Judicial Notice (07.16.22): Tweetstorm
A judge departs mid-investigation, Skadden stays busy around the world, and other legal news from the week that was.
Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking on the button below. Thanks!
I’m back home in northern New Jersey after a quick trip to Philadelphia, where I delivered the Friday night keynote at the student summer conference of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (“FIRE”). It was a pleasure to speak with so many students, including but not limited to law students, who are working hard to protect and promote free speech on their campuses.
Before leaving for Philly on Friday, I discussed the legal battle between Twitter and Elon Musk with Katie Lee Barlow. Most of you know Barlow for her great work on the SCOTUSblog TikTok, but she also hosts a legal-affairs show for FOX 5 DC called In the Courts, for which she interviewed me.
On Thursday, Zach Sandberg and I recorded a new episode of Movers, Shakers, and Rainmakers. We spoke with Justin Savage, global co-leader of the environment practice at Sidley Austin, about West Virginia v. EPA and its implications for environmental law, administrative law, and Biglaw firms. Thanks to Justin for all his excellent insights.
Now, on to the news.
Lawyers of the Week: the Twitter v. Musk legal teams.
The big legal story of the week was the Delaware Chancery Court lawsuit filed by Twitter against Elon Musk, seeking to compel the centibillionaire to go through with his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter. As a result, the most talked-about lawyers this week were all the high-powered, high-priced lawyers involved in what should be an epic legal battle. It’s Depp v. Heard for smart people, as I quipped in my earlier story, Twitter v. Elon Musk: Let's Look At The Lawyers (to which I’ve appended some updates, including a prediction of eight-figure legal fees for each side).
Two quick updates on past Lawyers of the Week:
Speaking of Depp v. Heard, Ben Chew and Camille Vasquez of Brown Rudnick scored another victory for Johnny Depp, when Judge Penney Azcarate of Fairfax County Circuit Court in Virginia denied Amber Heard’s motion to set aside the $10.35 million verdict in Depp’s favor based on a juror issue. Heard complained that a son served in place of his father—the two have the same name and live at the same address—but Judge Azcarate held that Heard failed to show how she was prejudiced by that.
As many expected, Alex Murdaugh, part of a prominent legal dynasty in coastal South Carolina, was charged on Thursday with murdering his wife and one of his sons. He’s already in custody because he was unable to make bail when he was charged back in October with numerous financial crimes.
Judge of the Week: Chief Judge Janet DiFiore.
On Monday, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore of the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, announced her resignation, effective August 31. It came on the heels of the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct voting to serve her with a complaint alleging that she improperly used her judicial office to interfere with a disciplinary proceeding against Dennis Quirk, president of New York State’s association for court officers. Chief Judge DiFiore’s resignation will probably end the investigation, since the Commission’s jurisdiction generally ends with the resignation of a judge.
Per Law360, which broke the news of the investigation, the brouhaha began when Chief Judge DiFiore ordered an investigation into a complaint accusing Quirk of mistreating Black court officers. Angered over being accused of racism, Quirk allegedly emailed the judge as follows: “Lets [sic] see [how] you like the online articles about your relationship with a police officer with ties to organized crime while you were married posted all over every court building in NYS.” (According to his lawyer, Pat Bonanno, the articles that Quirk was threatening to publicize are decades old, from the 1990s—i.e., Quirk was not referring to anything recent or new.)
Quirk’s email to Judge DiFiore spawned a separate investigation into whether he improperly attempted to intimidate her. Judge DiFiore sent an unsolicited letter to the hearing officer handling that investigation, styled as a “victim impact statement,” in which she condemned Quirk’s misconduct, lamented his lack of remorse, and urged imposition of a “significant sanction.” Judge DiFiore sent her letter sua sponte, i.e., not in response to any request from the hearing officer; ex parte, i.e., without copying Quirk or his counsel; and on her “Chief Judge of the State of New York” letterhead.
Judge DiFiore’s anger at Quirk might have been justified, but as experts in legal ethics told Frank Runyeon of Law360, her letter to the hearing officer was a big no-no. As Richard Emery of Emery Celli, a former member of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, explained, “On a human level, it is understandable. Just not permissible."
As you’d expect from someone who occupied such a powerful position for more than six years, Chief Judge DiFiore has both fans and foes. For a balanced overview of her legacy as both a jurist and the top administrator of the New York State court system, see this New York Times article by Jesse McKinley and Benjamin Weiser.
It was a busy, busy week in federal judicial nominations. President Joe Biden announced three new rounds of nominees this week:
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.