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.
This past Saturday, I had the pleasure of attending the beautiful wedding of Zach’s cousin, in lovely Tarrytown, New York. I’ve been swamped by work as of late, so the weekend of festivities was a wonderful reminder of how important it is, no matter how busy we might be, to make time for the people we care about the most.
Speaking of the personal versus the professional, how the former can affect the latter was a big theme of my recent conversation with David Schnurman, CEO of Lawline, on his Lawyers Who Learn podcast. As I discussed with David, my life-threatening experience with COVID-19 back in March 2020 played a big role in my returning to writing, after a short but fascinating foray into legal recruiting—and in my launching Original Jurisdiction, more than five years ago.
Now, on to the news.
Lawyers of the Week: Kathleen M. Wilson, Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway, Kathryn Y. Williams, and Mark McClinton.
As loyal readers of OJ know, I’ve covered many stories of lawyers misusing AI—and getting sanctioned. Most of the time, the AI missteps are brought to the attention of the court by opposing counsel. The latest AI fail features a new twist: a case in which lawyers on both sides submitted court filings containing fake cases.
It’s hard to believe, but it actually happened—and was covered not just by legal outlets such as Bloomberg Law, but by general-interest publications including The New York Times (gift link). In terms of how the ill-fated filings made their way to court, the facts are familiar: lawyers pressed for time failed to verify the authorities they cited before submitting their briefs. If you’re interested in learning more about what went wrong here—in a litigation over legal fees, of all things—check out the 23-page order by Judge Sharion Aycock (N.D. Miss.), who was none too pleased.
Judge Aycock ordered Kathleen Wilson and Kathryn Williams, the out-of-state lawyers who prepared the offending filings, to pay fines of $2,500 and $3,500, respectively. Aycock also disqualified them from the case and ordered them not to appear in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. As for Shauncey Ridgeway and Mark McClinton—the Mississippi lawyers who moved for the pro hac vice admissions of Wilson and Williams, then later signed the filings without reviewing them—Judge Aycock disqualified them from the case and fined them $1,000 each.
With lawyers on both sides submitting filings with fabricated cases, Withers v. Aberdeen sets a new record for misadventures with AI. Can it be topped? We’d need a case in which lawyers on both sides submit filings with AI errors, and the judge issues an opinion or order reflecting improper reliance on AI. That might sound like a tall order—but based on what we’ve seen over the past few years, I wouldn’t rule it out.
Other lawyers in the news:
-
On Monday, Donald Trump officially announced his nomination of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to serve as the permanent AG. Will Blanche win confirmation? My current guess is yes, but I make it without a strong degree of conviction. There’s certainly a case to be made against confirmation, even if you’re not a liberal or progressive—see, e.g., this National Review staff editorial. But my guess is that in the end, many senators will—for better or worse—concur with Michael Fragoso’s bottom line, also from the pages of National Review: all things considered, including how Trump deals with the Department of Justice, “Blanche is actually the best man available in terms of running DOJ competently.”
-
After the idea of nominating Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte as director of national intelligence crashed and burned, Trump put forward U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton (S.D.N.Y.) as his next pick for the post. Clayton’s confirmation prospects look good, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) predicting an expeditious process.
-
If Clayton gets confirmed, who will replace him as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District? Trump announced James “Jamie” McDonald, a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell (and personal lawyer to Trump), as his pick. The highly regarded, well-credentialed McDonald—a former assistant U.S. attorney in the S.D.N.Y., as well as a former clerk to Chief Justice Roberts—should enjoy a smooth confirmation.
-
Trump unveiled his nominee for director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Brian Johnson. A former senior official at the CFPB, former Alston & Bird partner, and current executive at Capital One, Johnson appears to be qualified and non-controversial.
-
The sentencing of former Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstein, scheduled to take place this coming Tuesday, has been rescheduled for July 24.
In memoriam: Jake Dear—who served as chief supervising attorney of the California Supreme Court under three chief justices, during a 40-year career at the court—passed away at 69, after a short illness. May he rest in peace.
Judges of the Week: Judges Debra Ann Livingston, Mary Murguia, and William “Bill” Pryor.
Does being an Article III judge mean never having to say you’re sorry? Or, if you’re forced to issue an apology, not really meaning it?
After the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council found that Judge Eleanor Ross (N.D. Ga.) engaged in an extramarital affair with a law enforcement officer, had sex in chambers during work hours, and initially lied about it all when confronted, she was punished through a private reprimand (which turned out to be not-so-private). She was also required to write letters of apology to six former clerks, the poor souls who were subjected to the moaning and groaning of her gavel bangs.
Her initial apology letter—published in The New York Times (gift link), after three of her ex-clerks spoke to the outlet—was… pretty pathetic. Chief Judge William “Bill” Pryor (11th Cir.), who oversees disciplinary matters for judges within the Eleventh Circuit, sent Ross a letter calling her out (which he shared with Bloomberg Law).
Pryor’s letter raised the prospect of a new misconduct proceeding against Ross, based on her inadequate apology. So Ross sent a new and improved letter—also published in The Times (gift link), with Ross’s consent. This satisfied Chief Judge Pryor, who informed Ross by letter that he would not be opening a new inquiry: “Based on my review of your new apology letters, my disclosure of the June 10 inquiry to The New York Times, and your consent to disclose the new apology letters to [The Times], I have determined not to identify a new complaint under Rule 5.”
Based on her half-assed initial apology letter, it seems Ross didn’t feel much remorse—and perhaps her biggest regret was getting caught. I can’t help wondering whether Judge Sarah Merriam (2d Cir.), also the subject of a recently resolved misconduct investigation, had similar sentiments.
Two years ago, I wrote about a complaint of judicial misconduct filed against Judge Merriam. Back in 2022, a former law clerk accused her of mistreating chambers staff, including berating clerks for typographical and other minor errors. But after an investigation, Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston dismissed the complaint, reporting that Merriam was “deeply troubled and saddened” by the complaints and was “committed to creating a better workplace environment” (Livingston’s order didn’t name the judge, but I independently confirmed that it was Merriam.)
Alas, in December 2025, the Legal Accountability Project filed a new complaint against Merriam, containing allegations along the same lines as the ones made in 2022—and raising the possibility that Merriam hadn’t changed her ways. Last Friday, Chief Judge Livingston’s order resolving the LAP complaint became public. For links to coverage and a copy of the order, see Howard Bashman’s How Appealing. (Once again, Livingston’s order didn’t name the judge—but as noted by Nate Raymond of Reuters, who first reported on the order, “the complaint it described matched one that [LAP] had announced publicly against Merriam in December.”)
As stated in her order, Chief Judge Livingston spoke with Merriam clerks from 2024 and 2025, and they described a “tense and challenging” environment in chambers. In response, Merriam agreed to a number of remedial measures, including (1) “meeting periodically with several advisor judges who have agreed to discuss best practices for chambers management,” (2) “participating in management training approved by the Chief Judge,” and (3) “attending the annual workplace training for new chambers staff with the Judge’s newly appointed clerks.”
For the most part, however, the order downplayed concerns with the atmosphere in Merriam’s chambers—and even criticized the LAP complaint to some extent, quoting clerks who described themselves as “surprised and upset by the complaint and by the resulting publicity about their clerkship experience.” In response, Aliza Shatzman, LAP’s president and founder, expressed disappointment in the Livingston order—and told Reuters, “The lack of accountability for federal judges who abuse their power is ultimately a congressional problem requiring congressional solutions.”
Finally, here’s a quick update on Judge Ryan Nelson (9th Cir.). As I discussed last week, he got into a parking-lot dustup with a fellow resident of Idaho Falls. The incident became public last weekend—and by Monday, Chief Judge Mary Murguia (9th Cir.) issued an order announcing that an inquiry into Judge Nelson has been opened. She cited media reports about the confrontation, suggesting that she acted sua sponte (and not in response to the misconduct complaint against Judge Nelson that was filed by Fix the Court over the same event).
In a guest post at the Volokh Conspiracy, Professor Arthur Hellman offered some thoughts on the complaint against Judge Nelson. Citing the statement that I received from Nelson’s counsel—in which the judge expressed remorse and said he “offered an apology and full compensation” (for a pair of sunglasses he destroyed)—Hellman said that Chief Judge Murguia “could well find that these actions constituted ‘voluntary corrective action’” and “‘conclude the proceeding’ without the need to determine whether Judge Nelson engaged in misconduct.” But while Murguia could do this, she doesn’t have to do it—and could instead let the inquiry unfold more comprehensively.
Considering that Judges Ross, Merriam, and Nelson are the subjects of the inquiries, why have I named Chief Judges Livingston, Murguia, and Pryor as Judges of the Week? I’d like to take this opportunity to highlight the great discretion they enjoy, as chief judges of their circuits, when it comes to judicial discipline.
The conventional wisdom about being chief judge of a circuit is that it’s not a big deal: you don’t get an extra vote on cases, and you can’t fire your colleagues (although you apparently can suspend them indefinitely, as Chief Judge Kimberly Moore of the Federal Circuit has done to Judge Pauline Newman). But even if chief judges lack firing authority, they can, through their handling of judicial disciplinary proceedings, exercise a great deal of power over their colleagues—and perhaps we should have a conversation about that. As Professor Josh Blackman wrote at the Volokh Conspiracy, “Chief judges have vast amounts of unstated powers. And absolute power can be wielded in improper fashions…. Congress needs to revisit this entire regime.”
In nominations news:
-
Judge Kurt Engelhardt, appointed by Trump to the Fifth Circuit during his first term, will take senior status on December 31 or upon the confirmation of his successor. And who might that successor be? Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga—under 40, a former clerk to Justice Alito, and a crusader for conservative causes—strikes me as a likely candidate.
-
At his confirmation hearing for a seat on the Eighth Circuit, Judge Daniel Traynor (D.N.D.) took some criticism for publicly declaring that he wouldn’t hire clerks from Columbia University. And it wasn’t just from Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) also expressed concern, asking Traynor, “When a federal judge expresses a political opinion, like you and your colleagues did, how does that help our effort to help the public understand judges aren’t politicians?” I’m guessing this won’t affect the confirmation of the highly qualified Judge Traynor—but perhaps it might lead him to reconsider his participation in the boycott.
-
Michigan’s two Democratic senators, Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin, turned in blue slips—i.e., signed off on—the judicial nomination of assistant U.S. attorney Michael Martin (E.D. Mich.). This comes shortly after Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.) turned in a blue slip for Faegre Drinker partner Antonio Pozos (E.D. Pa.). (But I have a correction to my prior coverage: per Professor Carl Tobias, Fetterman wasn’t the first Democrat to turn in a blue slip for a judicial nominee during Trump’s second term.)
In memoriam: D.C. Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz passed away at 67, after battling brain cancer. May she rest in peace.
Job of the Week: an in-house opportunity for litigators in Charleston.
Lateral Link is exclusively partnering with a $39 billion global industry leader to identify a litigation counsel for its growing legal team in Charleston, South Carolina. This is a rare opportunity for a litigator at a firm to make the transition in-house while maintaining exposure to sophisticated disputes and gaining hands-on business experience. The role offers broad exposure to commercial litigation, internal investigations, compliance initiatives, and litigation management. The ideal candidate will have 3-6 years of experience in private practice, strong writing and analytical skills, and a practical, business-oriented approach to problem solving. Interested candidates should send their résumé to Marion Wilson at mwilson@laterallink.com.