Thank you for being here. Welcome to what captivates, haunts, inspires, and surprises me every week in the world of legal ethics.
Each week the Legal Ethics Roundup is viewed by more than 1,500 readers across the United States and in 45 different countries. Subscribers include judges, lawyers, professors, state bar administrators, students, government officials, and people who care about the future of our democracy.
If you haven’t subscribed, take a moment now to sign up at the link below. It’s free! And you’ll never miss the latest edition. I hope you’ll also consider becoming a paid subscriber, which helps to support this newsletter and demonstrates that you value its content. Paid subscribers also receive special access to past posts which become paywalled after six months. (If you need a comp paid subscription to read an older post, let me know at legalethics@substack.com.)
Do you have colleagues who care about legal ethics? Please share the Roundup with them. I’d love to see our community continue to grow!
On the first Monday of each month, you get a longer version of the Roundup with recent headlines plus reading recommendations, job postings, events, and other features. It was another week filled with legal ethics news, so let’s dive right into the headlines.
We saw an overwhelming amount of news related to the ethics of lawyers and judges last week. Your “top ten” list below really is eighteen headlines — I’ve crammed extras into #3, #4, #6, #8, #9, and #10.
#1 Prosecutor Ethics Failures Lead to New Trial for Man on Death Row. From the Washington Post: “A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday took the extraordinary step of ordering a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, whose long-running appeal attracted broad support after independent investigations revealed prosecutorial misconduct. Oklahoma’s top law enforcement official, a Republican, agreed with Glossip’s defense team that he did not receive a fair trial for a 1997 killing and should get another chance to go before a jury. Both sides say prosecutors suppressed important evidence and failed to correct false testimony from the key witness against Glossip.” Read more here (gift link).
#2 “KPMG to Launch U.S. Law Firm Following Court Approval.” From the Wall Street Journal: “KPMG has begun to set up a law firm in the U.S. after a court decision made it the first Big Four accounting firm eligible to practice law in the country. The Arizona Supreme Court on Thursday granted the accounting giant final approval to obtain a license to create its own firm, KPMG Law. The move allows KPMG to greatly expand its legal offerings, for example, into services such as drafting and updating contracts and reconciling legal materials in merger-and-acquisition deals. At present, KPMG and other accounting firms offer limited legal services, such as advising clients on operations and technology for their legal teams. KPMG has previously said its Arizona-licensed lawyers would be able to do certain legal work for clients across the country once it received the court’s approval. Thursday’s clearance is expected to give the firm a leg up on its Big Four rivals through an expanded revenue stream as well as create new competition for law firms.” Read more here (gift link).
#3 “Senator Kennedy Advises DOJ Nominees to Follow Federal Court Orders” Meanwhile “Trump Team Tightens Control Over Government Lawyers Who Might Say ‘No’.” Two headlines for #3. First, from C-SPAN: “During a confirmation hearing for several Justice Department nominees, including Solicitor General nominee John Sauer, Louisiana Republican John Kennedy advises them not to disregard federal court orders.”
“Don’t ever, ever take the position that you’re not going to follow the order of a federal court, ever. You can disagree with it, within the bounds of legal ethics. You can criticize it, you can appeal it, or you can resign,” Kennedy says.
Read more and watch Kennedy’s admonition to nominees here. Second, from the New York Times: “After President Trump lost the 2020 election, his allies thought about what to do differently if he returned to power. One lesson from his first term, they decided, was that government lawyers, even very conservative Republican political appointees, had frequently raised legal objections to ideas he or his White House advisers put forward. If they got another shot, they said in campaign-era interviews, they would install much more permissive gatekeepers. Now, a month into a term that has been defined by Mr. Trump’s radical challenges to the basic structure of government, his administration is moving aggressively to curb a critical internal check: independent legal thinking.” Read more here (gift link).
#4 Fears of Retribution for Prosecutors and Other Lawyers. Two headlines for #4. First, from the Washington Post: “Several top prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., were demoted on Friday to low-level positions handling minor crimes, another step in a campaign of retribution against Justice Department officials perceived as enemies by the Trump administration. Those demoted include one prosecutor who had overseen all cases arising from the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and at least two who had worked on the trials of members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, according to people with knowledge of the moves, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The abrupt personnel changes, announced in a series of emails sent by Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, were the latest upheavals in one of the country’s most important federal prosecutors’ offices.” Read more here (gift link). Second, from Bloomberg Law: “President Donald Trump’s decision to punish Covington & Burling for representing former Special Counsel Jack Smith will feed some firms’ worries about letting lawyers volunteer to represent former Justice Department attorneys. Private attorneys seeking to represent DOJ workers being forced out or investigated had already faced pushback from their firms’ executive committees over concerns such work will hurt their brands and cut into billings, according to interviews with 12 attorneys. Some firm leaders, citing corporate clients threatening to walk if they get crosswise with Trump, have rejected outright or put up roadblocks to partners seeking approval to represent DOJ lawyers, FBI agents, and other civil servants who’ve faced various forms of attack, three lawyers familiar with the decisions told Bloomberg Law. That was before Trump’s executive order Tuesday pulling the security clearances of Covington lawyers and vowing to cancel any government business with the firm.” Read more here.
#5 Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove Faces Ethics Complaints. From MSNBC: “[A]t least three complaints about [Bove] have been submitted to the relevant New York state body responsible for attorney discipline. In a Feb. 19 letter, the nonprofit organization American Oversight requested an immediate investigation into whether Bove violated New York attorney conduct rules when handling the Adams case, including alleged attempts of his ‘to induce other lawyers to engage in unethical behavior.’ Two days later, the Campaign for Accountability submitted a similar complaint not only to New York state, but also to the chief judge of the Southern District (SDNY), alleging that Bove’s conduct in connection with the Adams case may have violated at least six different ethical rules. A third complaint, by a Democratic member of the New York State Senate, was submitted to the state disciplinary committee that day as well.” Read more here.
#6 Recusals and Courtroom Policies – One Judge Recuses Over Policy Encouraging Underrepresented Lawyers; Another Judge Declines to Recuse Over Pronoun Policy. Three headlines for #6. First, from Bloomberg Law: “A Manhattan federal judge recused himself from a case involving PayPal Inc.’s investment program for Black and Latino-led emerging venture-capital funds, after lawyers accused him of including racial preferences in his courtroom policies. US District Judge Dale Ho’s courtroom policies encourage ‘the participation of less experienced attorneys,’ including ‘attorneys from backgrounds that historically have been underrepresented in the federal bar’ where the lawyers played a substantial role in preparation for the case. Final decisions around who speaks for the client is up to the lead attorney on the case, not the court, the policies say.” Read more here. Second, from Reuters: “A U.S. judge on Monday rejected arguments that he should recuse himself from hearing a lawsuit challenging a collegiate athletic association’s policy on the participation of transgender athletes because of a courtroom protocol he adopted recommending lawyers refer to people by their preferred pronouns. U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews in Denver wrote that lawyers for a group of women’s collegiate volleyball players challenging the Mountain West Conference’s policy were confusing ‘respect and courtesy’ for bias by the judge in their case.” Read more here. Third, for additional commentary about both recusal decisions, check out Howard Wasserman’s (FIU Law) post — “Courtroom Policies and Constitutional Substance” — at PrawfsBlawg here.
#7 Texas Legislature and Supreme Court Diverge on Authority to Regulate Law Practice. From Bloomberg Law: “Weeks before the Texas Supreme Court paused a plan—championed by then Chief Justice Nathan Hecht—to let paralegals practice law in limited circumstances, four high ranking members of the state Legislature warned the court against the idea. … Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock succeeded Hecht as the court’s top judge in January. He doesn’t share lawmaker concerns about the proposal and instead said it should be more expansive. Paralegals should provide basic legal services ‘not just to the poor, but to all Texans,’ he said, breaking with Hecht, whose proposal restricts it to Texans living at or below 200% of federal poverty guidelines.” Read more here.
#8 Federal Judiciary Needs More Judges, Enhanced Security, and Workplace Reforms for Bullying and Abuse. Three headlines for #8. First, from USCourts.gov: “With federal courts across the country contending with mounting caseloads, Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, urged Congress today to create new district and court of appeals judgeships to meet growing workload demands. A hearing on “Justice Delayed: The Crisis of Undermanned Federal Courts” was held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.” Read more here. Second, Gabe Roth (Fix the Court) argues that the federal hearing should have covered more than just increased judicial seats, but also security and other issues. Read more here. Third, from NPR: “In the federal court system, law clerks find little recourse for bullying and abuse.” Read more and listen here.
#9 Lawyers Fined Thousands for Citing Fake Opinions. Two headlines for #9. First, from Reuters: “Three lawyers suing Walmart in a personal injury lawsuit must pay fines totaling $5,000 for citing fake cases generated by artificial intelligence in a court filing, a federal judge ruled. The lawyers, including two from national law firm Morgan & Morgan and one from a smaller firm, had an ethical obligation to ensure that the cases they cited were real, U.S. District Judge Kelly Rankin in Wyoming said in his sanctions order on Monday.” Read more here. Second, from Law360: “A Texas lawyer could face a $15,000 personal sanction and other potential discipline for filing three separate briefs using generative artificial intelligence that included fake citations in an Indiana ERISA case.” Read more here.
#10 A Tale of Two Bar Exams — California Bar “Hunts” for Applicants Who Cheated on Flawed Exam; South Dakota Opens Practice-Based Alternative For Bar Exam. Two headlines for #10. First, from the ABA Journal: “The State Bar of California will engage forensic experts to identify those who posted content from its new exam online, a move that forced it to push back the planned makeup exam of the troubled test riddled with a host of issues with proctors, connectivity and submission problems, according to a Feb. 27 email. … Those involved in sharing the exam questions are ‘subject to strict sanctions, including revocation of a previously granted positive moral character determination or denial of a pending moral character application,’ according to the state bar email. ‘In short, individuals who are found to have engaged in this type of prohibited and unethical behavior will find it difficult if not impossible to secure licensure with the State Bar of California.’” Read more here. Second, from the Watertown Public Opinion: “As many as 50 South Dakota law students will be able to bypass the bar exam over the next five years under a set of rules for alternative licensure recently approved by the state Supreme Court. The public pathways pilot program is an outgrowth of a yearslong debate on the value of the bar exam as a measure of fitness for legal service in the state. Those who pass an ethics test and successfully complete two years in a public service legal position, such as in a state’s attorney’s or public defender’s office, would be in line for admittance to the state bar without a passing score on the exam.” Read more here. (And check out the Recommended Reading below for more bar exam reform proposals.)
Last week I promised more ideas for staying engaged in preserving our democracy beyond keeping up with the ethics headlines here at the LER. The best list of actions I’ve seen comes from the organization Protect Democracy, which includes among its advisors law professors Aziz Huq (Chicago), Richard Primus (Michigan), and Kim Wehle (Baltimore). The group has complied nearly 30 nonpartisan suggestions for individuals to roll up their sleeves and get engaged in preserving our democracy: “Democracy versus autocracy is more than just an abstract conflict between competing principles. When our nation shifts toward authoritarianism, it affects all of us. Quite literally, our lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are at stake. But it’s also an opportunity: Our democracy has never quite been what it ought to be. So, shouldn’t we try to make it the best we can? … [Here] are 29 concrete actions you can start taking right away. These actions can offer not only knowledge, relief, and power, but also joy, fun, and community. And of course, you don’t have to do all of them to make an impact. Challenge yourself (and others!) to complete as many as you can in the coming year. Some take less than 30 seconds, some may take months, and some will never truly be complete. Protecting democracy is a generational struggle.” Read more here.
The first recommendation on this list picks up where the list of headlines left off, with bar exam reforms. The next two recommendations offer more ideas about democratic engagement, including a law review article by Rebecca Green (William and Mary) with suggestions for supporting local election officials and an op-ed by my former law professor colleague Mark Totten who most recently served as the US Attorney for the Western District of Michigan. The final recommendation is a Q&A with Marin Levy (Duke) about the role of courts and the importance of an independent judiciary, drawing from her recent book Written and Unwritten: The Rules, Internal Procedures, and Customs of the United States Court of Appeals.
Recommendation #1: “The Keystone State Should Forge a New Path to Lawyer Licensure” by Ashley London (Duquesne), Nachman N. Gutowski (UNLV), Steven Foster (Oklahoma City), and Sarah Garrison (Detroit Mercy). From the abstract:
Pennsylvania should reject the adoption of the NextGen bar examination and instead develop a new, state-specific pathway to lawyer licensure that better serves the needs of the legal profession and the public. The NextGen exam, designed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), introduces significant challenges, including its lack of transparency, inadequate preparation materials, and reliance on a rigid, memorization-heavy format. These deficiencies hinder equitable access to licensure, disproportionately affecting underrepresented groups and perpetuating systemic barriers within the profession. … Rejecting the NextGen model and creating a Pennsylvania-specific pathway would align with the state’s history of leadership and innovation in legal standards. By prioritizing competency, transparency, and equity, Pennsylvania can establish a licensure system that meets the needs of future lawyers and the public they serve.
Download from SSRN here.
Recommendation #2: “Legal Support for Local Election Officials” by Rebecca Green (William and Mary). From the abstract:
Lawyers provide a critical avenue of support for local election officials. They provide guidance on how to implement legislative mandates and judicial orders; they anticipate and prevent disputes from arising; and they represent election officials when they or their offices are sued-a more common occurrence today than ever. Although lawyers are crucial to ensuring election officials (and thus elections) can function, legal support for election officials is seldom discussed. Do election officials have adequate access to competent legal counsel? Are lawyers guiding and representing local election officials knowledgeable about how elections work and the laws that govern them? How does the increasingly tricky political terrain complicate LEO access to legal support? This Essay aims to start this conversation and spur study of how lawyers support local election officials in their work.
Download from SSRN here.
Recommendation #3: “States Must Hold Federal Government Accountable” by Mark Totten. Here’s an excerpt from his op-ed:
The past few weeks have marked a staggering assault on the rule of law in America. Nowhere is this menace clearer than at the U.S. Department of Justice. The rolling purge of DOJ employees deemed disloyal to President Donald Trump should send chills up the spine of every American. … I began my career at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and spent the last three years serving as the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan — the chief federal law enforcement officer for the district, covering 49 of Michigan’s 83 counties. At every turn, I was privileged to work with career civil servants passionately committed to the impartial administration of justice. Without exception, my colleagues demonstrated fierce and singular loyalty — not to me, and not to the occupant of the Oval Office, but to the law. Democracy demands nothing less. … These threats at DOJ and beyond demand a response. Individual and class-action lawsuits are gaining traction. Moreover, the states can act to constrain the federal government and hold its leaders accountable. … The law is slow, outcomes are uncertain, and the courts alone are not enough, but the judiciary can play an important role moving forward. … The rest is up to us, using lawful means of dissent and supporting those organizations that are pushing back. No citizen — Republican, Democrat, or independent — who believes in justice can look away.
Read the full op-ed here.
Recommendation #4: “Professor Marin K. Levy Discusses Checks, Balances, and the Independent Judiciary.” Here’s an excerpt from the Q&A:
Data shows attacks and intimidation of judges have been on the rise in recent years. Have there been other moments in history like this?
We have certainly had moments in the past in which there were efforts to intimidate judges and justices. For example, in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, there was a campaign to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren. But I think what we are seeing today is different by an order of magnitude. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted in the 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, hostile threats and communications directed at judges have more than tripled over the past decade. In the past five years, the U.S. Marshals Service has investigated more than 1,000 serious threats against federal judges—a figure that I fear will only grow. More recently, we have seen calls to impeach several members of the judiciary, accompanied by efforts to publicize their home addresses over disagreements with judicial decisions. These sorts of intimidation tactics invite wide-scale harassment of the sort that we simply have not seen before—and they threaten the ability of judges to act independently.
Read the full interview here.
Did you stay up too late watching the Academy Awards last night? I did! Zoe Saldaña won Best Actress in a Supporting Role for portraying a lawyer who confronts a range of ethical dilemmas in the film Emilia Pérez. To honor the awards season, the ABA Journal compiled a list of law-related films winning Oscars over the years. Check it out here.
Did you miss the 100+ job postings from previous weeks? Find them all here.
-
Assistant General Counsel, World Kinect — Miami. From the posting: “This position is for Assistant General Counsel, Legal & Compliance, overseeing the company’s World Ethics Compliance Program.” Learn more and apply here.
-
Conflicts Analyst (Ethics Walls), Crowell & Moring — DC/Remote. This role “supports the firm’s risk management need and new business function by drafting and maintaining ethical walls in compliance with the firm’s policies.” Learn more and apply here.
-
Conflicts Attorney, Dorsey & Whitney — Minneapolis. From the posting: “We are seeking a Conflicts Attorney to join our growing team that researches, reviews, and resolves conflict of interest issues related to Firm new business and lateral attorney hires. You will collaborate with Conflicts team members, the Firm’s Ethics Counsel, Claims Counsel, Lawyer Recruiting and attorneys firm-wide to efficiently and effectively assist with matter openings, potential new hires and ongoing maintenance.” Learn more and apply here.
-
Lead Counsel 2 – Legal Conflicts Manager, Citi — Tampa/Hybrid. From the posting: “The Lead Counsel 2 is a senior level position responsible for providing Citi businesses and functions with legal counsel and thought leadership on all matters related to Legal Conflicts. This role requires a pragmatic, proactive attorney with thorough understanding of legal conflicts.” Learn more and apply here.
-
Legal Counsel, Compliance & Data Privacy, Marriott — India. From the posting: “The attorney in this position will be part of the Marriott Law Department providing legal services to the properties and offices part of the Asia Pacific Excluding China. This attorney will help support our culture of integrity by providing legal support for the company’s Ethics and Global Compliance program.” Learn more and apply here.
-
Senior Conflicts Attorney, Holland & Knight — Various Locations/Remote From the posting: “We are seeking multiple Senior Conflicts Attorneys to assist our attorneys with clearing conflicts related to new business intake, while protecting the firm and its clients from adversity and risk.” Learn more and apply here.
-
Senior Ethics Counsel, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) — Washington DC. From the posting: “CREW seeks an experienced Senior Ethics Counsel to join our legal team and help us secure our democracy and build a better Washington. This position is a unique opportunity to be on the front lines of the fight for a more ethical, equitable and accountable government, while working alongside smart, creative and kind people.” Learn more here.
Did you miss an announcement from previous weeks? Find them all here.
2025
-
March 27, 10:15-11:15AM Central. Ted Lasso and Attorney Ethics: Lessons in Life, Law, and Leadership. Learn more and register for the webcast here.
-
May 28-30. 50th ABA National Conference on Professional Responsibility in Washington DC. I’ll be there! Join me along with Myles Lynk, Doug Ende, and Matt Kaiser on Friday, May 30, for our panel “How to Proceed?: Addressing the Public’s Interest and the Profession’s Concerns When Disciplinary Complaints Are Based on Public Information, Not Personal Knowledge.” Learn more and register here.
-
August 7-9. Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers Annual Meeting in Toronto. Learn more here.
2026