Flames shot up from the snarky comments because of Staci Zaretsky, a sweet young lady whose job it is at Above the Law to find a lurid angle that will incite the unemployed children to a frenzy. And so rather than look at the substance, she carelessly tossed in that Kaeseberg is a “hottie,” knowing full well that the trolls would say otherwise.
What Lauren Kaeseberg is, however, is a criminal defense lawyer.
Who is the (rather attractive) class of 2007 lawyer representing Blago, and why did a judge characterize her recent courtroom stylings as “harebrained”?
So, who’s the mystery woman we’re talking about?
None other than Lauren Kaeseberg, a 2007 graduate of Cardozo Law. She was admitted to the bar in 2008, and by the luck of the draw, she was hired to join Blago’s team of lawyers during his first trial, which ended in a mistrial on a majority of counts. She continued the representation through the former Governor’s retrial, where he was found guilty on most counts. Oh, and did we mention that she appears to be a hottie?
In her post-conviction motion, raising an issue arising from the subsequent revelation that a juror was in possession, and publicly used, a jury questionnaire that she should neither have possessed nor used, but was to have remained in the custody of the court. Within the team of lawyers who remain beside the defendant, Kaeseberg was tasked with challenging this impropriety.
According to the Lake County News-Sun :
U.S. District Judge James Zagel took a mere three minutes Monday morning to dismiss a motion by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s attorneys as “harebrained.”
“The motion was prepared without any adequate thought,” Zagel scolded Blagojevich attorney Lauren Kaeseberg. “You should seek outside counsel . . . and send a letter of apology to the juror.”
Apparently, uttering the word “denied” wasn’t enough for Judge Zagel, who makes the all-too-common mistake of thinking that being swathed in black polyester permits him uncontrolled intemperance. Calling a lawyer harebrained is inexcusable under any circumstances. Unlike blawgers, who are entitled to great latitude in both hyperbole and vulgarity, judges are expected to constrain their nasty, sharp tongue. James Zagel appears to have failed.
But the gravamen of Kaeseberg’s motion, the one compelling Judge Zagel to abuse his robe, was hardly of the sort to justify such a bizarre reaction.
Zagel said he could hold Kaeseberg in contempt of court but was cutting her slack because she was a fairly new lawyer.
“By the absence of precedent, I assume you couldn’t find precedent,” Zagel said, calling the filing “beyond my imagination.”
The handicap under which Zagel labors becomes clearer, as his admitted lack of imagination precludes him from conceiving of a motion without clear precedent. His grasp is that of a follower, incapable of realizing that someone has to be the first to move for relief.
There are a plethora of issues that arise these days that have yet to be addressed, no less become black letter after decades of rulings. Someone has to be the first to raise them, and its hardly clear whether they will be hugely significant or tossed on the pile of rules without consequences.
Lauren Kaeseberg did exactly what a criminal defense lawyer must do. There was an issue, and she raised it. There was a question and she sought to get an answer. Her job was not to ignore it, shrug it off, decide that an undecided question was unworthy. Her job was to take anything, everything, she could find that might serve her client and put it to its best use. Her job was to try.
Kaeseberg tried. For her efforts, a United States District Judge called her “harebrained.” He demonstrated not only an lack of intellectual depth, but a lack of self-control. He demonstrated that he cannot manage the judicial temperance required of him.
There are some brilliant and thoughtful federal judges around who understand that someone has to be the first to raise an issue, and that a criminal defense lawyer’s job is to take the risk of being that first one. They may well have denied the motion too, but they would never have uttered such a disgraceful insult. These judges would have understood what Kaeseberg was doing, and why she had to do it. They would have applauded her pluck, her effort, her zeal, even if they didn’t grant her relief.
These brilliant and thoughtful federal judges must have cringed when they heard Judge Zagel’s language.
But in an ironic way, Judge Zagel’s impropriety gave Lauren Kaeseberg a gift. While the ATL story gave the children a snark opportunity to poke at her appearance (which, I note in irrelevant passing, is that of a lovely young lady, certainly attractive and playful), it made the rest of us take notice of a 2007 Cardozo Law School graduate who chose baptism by fire over sharing the basement couch with ATL readers.
Sitting in the third chair at the trial of Blago may not have made Kaeseberg a household name, but being lambasted wrongly for having stood up to the court and made the motion a hardened criminal defense lawyer felt needed to be made, is a very impressive thing for a young lawyer to do.
Whether Lauren Kaeseberg will ever be required to endure a judge as inappropriate as James Zagel during the balance of her (hopefully) long career in criminal defense is unclear. But where most young lawyers would cower in the well, Kaeseberg faced the challenge and proved that she has the guts to do the job, to be the person willing to risk the ire of the puny to serve her client.
Few young lawyers get the chance to be tested, and to prove they have what it takes. That was Zagel’s gift to Kaeseberg. And Lauren Kaeseberg performed in the finest tradition of criminal defense, from risking the court’s animus by raising a new issue to standing firm and proud despite the smack delivered by a judge who dirtied his robe. As a criminal defense lawyer, I’m proud to count Lauren Kaeseberg among us.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Most judges around my part of the world don’t care for novel arguments either. Unless, of course, they’re raised by the prosecutor.
This is a very good post. I hope she reads it. The judge was out of line in using that kind of language.
It takes a very bold judge to risk granting a novel argument. So many things can go awry and make the other judges think ill of him. While they may not care much about what we think, they would hate to have the other judges think less of them.
Out of line may not be sufficient to capture the intemperence of “harebrained.” Aside from the fact that the motion was an entirely appropriate, if novel, effort, a person holding the office and tenure of judge must be held to a higher level of propriety. One cannot hold such power and authority while lacking the discretion not to abuse it. This was abusive.
Bullies are cowards. The likihood is that the judge would not have threatened a more experienced lawyer with contempt because a lawyer who has been around longer wouldn’t take his sh*t. And if he did I know what I’d say. Go ahead.
See his bio? No trenches. Never hacked private practice. Never missed a government paycheck in his life. No risk. Not like Lauren. I wish the best for her.
From the good judge’s wikipedia page :
A fine, upstanding and very official career.
I’m no Tocqueville but America seems to be adopting the French method of selecting judges. In France judges are selected not from lawyers who have had real people as clients. Instead they have to pass an exam and then go to judge school-The French National School for the Judiciary.
In America the various offices of the states Attorney Generals, District and US Attorneys seem to play a similar role as the French School for the Judiciary.
Arthur Troll
note too that Zagel was previously married to then-famous reporter Pam Zekman. Her father, too, had “connections”.
I remember watching an appellate argument once with some kid making hopeless arguments to overturn a conviction. The judges shredded the arguments up, down and sideways.
And as the kid walked away from the lectern, the presiding judge thanked him for taking the case and making the argument.
Scott, I’m glad someone else thought the same thing. I read the ATL article and thought “harebrained? She’s fighting for her client! That’s her ethical obligation! Even if the argument isn’t great, or it’s out of left field, you can’t just roll over. An attorney should try and defend their client at every turn. She did the right thing and came up with an argument, just like a good lawyer is supposed to. That isn’t harebrained at all.”
Sometimes I think judges forget that defense lawyers are advocates. Their roll isn’t to say “Look my client is guilty, but…” As I understand it, their roll is keep their client out of jail using any ethical means possible.
I feel like there is a growing trend, particularly in the federal circuits, for judges to unfairly attack lawyers who zealously defend their clients or try and raise novel arguments…
I see that as well, where judges come to believe that the lawyer’s job is to meet their approval and make no waves. No, it isn’t harebrained at all for a criminal defense lawyer to do what she has to do, even if it displeases a judge. And Judge Zagel’s reaction was disgraceful.