Litigation and trial practice

Subscribe to Litigation and trial practice

For decades, there has been such a thing as the attorney client privilege. In our system of justice, we depend on lawyers who represent clients zealously. To protect that representation, we have developed this attorney client privilege. Until Watergate, the privilege applied to every communication between a lawyer and his/her client. But, the Watergate conspiracy had many facets, one of which was some lawyers refusing to answer questions based on the attorney client privilege. Many of the Watergate actors were lawyers, so the privilege was invoked many times. So, among the many Watergate reforms, the American bar Association re-looked the attorney client privilege.

The ABA researchers modified the privilege. They recommended that it not apply to planned or future crimes. Yes, zealous representation is still critical to our judicial system. But, said, the ABA committee, zealous representation is not as important as preventing crime and harm to others.

So, when Pres. Trump says the attorney client privilege is dead, he is wrong. He exaggerates, of course, but even allowing for hyperbole, he is wrong. The attorney client privilege has not included crimes yet to be committed for several decades. We do not know yet what supported the search warrant for Michael Cohen. But, with all the multiple layers of review it received, it is very likely the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York is looking at possible crimes, yet to be committed. See Politico news report.

And, by the way, it is not unheard of for law enforcement agencies to seize documents from successful criminal defense attorneys. It is rare to do so, but it happens. Some law enforcement agencies become convinced that some defense lawyer, especially after winning a few trials, are committing crimes him or herself. So, sure, they might investigate some criminal defense lawyers by conducting a raid at his/her office.

Pres. Trump says he has no no idea why a lawyer representing him paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels. See CBS news report. He was asked if he knew about Michael Cohen’s payment of $130,000 to Stormy. The President answered, “no.” He added the reporter should ask his lawyer, Michael Cohen, about the payment. “Michael Cohen is my attorney,” the President added.

Those are extraordinary things to say. His lawyer, Michael Cohen, used the Trump campaign email address when he communicated with he Daniels attorney. In disclaiming any knowledge of the payment, Pres. Trump has suggested Michael Cohen took some action without his client’s consent. That exposes Mr. Cohen to ethical issues with the bar association. It also means Michael Cohen becomes a witness.

Mr. Cohen is now a witness who can be deposed about his discussions with then Candidate Trump and questioned about why he would make payments for the benefit of Trump without his consent. In fact, the President said to ask his lawyer about the payment. That makes Mr. Cohen a witness, not a lawyer any longer, in regard to that $130,000 payment. And, this answer makes Pres. Trump a key witness, as well. He will surely be deposed about what he knew or did not know about the payment to Stormy.

It was a difficult question for the President to answer. Answering yes would have caused him as many problems as no. The only safe answer would have  been to ignore the question. But, Pres. Trump cannot ignore questions. His instinct is to always push back in some way. This “push back,” however, will likely haunt him for weeks and months as Stormy’s lawsuit progresses.

Hiring a lawyer poses perils for any client. Not only must the lawyer have sufficient expertise and competence, the client needs to get along with the lawyer. They are locked in a major endeavor that will last months, if not years. Yes, a lawyer can quit or be fired. The client can quit or be fired. But, termination is not simple. A lawyer cannot ethically leave a case too close to trial or to a major event in the lawsuit. In federal court, some judges will not let a lawyer quit.

So, once hired, lawyers do not often leave a case before it concludes. That helps explain why so many lawyers avoid what otherwise appears to be a prime client, Donald Trump. Most lawyers would jump at the chance to represent a President and the recognition it can bring. Like all types of business, lawyers rely on good reputations to attract new clients. A high profile lawsuit or criminal defense builds name recognition. Yet, many lawyers are avoiding the President’s case. As one Washington attorney, Mark Zaid explained, “I don’t have the time, energy or patience to babysit a client who ignores my expertise and opinions.” See The Hill report.

That is the problem. It does not build name recognition to accept a case and then the case goes south, badly. If a client consistently disregards my advice, absolutely, I would resign from that case. And, absolutely, if I knew ahead of time that a client frequently disregarded sound legal advice, I would never accept that client. No one needs headaches like that. Those are the sorts of clients who lead to bar grievances. Taking on a client like Donald Trump amounts to career suicide. No matter how competently a lawyer performs, the case is very likely to fail.

This problem in finding a lawyer compounds itself as time goes on. Much has happened in Pres. Trump’s criminal case. Even if a new law firm was hired today, it would require weeks for the lawyers to catch up on where John Dowd was before he left. Those are weeks in which the Muller investigation will proceed without any real opposition from the President. Tweets do not count as legal opposition.

The best advice I can give to folks looking at hiring a lawyer, is to interview 2 or 3 lawyers. Once you pick one, follow his or her advice. You can and should disagree from time to time. But, if you consistently disagree regarding major strategic issues, then it is time to part ways. And, never, ever undermine your own lawyer publicly.

Stormy Daniels signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement with Michael Cohen. There is a place on the agreement for the signature of “David Dennison,” who is probably Donald Trump. Mr. Dennison/Trump never signed the agreement. The NDA includes a liquidated damages provision. “Liquidated” damages simply means damages would be hard to determine, so the parties agree in the NDA itself what the damages should be. As Harry Litman explains, this liquidated damages provision represents an effort at pre-determining the amount of damages if Stormy violates the NDA. See CNN news report. The agreement provides that if she breaches the agreement, she would be liable for $1 million per violation. So, Michael Cohn has sued her for $20 million claiming she violated the agreement 20 times.

Yea, yea, whatever. Selecting such  high amount shows bad faith on the part of Michael Cohen and Donald Trump. In any court in the country, anyone suing for $1 million or more better have a very good explanation for that figure. That high an amount suggests it was pulled out of the air. In every discrimination case that settles, the parties sign a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement often contains a non-disclosure provision, just like the one Stormy signed. Sometimes, but not often, the parties agree to a liquidated damages amount. The amount, at least in my experience, is never over $10,000. It just looks silly and amateurish to have an amount in six figures, much less seven figures.

The liquidated damages amount is intended as a guess-estimate regarding how much the damages would be. Otherwise, it would be exceedingly difficult to put a number to how a party has been harmed because the other party blabbed about the settlement. There may be no dollar value. So, generally, I personally oppose including a dollar value. For most of us who lack any notoriety, there is no monetary value to the harm caused.

No, as Harry Litman explains, this use of a million dollars is more “Bronx bluster” than actual legal argument. In 99.9 % of the court rooms in the country, the Trump/Cohen legal team would show themselves to be bullies or amateurs with that sort of a dollar amount. Mr. Litman tells her in his piece on CNN not to worry about the liquidated damages. I would tell her the liquidated damages provision helps her much more than it helps Mr. Cohen/Dennison/Trump. And, that does not even get into the issue regarding whether the agreement is binding. It may not be binding. Mr. Cohen can sign as a lawyer, but he cannot sign as a party. Only Dennison/Trump can do that.

The Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings provides a critical function to our state. The SOAH provides administrative judges in cases involving certifications and licenses for doctors, police officers and others. It is essential that the SOAH judges appear to be impartial for the process to work. But, recently, the SOAH process broke down completely. The Texas Medical Board licenses physicians in Texas. The TMB brought a case against a Dr. Robert Van Boven. The Administrative Judge, Hunter Burkhalter, found in favor of the doctor. It does not occur often that TMB loses, but this time, they did.

The accusations concerned three patients who accused Dr. Van Boven of improper touching. Judge Burkhalter found the evidence lacking. The TMB could have appealed, or it could accept the decision. TMB chose to accept the decision. But, while accepting the decision, the TMB chair read a statement stating that different judge might have reached a different result. Duh. That seems obvious. Different judges will indeed reach different results in close cases. The chair probably meant he believed Judge Burkhalter had a bias. And as part of his statement, the chair, Sharif Zaafran, questioned Judge Burkhalter’s impartiality.

But, the TMB was not satisfied. It sent a letter to SOAH accusing Judge Burkhalter of bias and questioned his ability to decide cases involving sexual misconduct impartially. The letter cited an overheard conversation between Judge Burkhalter during an unrelated hearing that super model Kate Upton was attractive. TMB argued in the letter that Judge Burkhalter’s decision in the Van Boven case was wrong, that it disregard certain evidence, even though they chose not to appeal the decision.

The CEO of TMB asked to meet with the Chief Administrative Judge of SOAH. The TMB and the SOAH are both state agencies. The meeting took place. Soon after, the Chief Judge of SOAH issued a letter to Judge Burkhalter reciting the concerns expressed by the head of TMB. In short, the SOAH questioned the judge’s ability and impartiality, even though the TMB chose not to appeal his decision.

Judge Burkhalter was fired soon after. See Austin Chronicle report. So much for an independent judiciary.

 

Andrew McCabe, former Deputy FBI Director was fired late Friday, the last work day before his retirement would have vested. After he was fired, Politico released an interview in which the embattled Deputy explained that Pres. Trump had been after him, tweeting about him since late December, 2017. It was in December when it became public knowledge that Mr. McCabe could corroborate James Comey’s concerns about Pres. Trump.

Mr. McCabe is referring to something often seen in sexual harassment cases. If the alleged victim discusses the unwanted harassment with a co-worker or friend, that helps corroborate her complaints. Harassment generally happens behind closed doors. There are usually no direct witnesses. But, if the victim discusses her experiences at or about the time of the harassment, that testimony from a friend or co-worker is probably admissible. That appears to be the value Mr. McCabe provides for Mr. Comey. And, that corroboration apparently attracted the attention of the President.

The lawyer for Mr. McCabe, Michael Bromwich, is a former IG for the Department of Justice. He indicates in the Politico news report that rarely have IG investigations progressed so quickly. The investigation started in late December, and now, three months later, the Deputy Director has been fired. As we know from discrimination cases, any major deviation from normal procedure will support an inference of illicit motive.

Mr. Mccabe explained that he was effectively removed from his post in January. He apparently means he was asked to leave his position as Deputy Director and serve in a different capacity, He was not willing to do that. So, on short notice, he was told he had to leave his post and use his terminal leave. That means since January, he has been at home on leave.

And, as these events were unfolding, Pres. Trump was tweeting about McCabe’s “race” to obtain his benefits before he might be fired. And once Mr. McCabe was fired, the President again tweeted his pleasure that he had been fired. He expressed no regret for McCabe’s loss of his pension. Those sorts of tweets do help show that the President was involved somehow in the alleged discipline of the Deputy Director. Evidence takes many forms. These tweets by themselves do not mean much. But, in conjunction with other types of evidence, these tweets provide the crucial look to the President’s intent. Obstruction of justice is a crime of intent.

If this were a discrimination case, I would be thrilled to have a supervisor tweeting about his hopes and desires in regard to my client. And, then at the end, the supervisor claps and celebrates the firing. Any decent lawyer could make wonderful use of those sorts of comments. The President may well come to regret this tweeting before this is all done. Deputy Director McCabe was employed by the FBI for 21 years. The DOJ just now discovered he was not a good employee? If this were a discrimination lawsuit, I would love to have this sort of evidence.

See Politico report.

You can file a lawsuit about anything. But, that does not mean you should. Yet, it appears a former TCU football player has done just that. Kolby Listenbee, a talented receiver for the TCU football team from 2012 to 2015, has filed suit against Texas Christian University for supposedly pressuring him to play while he was hurt. Mr. Listenbee says Coach Gary Patterson bullied him into playing while he was hurt. Many former TCU players have come to the defense of Coach Patterson, insisting they also played hurt but did not feel forced. See Ft. Worth Star Telegram column by Mac Engel.

Coach Patterson indicates he feels a little hurt by the lawsuit. But, he cannot discuss the lawsuit in any detail. See Star Telegram report. He insists it has always been about the 40 years after graduation, not the 4 years in college. Mr. Listenbee says the coaches forced him to play before he was fully healed. See Ft Worth Star Telegram report. He said his problem was with some coaches, not all of them.

As Mr. Engel explains, this is really a lawsuit against football itself. All football coaches bully to some degree. But, in the world of lawsuits and courts, Mr. Listenbee will have to show someone pointed a gun at his head and made him don his pads. Otherwise, no. Subtle or even not-so-subtle pressure does not count as “forced” to play. If that were true, there would be millions of lawsuits literally overnight against football coaches across the country. In fact, now that I think about it, I have this trick thumb I got when a coach “forced” me to play little league baseball when I was 12…….

Judge Edith Jones is at it, again. In a recent opinion, in which she was the  loser, she traded angry barbs with her judicial colleagues who comprised the majority opinion. In the case of Doe v. Office of Refugee Resettlement, No. 18-40146 (5th Cir. 3/1/2018), the court addressed the situation of a pregnant immigrant who sought an abortion. A non-profit group referred the young immigrant to lawyers who would assist her in seeking an abortion. The lawyers met with the young immigrant who confirmed she wanted an abortion. They set the matter for hearing in a state court. In the U.S., a person can seek an abortion without parental approval if she proceeds to court.

But, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) would not let the two lawyers meet again with the young woman. The ORR passed a note to the lawyers apparently from Ms. Doe indicating she no longer wanted an abortion. ORR refused to produce the young woman at the hearing. The lawyers tried to meet with their client, but ORR refused to allow such a meeting.

About that same time, the state court appointed the two lawyers, Myles Garza and Rochelle Garza to represent the young immigrant. The Garza’s then removed the lawsuit to federal court and the federal court refused to allow the move to federal court. The Garza’s appealed that order.

Judge Jones characterized the meeting between the two lawyers and the young immigrant in dark terms, describing the meeting as “Doe came into contact with lawyers who had learned about her pregnancy” – a description to which the majority opinion objected. As the majority explained, the only issue that matters is that Ms. Doe once wanted an abortion and now may not want one. How the lawyers happened to come to represent their client should not matter.

Judge Jones accused these “agenda-driven” lawyers of preying upon a young immigrant, said the majority opinion. As the majority noted, judicial spin did not address the salient fact, whether the young unaccompanied immigrant has the right to an abortion or whether she wants one. Too, Judge Jones’ characterization ignored the contrary facts as presented by the Garza’s, two officers of the court. That is judge-speak for Judge Jones jumped to conclusions based upon little or no evidence.

Having dispensed with the accusations made by the dissent, the majority opinion found it an easy question that when a minor requests an abortion, a state court holds a hearing and the federal agency lacks a valid defense to the state court, then removal is proper. The proper course is to ask the minor female what does she want. The court found that if the minor female wanted an abortion, it is not the role of the federal agency to obstruct that wish.

The majority opinion addressed the constitutional argument posed by Judge Jones in her dissent. It noted that that argument was neither raised or briefed by either party. The court then found there was no “war” here, just simple fact issues – apparently referring to what does the minor female want.

In her dissent,. Judge Jones described Jane Doe as a “pawn” in a fight for control by the federal government over its relationship with unaccompanied minors who are in its custody because they have not been allowed legally into the country. Judge Jones argued that Ms. Doe was in the custody of ORR and they were legally responsible for her. Judge Jones accused the two lawyers of having an “avowed advocacy agenda” apparently based on Rochelle Garza’s status as a named plaintiff in a lawsuit for a class action for unaccompanied minors seeking abortion. The judge accused Ms. Garza of seeking to “usurp” decisions that ORR should make. The judge accused the Garza’s of not seeking to work with ORR in regard to Ms. Doe.

The two Garza’s, asserts Judge Jones, “have demonstrated by word and deed that their goal is to foster abortions.” The judge then asserted that what was “unsaid” in the majority opinion was that there was some constitutional right to abortion via this bypass court procedure in state court. Judge Jones argued that a bypass court is not needed when Ms. Doe already has a custodian, ORR.

Judge Jones apparently objected to the majority opinion describing the judge’s dissent as seeing this lawsuit as part of a “war.” Judge Jones insisted in a footnote that she is not Joan of Act. She explained that anyone who is “well-educated” should know that the phrase “win the battle, lose the war” referred to a Pyrrhic victory. Judge Jones was clearly annoyed, as were the majority opinion authors. Her focus on this tenuous request for an abortion as part of the “war” on abortion does seem over the top. I have written about Judge Jones before in regard to her difficulties with her colleagues on the Fifth Circuit. See my prior post here. Judge Jones can be very caustic for a judge. She seems very certain of her positions.

Back in 2011, Judge Jones grew impatient with Judge Dennis, a more liberal member of the court, when Judge Dennis asked one too many questions, at least in her opinion. Judge Jones told Judge Dennis to “shut up” and asked him to leave the court room. As Above the Law blog explained, it is exceedingly rare to hear one judge tell another to shut up. See Above the Law explanation about what happened in 2011 here. Judges Jones seems very certain of her positions. She did later apologize to Judge Dennis.

See the decision in Doe v. Office of Refugee Resettlement here.

For federal employees, they have a different process to trial. A federal employee can file a verbal complaint with his/her local EEO office. When that process is completed, the federal employee then has 45 days to submit a written complaint. The Agency then conducts an investigation. The Agency does not come to any conclusions about whether discrimination occurred. But, the EEO investigator does gather statements from all (or most of) the pertinent witnesses. When that process is completed, the federal employee can file suit in U.S. district court, or request a less formal hearing in front of an EEOC Administrative Law judge. In theory, the EEOC judge process should be quicker and cheaper than U.S. district court. But, the EEOC process is not quick anymore.

According to statistics provided by the EEOC, for the time period FY 2009-FY 2017, the total time of the EEOC process has increased every year. The numbers below apply to the San Antonio Field Office. The Texas region has been short of a few judges for several years now. But, much of the country is also short of Administrative Judges. Median processing time refers to one-half being greater than that number and one-half being smaller than that number. The first category addresses those rare cases in which a federal employee reaches the point of having a trial in front of an EEOC judge and wins.

Written Decision/Finding of Discrimination

  • 2009: 5 cases/ 285 days median processing time
  • 2010: 2/626 days
  • 2011: 0
  • 2012: 0
  • 2013: 1/612 days
  • 2014: 0
  • 2015: 1/1128
  • 2016: 0
  • 2017: 0

The next category applies to the majority of cases. These are the federal EEOC complaints that have proceeded to a trial in front of an EEOC Administrative Judge in which the employee lost.

  • 2009: 68 cases/296 days median processing time
  • 2010: 4/227
  • 2011: 27/199
  • 2012: 28/221
  • 2013: 14/332
  • 2014: 6/279
  • 2015: 1/146
  • 2016: 2/1644
  • 2017: 3/1181

So, the median processing time for employees who lose their trial in front of an EEOC Administrative Judge has increased from 227 days in 2010 to 1181 days in 2017. And, since 2013, there has been significant drop-off in the number of EEOC complaints that have reached the trial stage. And, starting in 2016, the length of time to reach a trial and lose has exploded.

Some cases do settle. The number of settlements is not as significant as they might seem. In many federal settlements, no money changes hands. Many federal employees are happy to settle for nothing more than a transfer to a new department or to a new job. These numbers reflect how many cases settled and how many days it took to reach that settlement.

  • 2009: 81 cases/210 days median processing time
  • 2010: 55/137
  • 2011: 54/134
  • 2012: 69/182
  • 2013: 77/241
  • 2014: 57/246
  • 2015: 56/177
  • 2016: 78/215
  • 2017: 40/294

So, many cases settle within the first 7-10 months of the life of a written complaint. That suggests if your case does not settle within that time, then the process will require  years before reaching a resolution.

 

In an employment lawsuit, can a lawyer representing an employee contact employees who no longer work for the employer? What if the former employees are former managers? This is important since in most employment cases, the only witnesses are current or former employees.

The answer is yes. The Northern District of Texas so decided in Orchestrate HR v. Trombetta, 178 F.Supp.3d 476, 486 (N.D.Tex. 4/18/2016). In this suit, Orchestrate HR sued its former employee, Anthony Trombetta and his new employer, The Borden-Perlman Insurance Agency, Inc., for claims arising from a non-compete agreement. Mr. Trombetta’s lawyer asked Plaintiff’s lawyer if she could contact certain employees, who no longer worked for Orchestrate. The Plaintiff’s lawyer said no. Defendant’s lawyer contacted them anyway. Plaintiff moved for sanctions. The court found that no disciplinary or ethical rule prohibits a lawyer from contacting a former employee. The court noted this finding applies to management as well as lower ranking employees.

But, because the attorney violated her agreement not to contact the witnesses, the court still sanctioned the lawyer and her client. The court ruled that certain information must be provided to the Plaintiffs and he ordered the parties to confer regarding how much would be necessary for an award of attorney’s fees.