Judicial Notice (01.11.26): Who’s Your Lawyer?
One 50-year-old firm goes bust, two lawyers tussle over repping Maduro, three partners leave Cravath—and SCOTUS releases this Term’s first opinion in an argued case.
This week’s Judicial Notice is sponsored by
Chambers-ranked and Harvard-educated, Jeff is the trusted closer for high-stakes disputes. His battle-tested system of managed communications empowers clients to make clear, strong decisions in a calm, informed environment. It makes the right resolution obvious. If settlement seems impossible, call him.
The first week back after the winter break is always tough for me (and many of you, I’m guessing). I made it through—and managed to publish a new Supreme Court clerk hiring roundup, which always generates keen reader interest—but I’m still playing catch-up. And I’m also suffering from a cold, which is par for the course when you have two school-age kids. Hopefully I’ll be in a better place in a week’s time.
A highlight of my week was joining David French to record an episode of Advisory Opinions, which aired on Tuesday. We discussed the legality of U.S. operations in Venezuela, including the capture of President Nicolás Maduro—a topic that continues to loom large in legal news, to which we now turn.
Lawyers of the Week: Barry Pollack and Bruce Fein.
Given my beat, one of the first questions that came to mind when I heard about Maduro’s indictment on drug-trafficking charges was this: who would be defending him? As of now, the answer to that question is—bizarrely enough—somewhat unclear.
At Maduro’s arraignment on Monday—where he pleaded not guilty, described himself as a “prisoner of war,” and challenged the legality of his capture—he was represented by one of the nation’s top trial lawyers, Barry S. J. Pollack of Harris St. Laurent & Wechsler. Although not as flashy as certain other defense lawyers, Pollack “is known for handling cases that span years—and winning,” according to The Wall Street Journal (gift link). He possesses “vast experience in both criminal and international law,” as noted by Business Insider—some of it obtained from representing Julian Assange of WikiLeaks fame (or infamy), Pollack’s most notorious client to date. [UPDATE (1/18/2026, 1:15 p.m.): Typo correction in the first reference: Barry S. Pollack is a different lawyer.]
On Tuesday, Bruce Fein—a high-ranking official at the U.S. Department of Justice during the Reagan administration, and another seasoned attorney with expertise in international law—filed an appearance in the case. Standing alone, that wasn’t shocking; it’s not uncommon for defendants in high-profile cases to retain multiple lawyers and law firms.
But then things got… weird. On Thursday, after Judge Alvin Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) had approved Fein’s motion to represent Maduro, Pollack moved to strike Fein’s appearance. As reported by The New York Times, Law.com, and Business Insider, Pollack wrote that he spoke to Maduro, who told him that “he does not know Mr. Fein and has not communicated with Mr. Fein, much less retained him.”
On Friday, Fein responded in his own filing, writing to Judge Hellerstein that he entered the case “in good faith,” relying upon “information received from individuals credibly situated within President Maduro’s inner circle or family indicating that President Maduro had expressed a desire for Counsel’s assistance in this matter.” Fein asked the judge to privately interview Maduro, in order to “definitively ascertain” his wishes as to his representation.
As of this writing, Judge Hellerstein hasn’t ruled on Barry Pollack’s motion to boot Bruce Fein, so we’ll have to wait a little longer to find out the exact composition of Nicolás Maduro’s legal team. Given the complexity of the case, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the defense expand beyond Pollack and his firm—but whether it ultimately includes Fein remains to be seen. [UPDATE (1/12/2026, 9:52 p.m.): Earlier today, Judge Hellerstein removed Bruce Fein from the case, noting that “[u]nnamed persons cannot appoint counsel; only a defendant can do so.”]
Other lawyers in the news:
Speaking of defense attorneys in headline-making cases, the high-profile L.A. lawyer Alan Jackson withdrew as counsel to Nick Reiner, who has been charged with murdering his parents, Rob and Michele Singer Reiner. Jackson’s reason for withdrawing hasn’t been made public (but was reportedly revealed to the judge).
Another one bites the dust: Judge Lorna Schofield (S.D.N.Y.) ruled that yet another Trump-picked prosecutor, John Sarcone III, is not lawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York.
Speaking of U.S. attorney’s offices in the Empire State, nearly two-thirds of federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are spending all or most of their time reviewing around two million documents related to the Justice Department’s investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. A new law, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, requires the release of the government’s Epstein documents—but they must be reviewed prior to their release, so redactions can be made to protect the privacy and personal information of Epstein victims.
All the DOJ distractions and drama of the past year—including not just Epstein-related matters, but also unusually high turnover in personnel—have raised fears among prosecutors and agents “that a denigrated, distracted and depleted work force hurts the government’s ability to identify and stop terrorist plots, cyberattacks, mass violence and fraud,” in the words of The Times (gift link).
George T. Conway III, a former Wachtell Lipton partner and ex-husband of 2016 Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, is a former Republican—now running for Congress as a Democrat, aspiring to represent New York’s 12th congressional district. Here’s his campaign launch video, and here’s a report about his run from CNN (in which I’m quoted, as a former Wachtell colleague).
Judge of the Week: Judge Alvin Hellerstein.
I warned you the Maduro story would cast a long shadow over legal news; it’s also the source of our Judge of the Week. After getting assigned to the Maduro case, Judge Alvin Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) received extensive media coverage, with profiles in publications such as Politico, Reuters, Law.com, and Bloomberg Law (via Howard Bashman’s How Appealing). Hellerstein wound up with the Maduro case because, as noted by Politico, he handled the case of a Maduro co-defendant back in 2011.
Appointed by President Clinton in 1998, Judge Hellerstein, who turned 92 last month, has been on the bench for more than 27 years. Over three decades, he has developed a reputation as a decisive, no-nonsense jurist who “knows exactly what he wants and executes on it” in court, as one litigator who’s appeared before him told Law.com.
The judge took senior status in 2011 but maintains an active docket, continuing to handle complex cases and even trials. Last year, Judge Hellerstein presided over the six-week trial of Charlie Javice, the founder (and fraudster) behind the student-aid startup Frank, who ran up a legal bill that’s at $73.8 million—and counting.
Alas, Judge Hellerstein did not acquit himself particularly well during the Javice trial, reportedly nodding off at various points during the proceedings. Citing this incident, Jeffrey Toobin argued in The Times that “[t]he best way for [the judge] to honor the system to which he has devoted decades of his life would be to withdraw from the case because, at 92, he is simply too old to preside over a matter of this magnitude.”
I happen to agree with Toobin (and not just because I had a negative experience in Judge Hellerstein’s courtroom back in 2015). But don’t bet on Judge Hellerstein, who has a reputation for stubbornness, stepping aside. Life tenure for federal judges has its advantages, especially for judicial independence—and putting up with superannuated judges is part of the price we have to pay for them.
In other news about judges and the judiciary:
Judge James Ho (5th Cir.) published a provocative article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “Not Enough Respect for the Judiciary—Or Too Much? Arrogance and the Myth of Judicial Supremacy.” Agreeing with some criticisms of federal judges as overreaching, Judge Ho argued that “[i]f the American people can’t expect the judiciary to stay in its lane, then federal judges shouldn’t expect the American people to follow them.” Conservatives praised Ho’s article for containing “[l]ots of wisdom about the proper role of judges,” while progressives bashed it for exhibiting the very judicial arrogance it decries.
Speaking of Trump appointees, how often do they rule in his favor compared to (1) appointees of other Republican presidents and (2) Democratic appointees? Here’s a deep, data-backed dive into that subject from The Times (gift link), titled “Trump’s ‘Superstar’ Appellate Judges Have Voted 133 to 12 in His Favor.”
Speaking of ruling against the Trump administration, the Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing focused on “rogue judges”—specifically, two of the eight judges currently facing impeachment resolutions in the House, Chief Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg (D.D.C.) and Judge Deborah Boardman (D. Md.) One of the witnesses, Professor Rob Luther, sent me a statement: “Like Senator Ted Cruz [R-Tex.], I believe the House will impeach Judges Boasberg and Boardman. I have known Speaker Johnson for a long time, and I plan to speak to him directly about it soon.” (I have some thoughts on this, but I’ll wait until an actual vote before sharing them.)
The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board filed a complaint of judicial misconduct against Lehigh County Magisterial District Judge Amy Zanelli, alleging that she (1) maintained a “Book of Grudges” in chambers, in which she wrote negative things about lawyers and litigants who appeared before her (and invited others to add to it); (2) displayed a sexually explicit desk calendar in a general office area, which she removed only after staff complained; and (3) engaged in abusive conduct toward litigants and staff—allegedly telling one staffer, “I am the judge, and you are just a f**king secretary! I will decide and make the determination about what happens in this courtroom!” Judicial diva is as judicial diva does?
Like it or not, judges are already using AI in their work—e.g., to summarize filings, figure out the facts, and suggest questions to pose to lawyers. As Judge Xavier Rodriguez (W.D. Tex.) told The Wall Street Journal, “The cat is out of the bag. We need to be heading into the future.”
Turning to judicial nominations, the Senate confirmed former acting U.S. attorney Alexander Van Hook to serve as a judge in the Western District of Louisiana. And the Trump administration announced its first four nominees of the new year: Andrew Davis (W.D. Tex.), a partner at Lehotsky Keller Cohn; a pair of state-court judges in Texas and Arkansas, Chris Wolfe (W.D. Tex.) and John Shepherd (W.D. Ark.); and Anna St. John (E.D. La.), president and general counsel of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and its Center for Class Action Fairness.
Job of the Week: an opportunity for energy/infrastructure associates in Houston.
Lateral Link is working with a leading global law firm in its search for qualified associates with 3+ years of experience to join its energy, transportation, and infrastructure practice in Houston. These associates will represent sponsors, developers, investors, financial institutions, and other market participants in a wide range of renewable energy and energy-transition finance and M&A transactions. Ideal candidates will have experience with project finance and tax equity transactions in the U.S. renewables and power sector and/or energy project development, including negotiating key project agreements such as power purchase agreements (PPAs), EPC contracts, and O&M agreements. Successful candidates will be collaborative team players with strong interpersonal skills, capable of managing complex transactions and engaging comfortably and professionally with clients. Interested candidates should email wendyboone@laterallink.com to learn more.
