Judicial Notice (06.08.25): Noisy Withdrawals
Damian Williams’s departure from Paul Weiss, three notable SCOTUS rulings, the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and another Biglaw firm opening in Boston.
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.
Last week wasn’t exciting for me. And I’m fine with that, since next week will be hectic (for reasons I’ll explain in next weekend’s Judicial Notice).
A highlight was joining a friend and fellow legal commentator, Elie Honig, who guest-hosted The Dan Abrams Show on SiriusXM on Thursday. We discussed Trump v. Biglaw, the two recent rulings against the Trump tariffs—and then, after I signed off, Elie tackled Trump v. Musk (so I defer to him for commentary on that hot topic). Thanks to Elie for having me—and for the kind shoutout in his New York Magazine column on the tariffs litigation.
Also on Thursday, I joined my husband Zach as we presided over the SCOTUSblog liveblog of U.S. Supreme Court opinion announcements. Now that we’re into June, the opinions are getting especially exciting (and three from last Thursday are discussed below, as Rulings of the Week). Please join us for the next liveblog of opinion hand-downs, taking place this coming Thursday, June 12, starting at 9:30 a.m. (ET).
Now, on to the news.1
Lawyer of the Week: Damian Williams.
Speaking of Donald Trump, his war on Biglaw—and how firms have responded to it—is still leading attorneys to make noisy withdrawals from their firms. And the latest lawyer to leave is a prominent partner: Damian Williams, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Williams is departing from Paul Weiss, where he’s been for less than five months.2 At some point after his arrival, the firm (in)famously cut a deal with the Trump administration, to get out from under an executive order that chair Brad Karp described as posing an “existential crisis.”
Where is Williams going? He’s joining Jenner & Block, where he will co-chair the litigation department and practice out of the New York office. And his choice of firm speaks volumes: unlike Paul Weiss, Jenner fought the EO leveled against it—and obtained a permanent injunction blocking its enforcement, as well as Law Firm of the Week honors (shared with its counsel at Cooley).
To be sure, partners move firms all the time, for all sorts of reasons—as Ken White and Josh Barro noted on the latest episode of Serious Trouble. Discussing the departure of the quartet of Paul Weiss partners who left to launch Dunn Isaacson Rhee (Williams’s departure was not yet public), Barro and White suggested that while the departing partners might have been unhappy about Paul Weiss’s settlement, they might also have seen “a good business opportunity” here, in terms of the opportunity to brand themselves as tough and fearless litigators.
Williams might have seen a branding opportunity as well. “Jenner & Block fearlessly advocates for its clients and provides outstanding strategic counsel through their most difficult challenges,” he said in a statement. “I’ve seen firsthand how this firm expertly tackles the toughest cases and lives its values.” So while he didn’t say “my former colleagues at Paul Weiss are a bunch of cowards,” the implied contrast couldn’t be more clear.
In moving from Paul Weiss, with profits per equity partner of $7.5 million, to Jenner, with PPEP of $2.8 million, Williams surely took a pay cut. But as I often reminded candidates during my stint in recruiting, legal careers are long—and not all about the benjamins (see also the footnote of my recent post about the top 20 most profitable law firms). In thinking about a move, go beyond compensation and consider whether it advances your long-term career goals.
In the case of Damian Williams, it has been widely speculated that he might run for office someday—as suggested by his campaign-style personal website, which garnered attention during the Eric Adams controversy. If he does move into (Democratic) politics someday, a stint at Paul Weiss, the first firm to fold to Trump, would not be helpful. But leaving a capitulating firm for a courageous one—and taking a seven-figure pay cut in the process—is the stuff campaign ads are made of.
Other lawyers in the news:
Even more pointed than Damian Williams’s messaging was that of Kathleen Rubenstein, who resigned as executive director of the Skadden Foundation—the nonprofit behind the prestigious Skadden Fellowships, which support public-interest work by recent law school graduates. The Foundation is funded by partners at Skadden Arps, another firm that settled with the Trump administration. In a viral LinkedIn post, Rubenstein wrote that Skadden has not yet “risen to th[e] challenge” of “[t]his moment in history”—but expressed the hope the firm will ultimately “chart[] a path that respects the rule of law and honors the core values of the Skadden Foundation.”
Hiring Damian Williams wasn’t the only good news for Jenner. Partners Matthew Hellman and Lindsay Harrison were The American Lawyer’s Litigators of the Week, after securing a (second) reversal of class certification in a would-be class action over a 2018 data breach at their client, Marriott. Hellman and Harrison shared the honors with Devin Anderson and Craig Primis of Kirkland & Ellis, who represent Accenture (the IT company that managed the hacked database).
Once a successful and celebrated plaintiffs’ lawyer, featured in Erin Brockovich and Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, the disgraced and disbarred Tom Girardi was convicted of defrauding his clients of millions—and on Tuesday, Judge Josephine Staton (C.D. Cal.) sentenced Girardi to 87 months.
In nominations news, the Senate confirmed John Eisenberg to lead the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and Trump nominated Laura Swett of Vinson & Elkins to chair the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Kudos to Lauren Harrison and Mani Walia on the launch of their new litigation-finance firm, Signal Peak Partners—with commitments of more than $40 million. Harrison and Walia have worked in funding for years now, but they previously practiced as litigators at V&E and Susman Godfrey, respectively. [UPDATE (8:20 p.m.): As it turns out, Lauren Harrison was also at Susman Godfrey, starting in the Seattle office, prior to practicing at V&E.]
In memoriam:
Longtime Simpson Thacher partner Richard “Dick” Beattie—a leading M&A and private-equity lawyer, as well as former chairman of Simpson’s executive committee (1991-2004)—passed away at 86.
Former Susman Godfrey managing partner Lee Godfrey, a renowned trial lawyer, passed away, also at 86.
May they rest in peace.
Judge of the Week: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Has Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrested the gavel away from Justice Sonia Sotomayor as “Justice of the Resistance”?
When Justice Jackson joined the Supreme Court in June 2022, most SCOTUS watchers expected her to be a reliable liberal vote. But during October Term 2023, the last complete Term before Donald Trump’s return to the White House, Justice Jackson sometimes sided with conservatives.
The former public defender voted for the prosecution in two criminal cases, Diaz v. United States (what expert witnesses can testify about) and Erlinger v. United States (who decides certain facts needed for a sentencing enhancement—and by what standard). Then in Fischer v. United States, she sided with the defendant—but that vote was “conservative” because she ruled in favor of a January 6 defendant, as did five conservative justices. (The sixth conservative, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote the dissent—joined by Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.)
But in January 2025, Trump began his second presidential term. And since then, Justice Jackson, 54—who has been taking boxing lessons, which “helps [me] to really get out any frustrations”—has been the most outspoken opponent of his agenda.
Last week, Justice Jackson wrote a spirited dissent in a case on the emergency aka short-order docket, Social Security Administration (SSA) v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). The majority ruled in favor of giving team members from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to certain SSA records. Justice Jackson wrote that “it seems as if the Court has truly lost its moorings”—and lamented that “once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.”
Justice Jackson’s reference to the Court “once again” fanning the flames harked back to another dissent in a short-order docket case involving a challenge to a Trump administration policy, Noem v. Doe (last week’s Ruling of the Week). The majority allowed the administration to revoke a Biden-era immigration program called humanitarian parole, making hundreds of thousands of noncitizens subject to deportation. Justice Jackson accused her colleagues of “botching” the legal analysis and “undervalu[ing] the devastating consequences” of its decision.
Trump stuff aside, Justice Jackson is generally the most outspoken Democratic appointee on the Court these days. She dissented from the denial of certiorari in Nicholson v. W.L. York, Inc., arguing that the justices should have heard the race-discrimination case of a Black dancer at adult-entertainment clubs. And Justice Jackson dissented—solo—in Libby v. Fecteau, a case on the short-order docket in which the Court ruled in favor of Laurel Libby, a Republican state legislator who was punished for a social-media post that criticized transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ sports (and called out one such athlete by name).
In terms of their views, there might not be much daylight between Justices Sotomayor and Jackson; after all, Justice Sotomayor joined the Jackson-penned dissents in SSA v. AFSCME, Noem v. Doe, and Nicholson v. W.L. York, Inc. But note that Justice Sotomayor didn’t write any of those dissents herself; she was content to let Justice Jackson take the laboring oar. Also recall how Justice Sotomayor confessed, in remarks last year at Berkeley Law, that she was “working harder than ever” and just plain “tired.” I wouldn’t be surprised if Justice Sotomayor, 71, is intentionally slowing down—and stepping out of the spotlight to give Justice Jackson, the first justice to perform on Broadway, time to shine.
In other news about judges and the judiciary:
Chief Justice John Roberts, at the annual dinner of the Supreme Court Historical Society, delivered a toast “to the president of the United States.” Some first-time attendees were discomfited—not knowing that it simply was, to quote Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof, “Tradition!” (But if the toast really is just about showing “respect for the office,” as veteran SCOTUS litigator Carter Phillips told Ann Marimow of The Washington Post, why not toast to “the presidency”?)
Speaking of the president, here’s some shocking news: Donald Trump sometimes complains in private about his three Supreme Court nominees!
Speaking of SCOTUS nominees, Adam Feldman handicapped the field over at Legalytics. After crunching copious amounts of data, he reached a conclusion consistent with conventional wisdom: “Judge Ho is the obvious pick if Justice Thomas is the next justice to step down, and Judge Oldham likely gets the nod if Justice Alito is the first to leave.”
Last month, Representative Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) introduced the Transparency and Responsibility in Upholding Standards in the Judiciary Act (TRUST Act), which would clarify that a judge’s departure from the bench is no longer grounds to dismiss a misconduct complaint. In Bloomberg Law, Aliza Shatzman of the Legal Accountability Project called for passage of the Act, arguing that “the judiciary should make every effort to thoroughly investigate complaints, rather than sweeping misconduct under the rug by encouraging judges to leave quietly.”
In nominations news:
Trump’s first set of nominees, including Sixth Circuit pick Whitney Hermandorfer, had their Senate Judiciary Committee hearings—and nothing transpired to jeopardize anyone’s confirmation. For collected coverage, see Howard Bashman’s How Appealing.
In The Washington Examiner, Professor Rob Luther of Scalia Law, who worked on nominations during the first Trump administration, argued that Third Circuit nominee Emil Bove “will be a great judge.”
With Bove nominated to the New Jersey vacancy on the Third Circuit, the White House has turned its attention to the Delaware seat, with interviews reportedly underway. If you have any information to share about interviewees or contenders, please email me: davidlat at substack dot com.
Job of the Week: an opportunity for a commercial-litigation associate in Chicago.
Lateral Link is spearheading the search of a prominent Am Law 25 firm in Chicago for a commercial-litigation associate to join its market-leading team. This firm is looking for an associate with two to six years of experience in complex, high-stakes litigation matters. This is an outstanding opportunity to join a litigation powerhouse, receive unmatched training and resources, and enjoy top-of-the-market compensation in a supportive, team-oriented, hybrid work environment (three days in office). Partners at the firm are deeply committed to associates’ professional growth, offering robust formal training and hands-on guidance from the get-go. Prior Am Law 100 firm experience and top academic credentials are required. For immediate consideration, please email your résumé to Principal Zain Atassi at zatassi@laterallink.com.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Original Jurisdiction to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.