Posts on ‘July 20th, 2009’

A federal money-laundering case against a Georgia lawyer is raising ethics questions for both sides of the bar. A pretrial hearing last week explored how far prosecutors and agents were willing to go to secure the indictment of attorney J. Mark Shelnutt. During testimony, a federal prosecutor acknowledged he had lied to Shelnutt, and federal agents testified they enlisted at least one defense attorney as an undercover informant to elicit evidence that might be used to prosecute Shelnutt.

After pro se litigant Peter Atherton scored a victory in the D.C. Circuit, he submitted a bill of costs for $13.86 to cover making copies of court records. Lawyers for the D.C. attorney general’s office say the city shouldn’t pay because the court ruled only in part for Atherton. The case has attracted attention for the issues it raises about grand juries’ independence. Atherton claims that he was bounced from a panel for alleged disruption, and that fellow jurors criticized him for asking prosecutors too many questions.

A recent decision by a New Jersey federal court sets a tough standard for plaintiffs trying to piggyback on government investigations of off-label drug marketing. In dismissing a lawsuit against Schering-Plough Corp., Judge Stanley Chesler ruled that even if the company has violated off-label marketing rules — as it seems to have done for two cancer drugs — plaintiffs must prove that the drug was marketed for an ineffective use, and the patient received no benefit from it.

Lawyers who have a hard time keeping a poker face when they don’t like a judge’s ruling can take heart in a decision issued last week by the Georgia Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel tossed a judge’s ruling finding a lawyer in contempt for making what the judge called a “sarcastic” face at him. Chief Judge A.J. “Buddy” Welch Jr. had ordered Ella A. S. Hughes to jail, but an appeals panel reversed, in part on the grounds that Welch didn’t give Hughes an opportunity to fight a possible contempt finding.

A federal judge has certified a class action consumer antitrust suit against retail giant Babies “R” Us and a group of manufacturers of popular baby products after concluding that a price-fixing conspiracy could be proven entirely through “common evidence.” The decision clarifies the scope and effect of two recent decisions — one from the U.S. Supreme Court and one from the 3rd Circuit — that altered the pleading standards for price-fixing cases and made the test for winning class certification more rigorous.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges on Friday became the second major firm in a week to defer some of its current summer associates until 2012, according to a law firm memo. The firm is giving all of its current summers (at least the ones that get an offer) the option of deferring their start date from January 2011 until January 2012. The firm will give any summer associate who chooses the 2012 option a $75,000 stipend and health benefits — provided the summer gets a firm-approved public service job.

Despite the dire financial outlook for California’s cities, most lawyers don’t expect the economic downturn to let loose a flood of municipal bankruptcies. But many are preparing for an uptick in Chapter 9-related work. Cities will need all sorts of advice to help maneuver drops in revenue, from tax collections to investment funds and rocketing labor costs. One city exploring the consequences of Chapter 9, Pacific Grove, is now being approached by international law firms and local boutiques alike.

Nobody ever accused Larry Klayman of thinking small, but his latest suit may be outsized by even his standards. The current head of Freedom Watch — and the former head of conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch — has filed a $10 trillion class action against Iran in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Klayman is representing Nasrin Mohammadi of Beverly Hills, Calif., whose brother died in an Iranian prison after taking part in a student protest, according to the complaint.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan plans to make her first argument before the Supreme Court on Sept. 9 in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the so-called “Hillary — The Movie” case. It’s the oral argument the Supreme Court ordered as it recessed for the summer — a rare move that alarmed supporters of campaign finance reform who fear the Court is preparing to overturn the ban on use of corporate or union treasury money for independent campaign expenditures.

It turns out that confirmation isn’t the only thing judges want from Congress. Federal judges are hoping a new set of lobbyists with strong Democratic ties will be able to push their agenda on Capitol Hill, including laying the groundwork for what judges view as a long-overdue salary increase. The Federal Judges Association, together with one group representing U.S. magistrate judges and another representing U.S. bankruptcy judges, recently hired lobbyists from Patton Boggs and Elmendorf Strategies.