All in Lawyers Behaving Badly

“@MindYour8Point4CsandQs” is Available, But Should I Use It?

 Last week, CNN reported that Wisconsin native and fake elector lawyer Ken Chesebro not only had an anonymous Twitter/X account, “@BadgerPundit,” but denied its existence to Michigan investigators. The account was actually created back when then-Governor Scott Walker dropped the Act 10 bomb, incidentally right around the same time I created my own, very much not anonymous Twitter account (it’s @EthickingStacie now, naturally, but was something else then). We may have interacted at some point, but we were never mutuals.

This Blog Is Not About Politics so I am not weighing in on the electoral or PR ramifications of this burner account. But I have been asked—Ken Chesebro is a lawyer*, and lawyers aren’t allowed to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, right? Can lawyers even have anonymous social media accounts?

And, Cohen Both Takes The Fall And Passes The Buck

A quick update on New York’s Second AI Hallucination case, which I originally covered a couple of weeks ago—today we learned that Michael Cohen, the client, and not David Schwartz, the lawyer, used artificial intelligence (this time, Google Bard) to generate cases that did not exist. In a declaration he submitted to the court (available starting on page 9 of this packet from the CourtListener docket), Cohen stated that (having been disbarred several years ago) he had not kept up with legal technology trends and did not understand the limitations of AI.

Well, This Is One Way To Blow Up An NDA

What Rule 4.2 does not allow, and has never allowed, is a lawyer to actually go up to a represented opposing party, at her job, and play a confidence game to get the party’s cell phone number to drive a wedge between the party and her lawyer, and then pretend to be a “neutral” third party to broker a settlement and nondisclosure agreement, requiring forfeiture of the settlement plus $1,000 per day for breaching the agreement, which also contained illegal terms.

But, that’s what longtime Trump lawyer Alina Habba apparently did in 2021, according to Above The Law, when she allegedly induced a Bedminster Golf Club server to sign a non-disclosure agreement and settle a sexual harassment claim against the Club’s food and beverage manager. This came to light yesterday, as the server sued to void the agreement and refer Habba to the New Jersey ethics regulators.

Common Scents In Celebrity Litigation

It’s not surprising that we’ve gossiped that Johnny Depp’s lawyer, Camille Vasquez may (emphasis in original) have directed, permitted, or otherwise appreciated a female member of the legal team going into the women’s bathroom at the courthouse and spraying Depp’s cologne into the stalls so that the opposing party, his ex Amber Heard, would smell it. This was described as “psychological warfare” (against some who accused Depp of abuse).

Where does AI go from here?

Even though I’m posting this on the Saturday of a three-day-weekend, you’re probably not actually reading this until Tuesday or later. But if you’re as terminally online as I am, you’ve already heard about the lawyer who has used ChatGPT to perhaps accelerate his own obsolescence—allegedly, he used it to generate a whole brief, which was then filed in the Southern District of New York. (The docket and most of the pleadings are available on Court Listener.)

Talking Honestly About Honesty (When You Can't Really Talk About Government Ethics)

Yesterday, I (and several of my nerd friends, as it would turn out) spoke with Benjamin Penn for an article that ran today in Bloomberg Law about outgoing US Attorney Rachel Rollins, who was found by the Department of Justice’s inspector general to have engaged in wide-ranging violations of government ethics rules. I am not an expert in federal government ethics, far from it, so I stuck to the disciplinary implications of the alleged misconduct.

Relevant here, and to my quote that ran with the Bloomberg story, was that Rollins was found to have falsely testified, under oath, during the investigation of her other conduct (including leaking sensitive information to the press, and potential violations of the Hatch Act). I told Mr. Penn that “Bar regulators, in general, they’ll get their hackles up about any sort of dishonest conduct that has any nexus with the practice of law.”

Happy New Year, Have A Suspension

I’d like to kick off the new year of blogging with an update. Remember Alex Jones’s lawyers? The one who belatedly turned over a bunch of his client’s text messages, but with it dumped some confidential records (including medical records) of some of the the Sandy Hook families?

In what seems like lightning speed, one of the lawyers, last week Norman Pattis, was suspended for six months from the practice of law by a Connecticut judge.  (No, this was not the one in Texas who chose to close with a quote from the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller. There is a lot going on here.)

Selected Thoughts From the Select Committee Summary

Yesterday, the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol held its last hearing and released the introductory report to its findings. The full report will not be released until tomorrow, but the summary material (which is 154 pages in itself) provides a robust roadmap.

I watched some of yesterday’s hearing, and, I’m sure, like any other member of the ethics bar who may have been listening, my ears perked up when Rep. Lofgren outlined efforts by lawyers to influence witnesses and disrupt the investigation.

What the heck...I mean you all saw that, right?

I’ve been deep in trial prep the last few days (and ahead of seeing my nerd friends at the Chicago conference, but that doesn’t mean my phone hasn’t been utterly lit up, as happens whenever a lawyer does something dumb on television. From my office, with headphones on, I could hear the collective gasps of my friends as they watched Alex Jones and his lawyer Andino Reynal have a meltdown in real time yesterday.

What happened yesterday (some video here) was, alternately (and with apologies to random social media people who made these comments but I can’t find to credit), an EPR class issue-spotting nightmare, an object lesson in FAFO, and/or a Nerd Conference Eve Present for those of us in the ethics bar.

Crackin' the Kraken!

Yes, I am running out of puns, and this is information isn’t breaking news anymore, but 110-page opinions have bad habits of dropping while I’m on vacation.

Anyway, while I was gone, Hon. Linda Parker of the Eastern District of Michigan sanctioned several attorneys, including Sidney Powell and Lin Wood and a few less famous, but all associated with the post-election “Kraken” litigation. My nerd friend Don Campbell did his best with exceedingly bad facts, but.

This is a remarkable opinion. It is also 110 pages, so it’s not a beach read (well, maybe it is, I won’t judge), but if this interests you at all you should read it.

Oh Rudy...

All eyes are on the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which is set to hear arguments in one of the Trump Campaign’s voting lawsuits today. Enter Rudy Giuliani, who has applied for pro hac vice admission despite his last federal court appearance being before some lawyers were born.

However, it looks like Rudy may have some problems right out of the gate, in addition to all of his other problems.

No Comment. No, Really, No Comment.

I write about lawyers behaving badly a lot (at least, not when I’m not neglecting this blog-hi everyone, I hope you’ve been well) but one thing I don’t do is comment on Wisconsin lawyers with potential or pending matters. I’ll cite published opinions regarding Wisconsin lawyers, but only in rare cases will I discuss a case in any other context (and then, onl if it’s very publicly clear that I am not their lawyer).

Boom Shakalaka! You're Suspended Shakalaka!

In my ethics nerd friend circles, we often discuss “those cases.” “Those cases” either involve attorney discipline or judges admonishing attorneys for allegedly bad behavior outside of the disciplinary cases; they’re not of great importance or precedential value by themselves. But they act as cautionary tales and generate extra publicity and discussion (at least in my ethics nerd friend circles) because they involve some combination of vulgarity, sex, “really, you have a law license and thought this was a good idea?” and/or general silliness.