come on inside, and lay it all out for me. And I’ll always be appreciative of that.” UMortgage gave WSOC-TV a statement crediting “a system of checks and balances” for preventing financial loss to Helmick. “UMortgage takes cybersecurity very seriously and is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity and security in our operations,” the statement said. WSOC-TV advises homeowners to freeze their credit and open all their mail, even if it looks like junk mail, to avoid such scams. Hands, Alston and Helmick would also like to see a rule requiring lenders to verify a homeowner’s identity in person.

'Spirit of Aloha' clashes with 'federally mandated' gun lifestyle, Hawaii Supreme Court says - Paralegal and Certified Legal Document Preparer Mark Smith, LL.M.

The Hawaii Supreme Court has upheld state laws that generally ban carrying guns in public in an opinion that criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s historical approach to Second Amendment cases. “In Hawaii, the Aloha spirit inspires constitutional interpretation,” the state supreme court said in its unanimous Feb. 7 decision. “The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.” A man named Christopher Wilson had challenged Hawaii’s “place to keep” laws that required him to keep guns and ammunition at his “place of business, residence or soujourn,” according to the decision and Bloomberg Law. The laws had an exception that allows people to carry a handgun for self-defense if they have a license. Wilson cited the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which found a Second Amendment right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. In that decision, the Supreme Court said gun restrictions should be evaluated based on the nation’s historical tradition. The Hawaii Supreme Court said it would interpret the state constitution first and then the U.S. Constitution. The section of the opinion evaluating the laws under the Constitution did not begin until page 52 of the 53-page opinion. The Hawaii Supreme Court evaluated a section of the Hawaii Constitution that mirrors Second Amendment language. Despite the similarities, the state supreme court concluded that the Hawaii Constitution does not create a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. The state’s historical tradition supports a “collective, militia meaning” for the right to bear arms, rather than an individual right, the state supreme court said in an opinion by Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd W. Eddins. “When the Hawaii Constitution was first ratified, courts throughout the nation’s history had always interpreted and applied the Second Amendment with the militia-centric view,” Eddins wrote. The state supreme court also concluded that the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect states’ rights to have militias. “That’s what they were thinking about long ago,” Eddins wrote. “Not someone packing a musket to the wigmaker just in case.” “Bruen unravels durable law,” Eddins wrote. “No longer are there the levels of scrutiny and public safety balancing tests long-used by our nation’s courts to evaluate firearms laws. Instead, the court ad-libs a ‘history-only’ standard.” “We believe it is a misplaced view to think that today’s public safety laws must look like laws passed long ago,” Eddins said. “Smoothbore, muzzle-loaded and powder-and-ramrod muskets were not exactly useful to colonial era mass murderers. And life is a bit different now, in a nation with a lot more people, stretching to islands in the Pacific Ocean.” The Hawaii Supreme Court also quoted a Bruen concurrence by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that said states retain the authority to require that people have a license to carry firearms in public. Hawaii’s two “place to keep” laws at issue have an exception allowing people to carry a handgun for self-defense if they have a license, the state supreme court said. The laws “do not graze Wilson’s Second Amendment right,” the state supreme court concluded. The case is Hawaii v. Wilson.

'She Didn't Ask, And I Didn't Tell,' Ex Says Of Fraud Scheme

Both federal prosecutors and defense counsel for a Georgia woman accused of using her small business to hide hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegally obtained pandemic loans agreed Tuesday that her ex-husband was not just a philanderer, but a fraudster to boot. But where their agreement ended — and the question for jurors weighing the guilt or innocence of defendant Carla Jackson — is just how much she knew about her former husband John Gaines' illegal activities. John Gaines, who is divorced from Jackson and was convicted last month of money laundering charges, took the witness stand to tell jurors during week two of a federal trial that he'd kept his wife in the dark about the scheme he was involved in with Darrell Thomas. Thomas, according to prosecutors, was the mastermind of a fraud ring encompassing more than 20 defendants who orchestrated the scheme to illegally obtain $11 million in Paycheck Protection Program loans. "I didn't tell her anything," John Gaines insisted Tuesday, later adding, "She didn't ask, and I didn't tell." John Gaines' criminal behavior, Jackson's attorney David Marshall said, was just the latest in a series of secrets he'd kept from his wife over the course of their nearly 20-year marriage. He'd had affairs behind her back and fathered two children out of wedlock, Marshall said. Why, he suggested, should the PPP scheme have been any different? By John Gaines' own admission, he had partnered with Thomas and his cousin, Andre Gaines, during the early months of the pandemic to prepare fraudulent PPP applications on behalf of businesses that effectively existed only on paper. Also allegedly involved in the scheme was Teldrin Foster, who is being tried alongside Jackson and is accused of working with Thomas to prepare his own bogus applications. After securing the loans, which were intended to help small businesses shuttered by the pandemic keep their workers on their payroll, John Gaines then moved the money into a business run by Jackson in an attempt to hide the fraud from the government. John Gaines said Jackson believed the money was for a purportedly above-board real estate development project they were undertaking together in Alabama. The project never came to fruition because, as John Gaines put it, "Everything went to shambles before we got a chance ... the FBI showed up, and things got ugly." But on cross-examination, Assistant U.S. Attorney Tal Chaiken first hammered John Gaines' credibility by casting doubt on Andre Gaines' role in the scheme. She noted Andre Gaines had suffered a stroke in 2018, and he was in his late 60s with cognitive disabilities by the time of both the fraud scheme and the joint real estate venture. Chaiken then pointed to email exchanges between John Gaines and a woman who, for years before the PPP scheme, had helped him prepare forged documents of all kinds: drivers' licenses, tax records, pay stubs, car titles, utility bills and more. "Is it fair to say you've used her to make so many fake documents over the years that you don't even remember what you've asked her for?" Chaiken asked as John Gaines continued to say he didn't remember the emails in question. Chaiken further scorned the notion that John Gaines and his disabled, retired cousin had "all of a sudden decided to do a construction project together" on a property that didn't appear to have been listed for sale. John Gaines, for his part, said his recollections of a visit to the property were hazy, thanks to having "had a couple drinks" before scoping out the parcel in 2020. Finally, Chaiken circled around the claim that Jackson was unaware of the scheme John Gaines was involved in, even as he was moving six-figure sums of cash into her business's bank accounts. As Chaiken pressed John Gaines on his assertion that his ex-wife never questioned the transactions in the midst of a global pandemic, he continued to maintain her ignorance. "She didn't know how we obtained that money," he said. Marshall, meanwhile, implied John Gaines' and Jackson's continued contact and work together after their divorce stemmed not just from business concerns, but more personal ones as well. At one point, Marshall asked John Gaines why he still stayed at his ex-wife's house on occasion even after their divorce. John Gaines, not making eye contact with Marshall or the jury, took a long pause before answering. "She still loved me," he said. The government is represented by Siji Moore of the U.S. Department of Justice's Criminal Division, and Nathan Parker Kitchens, Tal C. Chaiken, Radka T. Nations, Sekret T. Sneed and Samir Kaushal of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. Carla Jackson is represented by David D. Marshall. John Gaines is represented by Deana Timberlake-Wiley of the Law Offices of Deana Timberlake-Wiley. Teldrin Foster is represented by Saraliene Durrett of Saraliene Smith Durrett LLC and Leigh Ann Webster of Strickland Webster LLC. The case is USA v. Thomas et al., case number 1:20-cr-00296, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

BREAKING: Trump Turns To Supreme Court In Criminal Case - by Certified Paralegal and Legal Document Preparer Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

Former President Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to stay a D.C. Circuit panel's ruling that he is not immune from federal charges for allegedly interfering in the 2020 presidential election.  The high court's intervention is needed to "forestall ... an unprecedented and unacceptable departure from ordinary appellate procedures," Trump argues, referring to the D.C. Circuit panel's order allowing the district court to move forward with proceedings even if the former president requested review by the entire bench. Trump wants the Supreme Court to grant a stay so that he can seek an en banc review with the D.C. Circuit. He adds the prosecution of a former president would be a "breach of precedent and historic norms" that the Supreme Court shouldn't allow.  "The threat of future criminal prosecution by a politically opposed administration will overshadow every future president's official acts – especially the most politically controversial decisions," Trump says.  A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel – comprising two Biden appointees and one H.W. Bush appointee – issued a unanimous per curiam opinion Feb. 6 rejecting Trump's assertion that he has so-called presidential immunity from prosecution for any official acts taken in the White House. The panel said Trump's claim for sweeping immunity "is unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution." Trump is facing a four-count indictment in D.C. federal court that accuses him of undertaking a wide-ranging strategy to overturn the 2020 election results, including pressuring state lawmakers and organizing alternate slates of electors. He is charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S., conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring against citizens' right to vote. He contends the indictment must be tossed for three reasons. The courts, Trump claims, are powerless to review official presidential acts, public policy favors immunity and the U.S. Constitution bars the prosecution of former presidents who have not already been convicted through impeachment. The D.C. Circuit panel addressed each argument separately in a 57-page opinion, first finding Trump's reading of Marbury v. Madison to say that official presidential acts "can never be examinable by the courts" was incorrect. The foundational ruling allows for judicial review of "ministerial" actions that officials are bound by law to perform while prohibiting review of discretionary decisions, the panel said. Trump had no discretionary authority to defy "generally applicable" criminal laws and must be held "answerable in court for his conduct," the panel ruled. The public's interest in criminal accountability and the executive branch's interest in upholding presidential elections also outweigh any risks that Trump alleges would arise if former presidents could be criminally prosecuted, the appellate panel held. The judges rejected claims that future presidents wouldn't take necessary actions during their time in office due to a threat of post-term prosecution. "Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the president, the Congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute and the judiciary could not review," the panel said. "We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter." Finally, the panel held that Trump's argument that the impeachment clause prohibits prosecution of former presidents who have not already been convicted through impeachment rests on a "logical fallacy." The clause was explicitly written to not limit an official's criminal liability, and it shouldn't be read any other way, the panel said. Trump is represented by John F. Lauro and Gregory M. Singer of Lauro & Singer, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove of Blanche Law, and D. John Sauer, William O. Scharf and Michael E. Talent of James Otis Law Group LLC. The federal government was represented at the D.C. Circuit by Jack Smith, J.P. Cooney, Michael R. Dreeben, James I. Pearce, Molly Gaston, Thomas P. Windom, Raymond N. Hulser, John M. Pellettieri and Cecil W. VanDevender of the U.S. Department of Justice's Special Counsel's Office. The case is Trump v. United States, case number 23A745, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Brown Prof Testifies That Fluoride IQ Studies Have Gaps - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., Certified Paralegal and Legal Document Preparer

A Brown University epidemiologist testified Friday on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a bench trial over fluoride's risks Friday that there are data "gaps" in studies linking fluoride exposure to lower IQ, while acknowledging under cross-examination that he hadn't reviewed studies assessing the effects of high-dose fluoride exposure. Brown University professor of epidemiology David Savitz's testimony came during the EPA's defense case on the sixth day of a two-week bench trial before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco in high-stakes litigation launched by Food & Water Watch Inc., the Fluoride Action Network and others against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2017. The groups seek to force the EPA to make a new federal rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act that would ban fluoride from being added to drinking water. Local municipalities have added the chemical to public water for decades to boost public dental hygiene and prevent dental decay, but the groups' experts have testified during the trial that the latest scientific studies suggest that fluoride is neurotoxic and that even low levels of exposure lowers IQ. The EPA called Savitz as its first witness on Wednesday, and he testified that he recently participated in a Canadian health panel reviewing the latest scientific studies on the potential effects of fluoride exposure. Savitz testified that there's too much uncertainty in the scientific data on the neurocognitive impacts of fluoride exposure from drinking water, which typically has 0.7 mg/L of fluoride, and it would be premature to regulate fluoridated water based on its potential neurotoxicity. Before trial recessed Wednesday, Savitz said his panel recommended that Canadian water regulators instead focus on moderate dental fluorosis — a condition resulting from taking in too much fluoride as a kid — that can occur with fluoride exposure above 1.56 mg/L. Trial resumed Friday morning with the EPA continuing Savitz's direct examination, and over the course of about three hours, the professor took issue with various aspects of the dozens of fluoride IQ studies that were analyzed by the plaintiffs' epidemiological expert. Savitz explained that his panel was also tasked with closely reviewing the recent National Toxicology Program's fluoride monograph, which included multiple studies showing a steep drop in IQ points over a fluoride range from 0.2 mg/L to 1.5 mg/L. "We were really scrutinizing the document, looking at it in detail, as we were charged to do, and we remained concerned," Savitz said. Savitz took issue with various aspects of the studies, claiming that some had "double counting" issues with overlapping populations and "in broad terms, there was a bit of a disconnect" between the studies' analysis and results. He also took issue with certain studies he said didn't adjust for keratin. "It's not to say that their conclusions were wrong, but that trail from raw evidence to assessments, [there were] gaps and concerns," he said. Savitz also acknowledged that there wasn't a single problem definitively showing the studies' conclusions were wrong. Instead, he said, there were a series of issues, including various methods of fluoride testing and population demographics, that "might seem to be modest initially, but cumulatively ... it's not making its case well." "They were not being as direct as we would want them to be," he said of the NTP's monograph. "It sounds like nitpicking, and I suppose in a way it is, but when you look at the details there were some troubling issues," he said, adding, "The question is did they implement their strategy effectively, not if it's the best strategy." Although the professor acknowledged the fluoride IQ studies do appear to "follow the pattern" that NTP researchers suggest, showing a link between IQ drops and levels of fluoride exposure above 1.5 mg/L, Savitz cautioned against drawing strong inferences from them. "I'm not saying they were completely off base — not at all," he said. "They probably got it right, but there are some real concerns about the description of the process and the details." The EPA's counsel asked how fluoride compares to lead. During trial, the judge has heard testimony from the plaintiffs' experts that the resistance to regulating fluoride is similar to resistance to lead regulations in the 1970s. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually required the EPA to prohibit companies from adding lead to gasoline, even in small amounts, due to its risks, despite significant pushback from industry, according to trial testimony. Savitz testified that he believes lead is different from fluoride, because "in the early days" of lead research, scientific studies clearly showed that lead was dangerous at high exposures, and the question was the "ratcheting down" of lead exposures. "It wasn't moderate confidence. It was airtight. You weren't taking a leap when you pushed [lead exposure] further and further in that direction," he said. "It's very different where we stand with fluoride." But the plaintiffs' counsel objected repeatedly, arguing that some of Savitz's testimony constitutes undisclosed opinions. The plaintiffs also noted that Savitz acknowledged that he has not analyzed studies analyzing the effect of high levels of fluoride exposure, or even exposures above 1.5 mg/L, so he can't claim fluoride doesn't follow the same risk pattern as lead exposure. But the judge mostly overruled the objections. Savitz's cross-examination began with the plaintiffs' counsel reading the professor quotes from his own textbook stating that the precise "causal nature of any given effect is almost never known" in epidemiological studies. The counsel also tried to get Savitz to concede that at least one other member on his panel had a conflict of interest in assessing the risks of fluoride, but Savitz denied knowing about the other panelist's purported conflicts, and the judge sustained objections to further questioning on the issue. During cross-examination, Savitz acknowledged that he had never conducted a fluoride study himself, and that when he joined the panel he wasn't an expert on fluoride. Savitz also acknowledged that confounding of data "probably could not" explain the relationship between fluoride and IQ, and he agreed that he never reviewed fluoride studies involving doses of fluoride of 1.5 mg/L or higher. Before trial recessed for the day, Savitz also repeatedly acknowledged that he's not a risk assessor, and that he doesn't know how the EPA evaluates "risk" under TSCA. Trial will resume Monday morning, and it's expected to conclude Wednesday. The legal fight went to a first bench trial in 2020, with the plaintiff groups asking the court to declare that fluoride in tap water posed a risk to human health. But Judge Chen suspended litigation so the EPA could conduct another study and reevaluate fluoride's risks. Litigation resumed in October 2022. The groups are represented by C. Andrew Waters and Michael Connett of Waters Kraus & Paul LLP and Christopher T. Nidel of Nidel & Nace PLLC. The EPA is represented by Brandon N. Adkins and Paul A. Caintic of the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division and Emmet P. Ong of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. The case is Food & Water Watch Inc. et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., case number 3:17-cv-02162, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

BREAKING: Judge Newman Again Denied Return To Federal Circuit - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., Certified Paralegal and Legal Document Preparer

A D.C. federal judge on Monday shot down suspended Circuit Judge Pauline Newman's request for an injunction that would allow her to hear cases on the Federal Circuit again and largely dismissed her suit accusing her colleagues of trying to wrongfully remove her from the bench.   U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper held that his court doesn't have jurisdiction to oversee many of Judge Newman's claims challenging her suspension under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, and that her remaining claims are too weak at this point to justify an injunction. The surviving claims deal with Judge Newman's challenges to the act itself, rather than the way it was applied against her, which requires "a demanding standard" for the 96-year-old to meet, according to Judge Cooper. He will allow Judge Newman to argue that the act is vague when it comes to deciding what counts as a mental disability, and therefore, whether it would apply to her.  "The court therefore may not entertain dismissal of the case in its entirety at this juncture," Judge Cooper wrote. "Defendants may seek dismissal of the surviving claims under Rule 12(c) or via summary judgment." The decision comes less than a week after the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability upheld the one-year suspension Judge Newman received for refusing to undergo a medical examination when the circuit's other judges questioned her mental competency. Judge Newman's attorney, Gregory Dolin of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said Monday: "We are certainly gratified that Judge Cooper did not dismiss the entirety of the action, and we will proceed on the claims that remain live." Dolin said, "With respect to the dismissed claims, we are evaluating our options and will seek review in the DC Circuit in due course and as necessary." A representative for the Federal Circuit didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. Judge Newman is represented by Gregory Dolin and John J. Vecchione of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. The Federal Circuit is represented by Michael Andrew Zee and Stephen Ehrlich of the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The case is Newman v. Moore et al., case number 1:23-cv-01334, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Pentagon Secretly Institutionalized DEI In Its K-12 Public Schools - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

In a Congressional hearing last spring, Gil Cisneros, then-Under Secretary for Military Readiness, announced that the Pentagon was closing its newly formed Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion within its K-12 school system and reassigning its controversial DEI chief after a ten-month internal investigation. The Pentagon’s climb-down was a big win for OpenTheBooks.com. We had worked alongside whistleblowers, journalists, other investigative non-profits, and ranking members of Congress to expose alleged conflicts of interest, violations of military ethics policies, and radical ideologies being forced on the kids of servicemen and servicewomen. Today, we are announcing Cisneros was actually faking. The radical curriculum was not dismantled. Instead, it was stealthily embedded into the lesson plans and classrooms throughout the entire school system. The Pentagon, under Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, is preventing details of their DEI policies from coming to light by abusing the Freedom of Information Act. They bamboozled the public with window dressing in Congressional hearings while forcing woke extremism on the roughly 70,000 children of our military service members. It’s critical that taxpayers understand the scope of the DEI philosophy within the DoD’s schools – deployed servicemembers often have no alternative but to use the Pentagon-run school system, called the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA). Pledge your support Troubling Curriculum DOD relentlessly promotes DEI-ideologies to school children of serving families through educational contractors with millions of dollars of taxpayer funding. Here are some examples of what’s happening in the Pentagon’s schools: Chat rooms to facilitate teacher-student conversations that are closed off to parents about sexuality and gender, and likely without their knowledge or consent. Engaging four-year-olds in LGBTQ+ conversations. Elementary schools are the “perfect time” to “really show students the diversity of the gender expression and gender activity.” Solidarity with the neo-Marxist Black Lives Matter organization to encourage teachers to “challenge our beliefs, examine our own biases, and reflect on how we need to evaluate the structures and systems in our classrooms.” Video content on “dissent” and “equity” to “help educators facilitate classroom conversations and much-needed discussions about implicit bias and systemic racism, human rights, equity, social justice, dissent, protest, and empathy." Marxist activism to dismantle systems of “power” and “privilege.” Suggesting a refusal to teach a “white-washed” curriculum and instead teach “social justice rather than heroes, holidays, and celebrations.” A teaching handbook that recommends “critical conversations” with students about race, identity, and privilege and the way “injustice” affects our lives and society. These “explicit conversations” provoke “strong emotions” and crying students are expected. Read the details about these vendors, their payments, and the full background dossier on our investigation here. Transparency Problems The Pentagon is assiduously attempting to hide its biased left-wing extremist curriculum from public view. It is deleting public access to links, driving DEI infrastructure underground, and liberally redacting the most basic Freedom of Information Act requests. For example, OpenTheBooks.com filed a FOIA request for the agency payroll just as we have at nearly 13,000 public schools across America. Stunningly, the DoDEA refused to disclose the individual salaries of its staff, unlike public schools nationwide and almost every other federal agency. No names, job titles, or compensation details on the $1.4 billion payroll. It’s not just our organization having problems. In September 2022, The Claremont Institute published a groundbreaking report on left-wing extremism in DoDEA classrooms, called “Grooming Future Revolutionaries.” The report highlighted content from dozens of video presentations from staffers at a 2021 “Equity and Access Summit” discussing what they were doing to turn schoolchildren into social justice activists. Days later, all videos were taken down from the publicly available links and are no longer accessible. While the agency originally refused to release relevant documents via our FOIA request, we appealed, and the subsequent production confirmed that the videos were taken down in response to the report. Last spring, at the Congressional hearing, Gil Cisneros announced that the Pentagon was dissolving the DoDEA’s DEI department and reassigning its chief. However, key documents we captured via FOIA suggest that DEI-ethos is still at the core of agency mission. Here is what we were able to find out: The Pentagon “integrated” DEI specialists into “four key divisions” in the agency last March while also launching a DEI Steering Committee. The committee is comprised of top executives including the agency’s CEO Thomas Brady, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Academic Officer, and twelve others. We sought more information on the steering committee, but our DoD redacted, or, “hid”: 1. member names; 2. agendas, materials, minutes and discussions; and 3. impact the committee is having on the whole education environment at the Pentagon. The extent of these redactions is so ridiculous that almost every slide from the 14-page slide-deck presented at a committee meeting had been redacted except for the title page and a page defining DEI. The only non-executive staffer we can confirm attended these meetings is DEI Specialist Michelle Woodfork. See her redacted slide deck and calendar information here. Key Quote During the agency’s 2021 Equity and Access Summit, Woodfork made her devotion to the Pentagon’s DEI initiatives abundantly clear in her presentation: “When headquarters published their initiative for REDI [an earlier name for DEI at DoDEA] I got heart palpitations because it felt so affirming of the work I’ve been doing for so long.” Woodfork’s presentation centered on her then-role as a principal at a Pentagon school, where she led “equity audits” on school materials and practices. The background and ideological orientation of Woodfork only underscores the need for the public and DoDEA parents to know who exactly is on this committee, and how much power they have over system-wide education.‍ Background DoDEA made headlines in recent years for practices like hiding “gender transitions” from parents, forcing children into “difficult conversations” about race, class, gender, and sexuality, and the antics of a self-described “woke” Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion chief who allegedly hawked her own books to her colleagues. DoDEA’s focus on DEI, Thomas Brady said, is compelled by President Biden’s 2021 Executive Order 14035, which among other items charges all agencies with “assessing the current state of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility within their workforces.” But even before EO 14035, Brady strived to inculcate DEI ideology at the agency, announcing on Juneteenth 2020 that DEI must be “embedded in everything we do.” In December 2024 the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law by President Joe Biden. The law delineates “rights” for the parents of children attending DoDEA schools, authored by Representative Elise Stefanik (NY-21) which will go into effect in two years. The parental rights include, among other items: The right to review the curriculum of the school The right to review all instructional materials used by their students While these measures are certainly progress for military families, much can still be obfuscated. Teacher training, such as the Equity and Access Summit, should be included as well. And it is not clear if the full spectrum of tools included, such as the secret LGBT chatrooms, would be disclosed as “instructional materials.” Moreover, if extremist materials are disclosed, there does not seem to be a recourse for opting children out of these lessons. Conclusion Secretary Austin and then-Under Secretary Cisneros devoted themselves to hiding their DEI bait-and-switch. With the fanfare of a Congressional platform, Cisnero sought credit for shutting down DEI. But under our scrutiny, we found DoD instead made DEI a stealth weapon against the kids of our fighting men and women in service to an anti-American neo-Marxist ideology. We have further found that DoD under Secretary Austin is leveraging public record laws to the hilt to prevent parents and the public from knowing details of its efforts, while spending millions of taxpayer dollars on objectionable content for school children. DoDEA did not dismantle its DEI efforts. It redoubled those efforts and added deceit and dissembling to its mix. Given DoDEA’s recent history and press regarding extremist content in schools, heads must roll, and the agency must provide full transparency of teaching methods and its DEI-related policy operations. Parents, taxpayers, and the kids themselves deserve no less. Note: We reached out to DoDEA and all educator employees who were quoted or gave presentations as referenced in this article. If they are no longer employed by DoDEA, we couldn’t reach them. We will update our piece if we receive a response. Furthermore, no employee or vendor is accused of any breach or violation of statute, military policy, or agency policy. In fact, they just might be abiding by agency rules or Biden’s executive order, if anything. Will Griffin, DoDEA Director of Communications responded to our comment request: DoDEA remains committed to maintaining a school system where military-connected students can excel and prepare for success in college and careers and where all employees are treated with dignity and respect. We will continue to comply with all applicable Federal laws, Department of Defense policies, and applicable executive orders.

Iran capable of building nuclear bomb in one week, report finds as Middle East tensions flare - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., Certified Legal Document Preparer

An Iran watchdog group says the country has enough weapons-grade uranium to build a nuclear weapon in just one week. The Institute for Science and International Security published the findings in a report on Monday, saying Tehran could produce a total of six bombs in a month. "The volatile situation in the region is providing Iran with a unique opportunity and increased internal justification for building nuclear weapons while the United States and Israel’s resources to detect and deter Iran from succeeding are stretched thin," the report states. "Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities are more dangerous than they have ever been, while its relations with the West are at a low point." Iran can "break out and produce enough weapon-grade enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in a week, using only a fraction of its 60% enriched uranium," the report continued. "This breakout could be difficult for inspectors to detect promptly, if Iran took steps to delay inspectors’ access." An Iran watchdog group says the country has enough weapons-grade uranium to build a nuclear weapon in just one week. (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP) Iran has been steadily growing its ability to produce enriched uranium in recent years. The substance needs to be enriched to roughly 90% before being used in a nuclear weapon. Iran has an extensive supply of 60% enriched uranium that could quickly be siphoned off and enriched further. The report comes as tensions in the Middle East continue to skyrocket. Iran's proxy terrorist groups have launched missiles into Israel and attacked U.S. forces operating in Iraq, Syria and the Red Sea. The U.S. Navy has shot down numerous anti-ship ballistic missiles launched by incoming Iran-backed Houthi missiles in the Red Sea. President Biden's administration says it is working to prevent Israel's war against Hamas from spilling over into a regional conflict. Nevertheless, the U.S. has carried out a series of airstrikes against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen and other groups. The uptick in U.S. strikes came after three American service members were killed in a drone attack on a base in Jordan in late January.

Mass. Attys Shrug Off 'Brilliant' Top Court Pick's Ties To Gov.

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey's selection Wednesday of a former romantic partner to fill a vacancy on the state's highest court didn't raise eyebrows among prominent Bay State attorneys, who touted Appeals Court Justice Gabrielle R. Wolohojian's "impeccable" resume on the bench and in BigLaw. Justice Wolohojian, 63, if confirmed, will replace Justice David Lowy, who left the Supreme Judicial Court to serve as general counsel of the University of Massachusetts. Justice Wolohojian, a graduate of Columbia Law School, has served on the Appeals Court, an intermediate appellate court, since 2008. Prior to that, she was a partner at WilmerHale, where she first met Healey. While the two were involved in a long-term relationship and lived together in Boston's Charlestown neighborhood, Healey did not address their past connection in her announcement. She called Justice Wolohojian the best candidate for the position. "There is no one more qualified or better prepared to serve on the Supreme Judicial Court than Justice Wolohojian," Healey said in a statement announcing the nomination. "She will bring over three decades of broad trial and appellate experience, including sixteen years on the Appeals Court." Healey's relationship with Justice Wolohojian ended prior to her election as governor in 2022, according to published interviews of the governor and her new partner, Joanna Lydgate, who is also an attorney. The nomination was vetted by the Supreme Judicial Court Nominating Commission, and will now go to the Governor's Council. A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 21. One member of the Governor's Council called Healey's decision "courageous." "I frankly think that it's kind of courageous of the governor to nominate her," Governor's Council member Terrence Kennedy told Law360 on Wednesday. "She knows she's going to catch heat." "She's absolutely brilliant," Kennedy said of Justice Wolohojian. Kennedy said he had encouraged her to apply for a vacancy on the court during the administration of then-Gov. Charlie Baker. "She's really, really smart and really qualified," Kennedy said. "When you look at it objectively, she has impeccable credentials," said Martin Healy, chief legal counsel for the Massachusetts Bar Association. "It's a solid pick." "I don't think it's going to be an impediment," Healy said of the prior relationship. Justice Wolohojian has strong support within the legal community, said Healy, and brings "tons of experience" both as a practicing attorney and a jurist. "She'll hit the ground running," he said. Justice Wolohojian joined what was then known as Hale & Dorr in 1991, following clerkships for U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel and U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Judge Bailey Aldrich, according to a biography provided by the governor's office. She eventually became partner and chair of the firm's litigation department, focusing on complex commercial cases, including product liability and consumer class actions. Justice Wolohojian spent 16 months as an associate independent counsel on what came to be known as the Whitewater investigation into President Bill Clinton in 1994 before returning to the firm, which merged with Wilmer Cutler & Pickering in 2004. She was appointed to the Appeals Court by then-Gov. Deval Patrick in 2008. Besides a workload that has included authoring more than 900 decisions for the Appeals Court, Justice Wolohojian chairs the Supreme Judicial Court's Advisory Committees on the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Appeals Court's Committees on Judicial Mentoring and Training, Education, Policies and Practices, and En Banc Rehearings. Prior to Columbia Law School, where she received her law degree in 1989 and served as a Columbia Law Review editor, Justice Wolohojian earned a Ph.D. in English language and literature from the University of Oxford in 1987, and a Bachelor of Arts from Rutgers University in 1982. The selection earned praise from retired Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Geraldine S. Hines, who called Justice Wolohojian "uniquely qualified" for the role in the statement announcing the nomination. "This is a difficult job that demands intellectual vigor, respect for the rule of law, an unwavering commitment to equal justice under the law, and an impeccable work ethic," Justice Hines said. "From our time together on the Appeals Court and from my conversations with colleagues who have continued to serve on the court, I can say that Justice Wolohojian is richly blessed with these qualifications, as exemplified in her record of achievement as a lawyer and jurist." Outside her legal work, Justice Wolohojian is also a violinist who has performed with the Boston Civic Symphony for 35 years, and has served as president of the organization's board. She also serves as an overseer of a radio program called "From the Top," which features children performing classical music. The governor on Wednesday also nominated four new state district court justices, who if confirmed will sit in community courts in the greater Boston area. Among the nominees is longtime Supreme Judicial Court clerk Francis V. Kenneally, who has overseen the court's docket for the past decade. The other nominees include Lynnfield solo practitioner Leo Fama, Middlesex County Assistant District Attorney Courtney C. Linnehan, and Executive Office of Public Safety and Security attorney Marjorie P. Tynes, who is the agency's deputy executive director of the office of grants and research.

UC Beats Suit Over SF Law School Name Change

A San Francisco judge tossed all claims in a lawsuit challenging the name change of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law to the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. The lawsuit contended the name change was illegal because a nearly 150-year-old state act creating the law school had also stipulated the school would forever be known as Hastings, after the man who founded the college. "The act that created the law school is a statute, not a contract," said Judge Richard B. Ulmer Jr. in his Tuesday ruling. "The act 'authorized' S.C. Hastings to found the law college. The act does not include any covenanting language; the act is not couched in the terms of a contract." In dismissing the case, Judge Ulmer did not provide leave to amend the lawsuit. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they will appeal the ruling.   "Although we are disappointed by yesterday's ruling, we remain undeterred in our pursuit of justice for the family of Serranus Hastings, and we look forward to appealing the court's ruling," attorney Gregory Michael told Law360 in an email. A group of school alumni and Hastings descendants calling themselves the Hastings College Conservation Committee filed the lawsuit in October 2022 upon news that the San Francisco law school's name would change, dropping the Hastings name, in January 2023. They argued the new name would violate an agreement enshrined in state law that the college would always bear the Hastings name after Serranus Clinton Hastings gave the state $100,000 in gold in 1878 to establish the law school and served as its inaugural dean. Hastings was also a former state Supreme Court justice. The law school initiated the name change as a way to distance itself from Hastings after commissioning a report that uncovered evidence that he orchestrated the killings of hundreds of Native Americans of the Yuki tribe in the late 1850s to remove them from ranchland he had purchased in what is now Mendocino County in Northern California. Both houses of the California Legislature unanimously approved the law school's name change in August 2022 and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill, AB 1936, the following month. The suit also sought to keep the hereditary board seat given to the Hastings family by the 1878 act establishing the school. The bill authorizing the name change also eliminated the hereditary seat. However, Judge Ulmer dismissed that part of the lawsuit as well, saying the case "does not present the situation where the Legislature is attempting to dictate university policy." Attorney Eduardo Santacana of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, representing the law school's dean and board of directors, said the judge made the proper ruling. "We are pleased the court agreed with our fundamental argument, which rejects the notion that the California Legislature made a contract with Hastings when it agreed to name the law school for him and provide for a board seat in his honor," Santacana told Law360 in an email. "The Legislature did not and cannot contract away its fundamental powers to private parties, because to do so would be to take the administration of public matters out of the hands of the electorate and put them in the hands of individuals who can afford it." Among the famous graduates of the law school are former San Francisco Mayors Willie Brown and George Moscone and U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris. The plaintiffs are represented by Harmeet Dhillon and Karin M. Sweigart of Dhillon Law Group and Gregory R. Michael and Dorothy C. Yamamoto of Michael Yamamoto LLP. The law school's dean and board of directors are represented by Eduardo E. Santacana, Benedict Y. Hur and Joshua D. Anderson of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. The state of California is represented by Rob Bonita, Lisa Chao and Kara Siegel of the state attorney general's office. The case is Hasting College Conservation Committee v. State of California, case number 22-602149, in San Francisco Superior Court.  

Dish's Bid For More Fees Called 'Nightmare' By Fed. Circ. Judge

A Federal Circuit judge told counsel for Dish Network LLC on Wednesday that to secure more fees after the cable giant defeated a patent case in district court that was found to be "exceptional" to cover the costs of challenging the patent at the patent board would create "an effing nightmare." Dish had argued to the three-judge panel that it should be able to bill a shell patent company for expenses incurred challenging the patent through an inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after Dish defeated the related patent suit against it. The patent company, Dragon Intellectual Property LLC, was also appealing the $1.45 million in fees that Dish already won, along with the $1.86 million won by attorneys for Sirius XM Radio Inc. in a different case over the same patent. But the hearing was dominated by arguments over efforts by Dish's lawyers to score more money out of Dragon IP and potentially its lawyers — taking up over an hour of debate among the panel of judges. In that endeavor, Dish had cited the 1989 Sullivan v. Hudson ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which gives the courts discretion to award fees to lawyers in a Social Security administrative proceeding. According to the filings, Baker Botts LLP billed Dish for $673,905 in fees from patent board proceedings and wanted that money added to the $1.45 million. Sirius XM was hoping to clock $134,272 in additional fees. U.S. Circuit Judge Kara Farnandez Stoll told Baker Botts lawyer Lauren Dreyer that she had a "practical" question about this argument. "The district court is in the best position to determine whether or not something is exceptional or not because they're in the day-to-day running of the case. That's not so with an IPR," she said. "The district court knows nothing about what happened at the IPR." U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore was more wary of the possible effect of Dish's request in a legal climate where "every single patent litigation has a companion IPR now." This would open up an entirely new avenue for victorious patent lawyers to litigate further, Judge Moore said. "So, what you're now asking for is every time we're thinking about attorney's fees, anytime an IPR is successful, you're going to have the district court being put in what Judge Stoll was just articulating [is] the very awkward position of trying to evaluate the exceptionality of what was argued and decided, not in his or her forum but in an administrative forum," Judge Moore said. "That sounds like I'm creating an effing nightmare." In response, Dreyer tried to argue that these motions would not come all the time if Dish succeeded just this once. "I think [this case] is the exception; it's not the rule, and it only occurs in the rare cases in which there is frivolousness and an unreasonable manner of litigating," she said. That didn't go down well with Judge Moore. "With all due respect, every time you guys win, that's what you claim," Judge Moore told her, audibly annoyed at Dreyer's repetition of legalese. U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, on the panel by designation, acted to move the lawyers along in talking about "the circumstances in this case" and said there could be some general grounds for "sweeping the IPR" into a fee bid, as it "wasn't a waste of time [since] you didn't lose there." Judge Moore then told Dreyer that it appeared Judge Bencivengo was "arguing your case better than you are." The 12-member appeals court is down one of its regular members following the suspension of Judge Pauline Newman for refusing to undergo medical tests as part of a probe into her mental fitness. On Wednesday, a national panel that reviews judicial misconduct cases affirmed the suspension of the 96-year-old judge, saying that she hadn't shown good cause for not complying. Judge Bencivengo appeared occasionally mystified at the larger legal effort by Dish to go after Dragon in the first place. "Basically, you have a hollow victory here if you win because plaintiff Dragon is a shell. An empty shell. ... You can get zero. They're judgment proof," she told Dreyer. In addition to asking for more money, Dreyer said Dish was also hoping to get the appeals court to hold Dragon IP's lawyers liable for paying those fees. But Dreyer made little headway again. "All of what you discussed [with Judge Bencivengo] is not in this record. You attempted to supplement this record with a deposition that would have brought to light all of those points. They are not before this court, are they?" Judge Moore asked. Dreyer acknowledged they were not. "So we can't rely on any of that," the judge told her. Judge Moore also took issue with how defense-side patent lawyers use "exceptionality" findings in federal courts. "It feels like in a lot of these exceptional case findings, what really bothers me is that you all come in, and you complain that the district court should have done some sort of redo of all the things it didn't do in order to conclude that the originally asserted positions should have been deemed exceptional," she said. "You're asking us to adopt a rule in which district court judges are now going to have to evaluate conduct, behavior and an outcome in a proceeding they had no involvement with and determine whether fees should be awarded for that in their forum, which would have evaluated the exact same issues under an entirely different burden of proof." The exclamation seemed to surprise Dreyer, who responded that "there shouldn't be a bright-line rule" about it. "Oh, that's good," responded Judge Moore, who later warned that "floodgates will open" from victorious defense-side lawyers if Dish wins what it wants from the appeals court. "I'll be honest. I don't know how many exceptional case findings that have been appealed to me that have ever been overturned," she said. "I'm sure there's some law professor out there that will let us all know on Patently-O." Judge Bencivengo suggested that the court could create "factors" that judges could use to consider if the IPR fees could be included. After Dreyer said that sounded like a good idea, Judge Moore responded: "Out of curiosity, did you make any of those arguments?" "Yes, your honor, we did," Dreyer said. "Really? I would love to see them. On what page in your brief?" Judge Moore asked. Dreyer then acknowledged that actually she hadn't quite made that argument. "I think the answer is 'No, I didn't make those arguments,'" the judge told her. Dragon IP's lawyer also didn't appear to start off on the best footing with Judge Moore. In arguing against the fee awards, Dragon IP lawyer James McDonough III of Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC said, "I believe reasonable minds could interpret the statements and the prosecution history differently." But Judge Moore told him she was likely not to be swayed. "Let's just start from the premise that is most likely, which is 'I completely disagree with everything you just said,' could you just move on?" she asked. The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 5,930,444. U.S. Circuit Judges Kimberly A. Moore and Kara Stoll and U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo sat on the panel for the Federal Circuit. Dragon IP is represented by James McDonough III of Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC. Dish is represented by Lauren Dreyer, Jamie Lynn, G. Hopkins Guy III and Spencer Packard of Baker Botts LLP. The case is Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network LLC, case number 22-1621, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Georgia's Top Judge Asks Legislators To Keep Judges Safe Explains Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

Attacks on and threats to judges across the nation are a serious threat that must be addressed in order to ensure "the very independence of our judiciary," Georgia's chief justice told legislators during his second State of the Judiciary address in Atlanta on Wednesday. Chief Justice Michael P. Boggs of the Georgia Supreme Court urged the Georgia General Assembly to support legislation proposed by the Judicial Council of Georgia that would require state and local governments to keep the personal identifying information of judges confidential. Such protections are needed due to the increased threats and attacks faced by judges across the country over the last two years, Justices Boggs said, citing the June 2022 murder of retired Wisconsin state Judge John Roemer, the October murder of Maryland state Judge Andrew F. Wilkinson and the December arrest of a Nevada man who was charged with solicitation to murder two state court judges. Roemer, Justice Boggs said, was murdered in his home by a man he had sentenced to prison, while Wilkinson was murdered outside his home by a man involved in a child custody dispute. "No doubt, these attacks and threats are meant to intimidate and influence courts away from serving as fair and impartial arbiters of justice," Justice Boggs said. "Georgia's judges will not be threatened or intimidated into abandoning their constitutional duties, but incidents like these are repugnant to the rule of law and, if left unchecked, they threaten the very independence of our judiciary." Justice Boggs, who became Georgia's top judge in July 2022, said one way the legislature could help address the problem would be to support legislation proposed by the Judicial Council of Georgia's standing committee on judicial security. Under the proposed legislation, which the council discussed at its most recent meeting, states and local authorities would not be allowed to publicly post or display the personal information of those identified as "protected." In the event that a protected person's information was shared, the draft legislation says, authorities would have 30 days to remove the posts before injunctive relief could be sought. Justice Boggs also emphasized the importance of addressing "workforce development challenges" that make it more difficult for Georgia's courts to run quickly, smoothly and efficiently. Seven rural Georgia counties have no licensed attorneys, Justice Boggs said, and there are 41 assistant district attorney vacancies statewide. Eight of Georgia's 50 judicial circuits have assistant district attorney vacancy rates of 25 percent or higher. Similarly, Justice Boggs said the Georgia Supreme Court had undergone a staff attorney turnover rate of more than 57% since January 2019, and 10 law clerks and administrative assistants have left the Georgia Court of Appeals for "better pay or retirement" over the last 18 months. Even the Georgia Legal Services Program, which arose in the late 1960s to address the dearth of lawyers in rural areas, is facing challenges with more than a dozen openings in Albany, Valdosta, Columbus, Dalton, Macon and Savannah and in its Piedmont region, Justice Boggs said. That's a problem, he said, as it makes it more difficult for survivors of domestic violence, those in need of housing and others to receive the civil legal services they need. "The ugly truth is that many people in Georgia simply do not have access to a lawyer at the most critical time in their lives, either because of where they live or because they cannot afford one," Justice Boggs said. Analyzing the issue, the justice said that while 732 new lawyers passed the July Georgia bar exam, many of them likely plan to practice in and around Atlanta, where private-sector jobs tend to pay higher salaries. Pay for attorneys willing to work in the public sector, he said, is not as competitive today as it was in the 1980s and 1990s. "We must reckon with the fact that this trend depletes our pool of seasoned legal professionals and necessitates time-consuming recruitment and training efforts for their replacements," Justice Boggs said. Age is another factor affecting talent retention, the justice said. The average age of court reporters in the state, whom he identified as vital "spokes on the wheels of justice," was 54 before the pandemic began, with 70% of those court reporters being over the age of 50. Many of these people are now approaching retirement or have retired already, he said, and fewer new court reporters are becoming licensed. This, he said, means "there won't be new ranks to replace the outgoing ones." "Just as it is critical to have enough doctors, nurses and teachers to adequately deliver health care and education services to our citizens, so too must Georgia have enough law enforcement and public safety officers, lawyers and court staff professionals to effectively and efficiently keep the wheels of justice turning," Justice Boggs said. "Without enough court reporters to meet the demand, trials and other proceedings will slow once again." Even so, Justice Boggs, said the state of Georgia's judiciary remains "strong." The number of pending serious violent felony cases in Georgia has decreased by 11% in recent years thanks to American Rescue Plan Act funding allocated by the governor's office to the judicial branch, Justice Boggs said. That is "significant progress," he said, given the challenges affecting judges' efforts to move backlogged dockets that are "still feeling the aftershocks" of the COVID-19 pandemic. "I want to assure you that despite challenges, we remain steadfast in applying and interpreting — not making — the laws and constitution of our state," Justice Boggs said. "And, as always, I want to again express our appreciation for the trust and support that you all in our legislative branch have shown us as we seek your partnership in addressing a wide array of issues affecting our courts." In his first State of the Judiciary address last year, Justice Boggs also lamented workforce challenges that impeded the effort to address case backlogs after the worst of the pandemic.

Giuilani Says Unpaid Bills Mounted As Legal Career Sputtered

Rudy Giuliani laid out his downward financial spiral in acute personal detail over three hours on Wednesday, answering questions from a government bankruptcy watchdog about his approximately $10.6 million of assets, offset by unpaid bills for everything from golf club memberships to condo fees and credit cards. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks to reporters as he leaves the federal courthouse in Washington on Dec. 11. On Wednesday, Giuliani answered the U.S. Trustee's questions about some $10.6 million in assets he claimed in a Chapter 11 case he filed after a jury found he owed $148 million to two former election workers. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) The former mayor of New York City, who struggled at times to recall details including the timeline of his legal career, shed light on a multitude of catch-up payments he is making — for taxes, dry cleaning and his ex-wife's 90-year old mother's care, for instance — and the spate of lawsuits he is facing, including the $148 million judgment that drove him to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December. The Republican firebrand and ally of former President Donald Trump claimed to have no life insurance and no insurance for his Manhattan co-op apartment, which he said is now listed at $5.9 million, in answering questions from Andrea Schwartz for the Office of the U.S. Trustee. Schwartz was running a so-called "Section 341 meeting of creditors" in Giuliani's case, a routine step in the early stages of bankruptcies where the debtor must personally face the U.S. Trustee and creditors to lay bare any assets that could be pursued for the benefit of the estate. "She asked all the right questions and I gave her all the information that I have. I have nothing to hide," Giuliani said as he exited the courthouse Wednesday. Schwartz combed through the details of Giuliani's financial filings for information about how his once lucrative law practice began to fail after he started representing Trump pro bono. Flanked by his bankruptcy counsel, wearing a dark suit and sitting at a table across from Schwartz, Giuliani explained his move from Bracewell & Giuliani LLP to Greenberg Traurig LLP, which he had to leave in 2018 because clients complained about his representation of Trump — with whom he eventually worked "kind of ... 24 hours a day." After the 2020 election, Trump tapped Giuliani to lead a team of lawyers pursuing claims of election fraud. He was supposed to get a salary but didn't, and is now owed an estimated $2 million, which his estate could pursue in bankruptcy. But he took "a major financial hit" when he lost his law license in New York and the District of Columbia in 2021 after speaking at a rally before the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, he said. Since then, he has built up Giuliani Communications, a subsidiary of Giuliani Partners. He earns about $15,000 a month on average from his WABC radio show, which airs every weekday, and a livestream called "America's Mayor Live." The company also employs a handful of other people who are guests, cohosts, producers and security. Giuliani's assets include a $1.2 million retirement account; $30,000 worth of watches, a diamond ring and three Yankees world series rings; a roughly $6 million Manhattan co-op apartment; a $3.5 million Palm Beach condo; and a 1980 Mercedes Benz previously owned, he said, by actress Lauren Bacall. He pays $800 a month for a storage unit in the Bronx holding awards, books, artwork, furniture and files. "I don't think there's anything very valuable," Giuliani said. He has not had his 1951 Joe DiMaggio Yankees' jersey valued. And he spends more than $500 a month on dry cleaning because he wears a different suit every day, he said. Giuliani owns Uber shares, though he could not remember how many or where they are and had forgotten about them until his wife found them during their divorce. He said he received them for early work he did for the ride-sharing company. At other times, Giuliani and Schwartz traded brief banter about church and their personal lives. Counsel for a few creditors was present in the room, but none asked questions. Giuliani "earned everything he has in life through honest hard work," said spokesman Ted Goodman in a statement Wednesday. "The American people are waking up to the abhorrent weaponization of our justice system for partisan political gain, and the fact that we are here today is just another example of this great injustice." Ronald Kuby, who represents creditor Daniel Gill — the Staten Island ShopRite worker who sued Giuliani after he accused him of assault when he slapped him on the back — had a different take. Kuby did not ask any questions during the meeting Wednesday but said afterward that Giuliani was "pathetic" and "doddering" and "utterly unaware of his own finances." Giuliani is represented by Heath S. Berger and Gary C. Fischoff of Berger Fischoff Shumer Wexler & Goodman LLP. The case is In re: Rudolph W. Giuliani, case number 1:23-bk-12055, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Third-Party Litigation Funding Rule Gets Cold Shoulder In NJ

A New Jersey Supreme Court committee has shot down a proposal to mandate disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements in civil cases, saying drafting such a rule could be difficult. In its 2024 report recommending rule amendments to the Supreme Court, made available on Tuesday, the civil practice committee indicated a disclosure rule may be appropriate down the road but not at the moment, citing "the need for further development through experience in this area." The rule would apply to cases where lawyers or firms receive funding to work on specific cases in exchange for a contingent interest in the litigation or in cases where a plaintiff uses a loan to pay legal bills while litigation is pending without telling the attorney, the committee said. Those loans can interfere with settlements because it could lead a party to reject an otherwise reasonable settlement offer because it would not pay off the loan. However, the committee and its discovery subcommittee ultimately determined that "there is not sufficient experience to meaningfully develop and recommend a rule change at this time." The committee report noted several potential challenges to drafting a rule to address the question of third-party litigation funding. "Often, attorneys are unaware of their clients' acceptance of TPLF and requiring disclosure by attorneys of the same would prove problematic," the committee said. "While there may be ethical implications where an attorney fails to disclose the existing of TPLF where required, where a client possesses the knowledge, the rule could not be enforced fairly against an attorney."  The committee considered the rule change at the suggestion of the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute, which proposed the change in a letter to the court in April. Anthony Anastasio, president of the NJCJI, told Law360 Pulse on Wednesday that the group is "disappointed" by the decision. "Third-party litigation funding has increased exponentially over the past decade and now constitutes a multibillion-dollar industry," Anastasio wrote in an email Wednesday. "As a result, certain types of civil litigation, such as auto accident cases, mass torts and consumer class actions, are becoming increasingly 'financialized,' with outside money having an outsized influence on case selection and disposition." With no regulation of the issue at the state level, there is a lack of transparency behind these cases, according to Anastasio. Judges and parties may lack the information to identify conflicts of interest and improper influence by funders on litigation strategies or settlement decisions, he added. The NJCJI's letter to the court recommending the change highlighted the case of Sysco Corp. v. Glaz LLC in Illinois federal court. The food distributor Sysco had sued third-party litigation investor Burford Capital, claiming it prevented Sysco from settling with defendants in a price-fixing suit because Burford wanted to continue the litigation against Sysco's wishes. Ultimately, Sysco and Burford agreed to voluntarily dismiss their suits against each other. The NJCJI's letter proposing the change to the court noted that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey mandates disclosure of TPLF and that other states, such as Wyoming and West Virginia, have also enacted their own requirements. "NJCJI's proposal merely sought disclosure of these arrangements in litigation, so that the real parties in interest — namely, the courts, named plaintiffs and defendants — can all ensure that litigants remain in the driver's seat of their own cases and that the desire of third-party funders to maximize profits does not interfere with the administration of justice," Anastasio said.