It’s Not Dead Yet (Update)

What do the following people have in common?

Retired Federal Judges

Robert J. Cindrich was appointed to the federal bench in 1994 and served as a United States District Court Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania for ten years.

David H. Coar was appointed to the federal bench in 1994 and served as a United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Illinois for sixteen years.

William Royal Furgeson, Jr. was appointed to the federal bench in 1994 and served as a United States District Court Judge for Western District of Texas and the Northern District of Texas for nineteen years.

Nancy Gertner was appointed to the federal bench in 1994 and served as a United States District Court Judge for the District of Massachusetts for seventeen years.

Richard J. Holwell was appointed to the federal bench in 2003 and served as a United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York for ten years.

Stanley Sporkin was appointed to the Federal Bench in 1985 and served as a United States District Court Judge for the District of Columbia for fourteen years.

Professors of Legal Ethics

Anita Bernstein is the Anita and Stuart Subotnick Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School. She has taught legal ethics at Brooklyn, Michigan,Chicago-Kent, and Cornell Law Schools. From 2000-2007, she held an endowed chair at Emory University in Professional Responsibility. Her scholarship focuses on lawyer and judicial ethics.

Carol Buckler is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Center for Professional Values and Practice and Director of Pro Bono Initiatives at New York Law School. She teaches legal ethics among other courses.

Monroe Freedman is a Professor of Law and the former Dean at Hofstra University Law School. He has spoken before judicial conferences in the United States and Canada, has written articles and book chapters on judges’ ethics, and has qualified as an expert witness on judges’ ethics before the Judiciary Committees of the United States Congress.

Bennett L. Gershman is a Professor of Law at Pace Law School. He is a former Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan and a Special State Prosecutor in New York State. He has spoken on judicial ethics at judicial conferences, professional panels, and legal symposia and has written numerous law review and other articles on judicial conduct and ethics. His treatise, “Trial Error and Misconduct” (Lexis-Nexis 2d ed., 2007, annually supplemented), focuses extensively on judicial responsibilities in the courtroom.

Bruce Green is the Louis Stein Professor and Director of the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at Fordham University School of Law. He has spoken on judicial ethics at programs for judges and lawyers, has written several scholarly articles on judicial ethics, and was responsible for the chapter on “Special Ethical Rules: Prosecutors and Judges” in his co-authored casebook, Professional Responsibility: A Contemporary Approach (West 2011).

Mark I. Harrison is a legal ethics expert at the Arizona law firm, Osborn Maledon, PA and has taught legal ethics at the University of Arizona and Arizona State Law Schools. He chaired the ABA Joint Commission to Revise the Model Code of Judicial Conduct and currently chairs the national Board of Directors of Justice at Stake. He has served on numerous committees to draft legal ethics codes. Mr. Harrison has been the recipient of several awards for his work on legal and judicial ethics.

Richard Klein is the Bruce K. Gould Distinguished Professor of Law at the Touro Law Center. He has served on the New York Committee to Preserve the Independence of the Judiciary and other professional ethics committees. His scholarship, lecturing, and teaching has a focus upon judicial ethics and independence.

Myles V. Lynk is the Peter Kiewit Foundation Professor of Law and the Legal Profession at the Arizona State University College of Law. He serves on the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility which drafts the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, is the immediate past Chair of the ABA’s Standing Committee on Professional Discipline which cosponsored the Model Rules for Judicial Disciplinary Enforcement, and has participated in a consultation to a state supreme court on its judicial discipline rules and process.

Peter Margulies is a Professor of Law at Roger Williams University School of Law. He has taught legal and judicial ethics for almost twenty years and has written more than thirty law review articles on professional responsibility and legal ethics. He was a member of the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s Committee to Revise the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Lawrence Raful is a Professor of Legal Ethics and the former Dean at Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. He has authored many articles focusing upon legal and judicial ethics.

Deborah L. Rhode is the Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law and the director of the Center on the Legal Profession at Stanford University. She is the founding president of the International Association of Legal Ethics, the former president of the Association of American Law Schools, the former chair of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession, a former trustee of Yale University, and the former director of Stanford’s Institute for Research on Women and Gender. She is the author or co-author of over twenty books and over 250 articles and serves as a columnist for various newspapers. She has received numerous awards for her legal ethics scholarship and contributions to the field of professional responsibility.

Rebecca Roiphe is a Professor of Law at New York Law School where she is affiliated with the Center for Professional Values and Practice. She teaches professional responsibility, legal history, and criminal procedure. Her scholarship focuses on the history of the legal profession. She has also written and spoken on the judicial ethics and judicial independence.

W. Bradley Wendel is a Professor of Law at Cornell Law School where he teaches a range of legal ethics courses. He is the author or editor of several books and over fifty articles on legal ethics and professional responsibility, including several articles on judicial ethics. He frequently is a speaker in programs on judicial ethics.

Each has signed on as amici in support of the pending applications of Ligon and Floyd for en banc review of the 2d Circuit panel’s misbegotten order and subsequent attempt to dig themselves out of their hole.  And while I have yet to see it, I understand that Judge Scheindlin has also filed for en banc review of her motion to appear, denied by the panel. (Edit: Judge Scheindlin’s en banc papers here.)

There have been no answers to how this circus happened, and it’s not done yet. Not by a long shot.  The gaping wound opened in this case will not go away with a whimper.

Update: Via a comment by John Hawkinson at Judge Kopf’s Hercules and the Umpire, the Floyd plaintiffs also moved for en banc reconsideration of the 2d Circuit panel’s November 13th decision.  Not only is this matter not dead yet, but it’s very much alive and shows no signs of going away without a fight.

7 comments on “It’s Not Dead Yet (Update)

  1. ppnl

    Did Judge Scheindlin say something to the press that supposedly caused the appearance of bias? I don’t understand what triggered this.

    Is it likely that with the end of stop and search they will decide the whole case is moot and pretend it never happened?

    Us non-lawyers wanna know.

    1. SHG Post author

      If you want to know, read the docs. If that’s too much trouble, then you don’t want to know badly enough. To expect me to spoon feed you so you don’t have to work too hard would be a terrible error in judgment.

    1. SHG Post author

      You were being a bit optimistic, Judge. I’m not sorry to see this continue. For all our sakes, it needs to be resolved.

  2. Lorin Duckman

    This circus merely emulates those many cases which have come before this august bench desirous of recognition and affirmation that have been dumped into the crapheap by those who have not walked the streets or smelled the people up close. The difference here is that the maligned judge has powerful friends, fearful of nothing and no one, who have seen the unfairness. Rather than fighting from within to change the system, they sewed their mouths shut and resigned or withdrew rather than face the funereal music that I and Judge Scheindlin did. In her case, she survives. In mine, dead. That’s how it happens and will continue to happen until the judiciary and the people who make them are changed.

    1. SHG Post author

      To provide a bit of perspective to your comment, Lorin, I offer this NYT editorial. I also recall a New York lawyer who wrote an amicus brief on your behalf, though his name eludes me at the moment. Sadly, it was to no avail.

  3. Pingback: AJA Blog » Blog Archive » The Second Circuit Controversy Continues

Comments are closed.