Over 900 lawyers sign letter opposing Emil Bove's nomination

 The full story is here.

DOJ's Ex-Ethics Lawyer Speaks Out After Being Fired by Pam Bondi

 DOJ's Ex-Ethics Lawyer Speaks Out After Being Fired by Pam Bondi.  Read the story here.

h/t Renee Knake Jefferson's Legal Ethics Roundup.

More on Pam Bondi

Two new items on Pam Bondi:

First, a new article by Nick Akerman, a former assistant special Watergate prosecutor and a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York:  "Judge Boasberg should appoint a special counsel to investigate Bondi and her DOJ"

Second, here is a copy of an ethics complaint filed in Florida against Bondi.  It is signed by about 70 lawyers, law professors and former judges.  The Florida bar refused to act on it saying the disciplinary agency "does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office."  The Miami Herald has a story on this here.

Attorney General Pam Bondi fires top Justice Department ethics official

Given her track record, it should not surprise anyone that Attorney General Pam Bondi just fired one of the top career officials tasked with advising her and other senior Justice Department officials of their ethical obligations.  Go here for more on the story.

Tips on the rule that prohibits communication with a represented person

 Michael Kennedy, bar counsel for Vermont, has published some helpful tips on the rule that prohibits communication with a represented person here.

Short Guide To Trust Accounting And Three-Way Reconciliation

 Above the Law has a very short reminder of the basis related to trust accounting here.  Go read it for a quick refresher course.

Yet another case of sanctions for relying on AI to write briefs (resulting in cites to cases that do not exist)

Two attorneys who were representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a defamation case in Denver have been fined $3,000 each as sanctions for submitting an inaccurate, AI-generated brief to the court in April.  Go here for the story.  

Above the Law has more on the story here, arguing the sanction was too low.

NPR has a comment here arguing that the case serves as a stark warning.

ABA Committee releases new Formal Opinion on discrimination in the jury selection process

 The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued  a new Formal Opinion: ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 517 - Discrimination in the Jury Selection Process.  

If you recall, paragraph [5] of the comment to Rule 8.4 states that "[a] trial judge’s finding that peremptory challenges were exercised on a discriminatory basis does not alone establish a violation of paragraph (g)."  For this reason, the opinion attempts to address the following questions: 

Rule 8.4(g) presents two principal questions regarding discriminatory challenges. First, in light of Comment [5], when does a lawyer’s unlawful exercise of peremptory challenges on a discriminatory basis violate Rule 8.4(g)? Second, given the statement that lawyers may engage in legitimate advocacy consistent with the Model Rules, does a lawyer violate Rule 8.4(g) by exercising peremptory challenges on discriminatory bases where not forbidden by other law? 

The opinion then proceeds to address the questions and concludes that Rule 8.4(g) does NOT prohibit a lawyer’s discriminatory but lawful exercises of peremptory challenges, but also that 

A lawyer who knows or reasonably should know that the lawyer’s exercise of peremptory challenges constitutes unlawful discrimination in the jury selection process violates Model Rule 8.4(g). It is not “legitimate advocacy” within the meaning of Model Rule 8.4(g) for a lawyer to carry out a trial strategy that would result in unlawful juror discrimination. A lawyer may not follow a client’s directive or accept a jury consultant’s advice or AI software’s guidance to exercise peremptory challenges if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the conduct will constitute unlawful juror discrimination. 

You can read the full opinion here. 

How not to practice law, Trump lawyers edition - UPDATED

 It has been a long time since I posted an entry into the long running series of "how not to practice law" featuring stories illustrating dumb things lawyers do that they should know better not to do...  So here we are today with a Trump edition, courtesy of the team of lawyers representing [sic] Trump in a case in Iowa against a pollster.  

In a nutshell, aside from the fact that the case is almost certainly frivolous, the story of the litigation reads like a script for a law related blooper reel.  You can read the details of the story in Above the Law here.

UPDATE, July 6: TechDirt has an update on the lastest details on this developing story here.

How not to practice law: AI edition

After a long absence from the blog today we have the second day in a row with a "how not to practice law' entry!  Today's story features a lawyer using AI hallucinated cases in support of a claim who, when called out on it, then cited more hallucinated cases.  That is bad enough, but the article also focuses on the fact that the trial judge issued an order based on the hallucinated cases... You can read the full story here,