Judicial Notice (07.13.25): Bye Bye Bondi?
Pam Bondi’s critics on the right, a $515 million legal fee, a judge’s humorous order, and more defections from Biglaw firms that folded to Trump.
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.
Is it just me, or are people a little checked out these days? It seems that folks are a little less online than usual lately—not that I’m complaining. I hope that some of you have been able to relax a bit and enjoy time with your families.
I’ve been able to unplug to some extent. Zach and I just returned from the Poconos region of Pennsylvania, where we met up with almost 30 members of Zach’s extended family for the annual Shemtob family reunion. We had a great time—as did our two boys, who had a blast playing with all of their cousins.
Although October Term 2024 of the Supreme Court has now concluded, that doesn’t mean Zach has been able to relax, as the emergency aka short-order docket requires him and his SCOTUSblog colleagues to be on call. He’s also been busy editing the many new contributors he’s added to SCOTUSblog (including my former Con Law teacher, Professor Akhil Amar, who’s co-authoring a new column called Brothers in Law with his younger brother, Professor Vikram Amar).
I try to keep my personal updates fairly brief, since most of you are here for the news. But for those of you who appreciate the personal side (hi Auntie Mercy!), you might enjoy the latest episode of The Future Is Bright Podcast, where I chatted with Chris Batz and Howard Rosenberg about my life and career.
Now, on to the news. By the way, this edition of Judicial Notice is intentionally shorter than usual, so please let me know what you think about the trade-off between concision and comprehensiveness. And please mention, in the comments, anything you think I should have covered but didn’t (because I left out more than usual).
Lawyer of the Week: Pam Bondi.
Is it fair to describe Attorney General Pam Bondi as “embattled”? Over the past two weeks, she’s taken plenty of flak from the left, over her firing of Department of Justice employees involved in Trump prosecutions, her handling of the TikTok situation (in apparent defiance of Congress), and claims by a DOJ lawyer turned whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, that the Bondi Justice Department was getting ready to take a “f**k you” stance vis-a-vis the federal courts regarding deportations. Bondi dismissed Reuveni as “a leaker asserting false claims seeking five minutes of fame”—but his statements appear to be supported by at least some evidence, as explained by Ed Whelan over at National Review.
But now Bondi is getting attacked by the right. After the DOJ and FBI issued a memo on Monday essentially saying “case closed” on its review of the Jeffrey Epstein case, a longtime obsession in MAGA circles, many of the MAGA faithful freaked out—and called on Bondi to resign, for breaking her promise to release what she once described as a “truckload” of Epstein documents.
On Saturday, Donald Trump came to Bondi’s defense. In a lengthy post on Truth Social, he declared that the “GREAT!” attorney general “is doing a FANTASTIC JOB!” Usually such a Trumpian pronouncement would be sufficient to get his incredibly loyal supporters to back off. But this time around, per The Times, the post “did not appear to achieve its intended result of diverting attention and quelling doubts about the case, based on the negative response of even Mr. Trump’s supporters.” Or if you don’t trust The Times on this topic, here’s Fox News: “MAGA supporters are not pleased with President Donald Trump following his full-throated defense of [Bondi].”
If criticisms of Pam Bondi from the MAGA right continue, I could see her leaving the administration—perhaps even being turned into a “fall gal” of sorts for L’Affaire Epstein. As for the larger significance of the Epstein-related controversy swirling around Bondi, it could foreshadow, as suggested by David French, future fissures in MAGA world—especially once Trump is no longer on the scene.
Other lawyers in the news:
Our two-year-old son appears to have gotten over his problematic behavior of biting people (knock wood). So maybe he can give some tips to the individual that Above the Law has dubbed the “Biglaw Biter,” who lost her position as a summer associate at Sidley Austin in New York after allegedly sinking her teeth into multiple former colleagues. Apparently there are limits on summer-associate lunch options.
During my podcast interview of former federal prosecutor Shawn Crowley, now a partner at Hecker Fink, we discussed a number of high-profile matters she worked on during her time as an assistant U.S. attorney. We didn’t get the chance to discuss a major narcotics investigation that took her from the Bronx back to her home state of Vermont—but it’s now the subject of a fascinating article by Benjamin Weiser of The New York Times (gift link).
In memoriam: the catastrophic flash floods that ravaged Camp Mystic, along the banks of Texas’s Guadalupe River, claimed the lives of Hanna and Rebecca Lawrence—the 8-year-old twin daughters of John and Lacy Lawrence, partners at Baker Botts and Akin Gump in Dallas, respectively. Please keep the Lawrences, and all the other victims and their families, in your thoughts and prayers.
Judge of the Week: Judge Iain Johnston.
If I hadn’t named Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson a Judge of the Week last month, I would’ve picked her as JOW for this installment of Judicial Notice. She managed to parlay a Thursday night appearance before the Indianapolis Bar Association into national news coverage (collected by Howard Bashman over at How Appealing), by declaring that “the state of our democracy” keeps her up at night. And although she didn’t mention any specific developments, it’s not hard to figure out what she probably had in mind, in light of the fiery solo dissent she issued only two days earlier in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)—discussed below as Ruling of the Week.
Instead, my latest Judge of the Week is Judge Iain Johnston (N.D. Ill.). He also turned something seemingly modest—a two-page, non-dispositive order—into media mentions. Here’s the opening of Judge Johnston’s order in Federal Trade Commission v. Deere & Company, an FTC antitrust enforcement action against Deere & Company aka John Deere, the well-known manufacturer of farm equipment:
Unlike some judges—I’m looking at you, Steve Seeger [N.D. Ill.]—I don’t have a standing order prohibiting counsel from contacting the Court. That type of standing order seems superfluous. (Of course, one could reasonably argue that most standing orders are superfluous.) And I already have 29 standing orders, despite Magistrate Judge Patty Barksdale [M.D. Fla.] schooling me that standing orders are allegedly unconstitutional according to some people.
But this action has generated many calls to the Court from interested “parties.” They are not parties, however. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17-25. These calls are nearly always counsel for various OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] asking the Court’s staff for legal advice.
The OEMs, as explained later on in the order, “have a vested interest[] in how documents they produced to the FTC during its pre-filing investigation might be used or disclosed in this action and the MDL.” But the way to protect that interest is not by bugging Judge Johnston’s staff:
[T]here is a solution—one that can be found by cracking open Moore’s Federal Practice. The OEMs can become parties. The OEMS should seek leave for permissive intervention. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice Section 26.101[2][b] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) There’s even a helpful case cited, discussing this procedure. See Blum v. Schlegel, 150 F.R.D. 38 (W.D.N.Y. 1993).
Again, the Court recognizes that Rule 24(b) isn’t a perfect fit because the OEMs aren’t asserting a claim or defense. But who am I to argue with Moore’s and an out-of-circuit district court case. If the OEMs want to participate in this case to protect their interests, then that’s the route they should take, not phone calls to the Court staff.
Judge Johnston’s order is humorous, and I’m generally in favor of highlighting humor (even if one might argue that giving judges attention in this way encourages some to try too hard). But there’s a practical pointer here too: litigators, don’t annoy the court staff—because that will annoy the judge, which is never a good thing.
In nominations news, Donald Trump announced that he’ll nominate William “Bill” Mercer, 61—a former U.S. Attorney for Montana (during the second Bush administration), now a partner at Holland & Hart—for a judgeship on the District of Montana bench. As noted by The Daily Montanan, Trump could end up making two appointments to the federal bench in Montana because two out of its three (Obama-appointed) judges have announced plans to take senior status.
Job of the Week: an opportunity for a commercial real-estate associate.
Lateral Link is spearheading a search for a prominent Ohio firm seeking a commercial real-estate associate to join its market-leading, Chambers-ranked team, to sit in any of its Ohio offices (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton, or Columbus). This firm is looking for an associate with 3-6 years of experience in complex commercial transactions, including acquisitions, dispositions, financing, leasing, and development. This is an outstanding opportunity to join a nationally recognized team and work on high-stakes deals for Fortune 500 companies, all within a supportive, flexible, and team-oriented environment. Partners at the firm are deeply committed to associates’ professional growth, offering robust training and hands-on guidance. Prior AmLaw 200 or strong midsize firm experience, plus top academic credentials, are preferred. For immediate consideration, please email your résumé to 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.