Lawyers are not supposed to make things worse for their clients and we definitely are not supposed to wager our law licenses on a particular outcome.  Yet, in the Paul Manafort legal melodrama, that seems to be exactly what has occurred. Paul Manafort entered into a plea bargain agreement with the Special Prosecutor, Robert Mueller. Yet, at the same time, his lawyers also talked with the Trump legal team. Rudy Giuliani said the Manafort lawyers discussed the Mueller probe with Trump’s lawyers. They gained valuable insights, added the former New York City mayor. That is a remarkable admission.

Mr. Giuliani said the Trump lawyers “grilled” Kevin Downing, lawyer for Mr. Manafort, about whether the President knew about the 2016 meeting with the Russians at Trump Tower. See Axios report. And, in fact, that was one of the areas of questions posed to the President by the Mueller team.

Mr. Manafort’s lawyers engaged in those discussions with persons who could grant Manafort a pardon. That suggests the Manafort lawyers were motivated by a desire for a pardon. That suggests the President and his legal team may have suborned perjury. Suborning perjury means to bribe or somehow induce a person to commit perjury. It is a crime. Legal experts have expressed surprise that the lawyers for Manaofort and Mueller would put their law licenses at risk that way. See The Hill news report.

And, of course, at about the same time as all this information emerges, Pres. Trump said he would not rule out granting Manafort a pardon, making it clear a pardon was possible. The president has in effect dangled a dog bone of a pardon before the panting Manafort. Yet, Pres. Trump’s lawyers must realize how that looks. A good prosecutor, even one without the competence of Bob Mueller, would almost certainly look into what was said between the Manafort and Trump legal team. As a class, us lawyers hate to become witnesses. As a witness, we become burdened with a conflict of interest and must withdraw from the legal matter. The lawyers for Pres. Trump have remarkably exposed themselves to legal liability on so many levels. They have likely made themselves witnesses to possible perjury.

Regardless of what was actually discussed, these developments have opened the door to deeper, more extensive investigation. Like doctors, lawyers are expected to if nothing else, do no harm to your client (or to your law license). Yet, these lawyers appear to have done exactly that, harm to the President’s case and to their own law licenses. This is a bizarre turn of events.


Mandatory arbitration clauses have become an accepted part of many contracts, when we buy cars, open bank accounts and when we apply for jobs. The mandatory arbitration clauses block employees and consumers from their day in court. But, those clauses are increasingly under attack, according to a recent story in the San Antonio Express News. Arbitration clauses are criticized by the #metoo movement because they are used to hide sexual harassment.

They were also used by Wells Fargo to shield complaints by customers when the bank abused customer data and opened bogus accounts. One state, California, passed a law preventing financial services companies from using arbitration clauses in cases of fraud.

Some companies are re-thinking the use of mandatory arbitration clauses altogether. Microsoft has dropped mandatory arbitration clauses in cases of sexual harassment. Some lawyers here in Texas are advising their corporate clients that mandatory arbitration clauses are not wise. One Dallas lawyer told about a client who lost an arbitration with a supplier. The company then had no avenue for appeal. The losing company was then hit with an arbitration bill of $200,000. Yes, in arbitration, the loser generally pays the expenses of the arbitration. AAA has rules for employment arbitrations in which the employee will not pay the expenses even if s/he loses. But, in most arbitrations, the loser pays the expenses of the arbitration. We tend to think of a lawsuit being free, more or less. The loser in a lawsuit will not be expected to pay the salary of the judge, the court reporter, the court clerk and the bailiff. The losing party will not have to pay for the use of the court room. But, in most arbitrations, someone has to pay those expenses.

One Houston lawyer who advises small automobile dealerships advises his clients to avoid arbitration clauses. He says in the judicial process, you know what to expect. With an arbitrator, you never know quite what to expect. See San Antonio Express News report.


There are some places a woman should not work. Places that are so offensive, most women would not survive long enough to make the job worthwhile. A Congressman’s office should not be one of those places. Yet, Congressman Farenthold’s office has been very disrespectful toward women. Laurene Greene field her lawsuit against the Congressman in 2014. When she filed her suit against the Mr. Farenthold, she accused him of suggesting she participate in threesome with the Congressman and a female lobbyist. In response to the accusation, Mr. Farenthold simply replied the third person was not a lobbyist. Rep. Farenthold had an explosive temper. he would loudly sweep his arm across his desk when angry.

The office refrigerator was filled with beer. Happy hour would begin at 4:30, “beer-thirty,” said his aides. Male and female aides would discuss strip clubs. The female aides would discuss who had sent them pictures of their genitals that day. Talk about female reporter’s breast sizes were common. The talk was lewd, angry at times or simply rude. Congressman Farenthold lead the way in the discussions. The Congressman would often drink to excess. When he would attend government functions, staff would have to accompany him on “redhead patrol,” to keep him out of trouble. He told another aide that he was having sexual fantasies about Ms. Greene. Lauren Greene was then another aide. She complained and was soon afterward fired. See New York Times report.

Prior to becoming a Congressman in 2010, Rep. Farenthold had been a conservative radio talk show host. He would also buy domain names and re-sell them. In 2014, the same year as Ms. Greene’s lawsuit, he sold a domain that included a sexually explicit act in the name. He was photographed at a party wearing a duck print costume standing next to scantily clad women.

Yes, that is a good example of how not to run professional office, that respects the rights of female workers.


In a recent decision, the Western District of Texas granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment in a case alleging discrimination based on gender (male), age (age 55), race (Hispanic) and disability (morbid obesity). In his EEOC complaint, the employee also alleged national origin. As I have mentioned here before, it is very unwise to allege more than one basis of discrimination. It is not impossible that persons would discriminate based on multiple reasons, but it does look like the employee is throwing everything out there that might work. Lawsuits, especially in federal court, need to be based on more than “maybe” reasons. In Beltran v. Union Pacific RR. Co., No. 15-CV-1019 (W.D. Tex. 2017), the plaintiff argued age, national origin (Hispanic, and disability when it responded to the employer’s motion for summary judgment. He argued he had reported racial slurs at work in the past, but provided no details. He pointed out the obvious fact that he was replaced by someone in his 20’s.

But, most of his efforts were devoted to arguing that his disability played a role in his termination. And, that focus largely attacked the drug test to which Mr. Beltran was subjected. The employer argued that Mr. Beltran was  fired because he failed a drug test. The plaintiff responded that prior to his termination, he had passed some 55 drug tests over the prior 4 years. The plaintiff pointed to testimony from a doctor saying that the prescription medication he was taking likely caused a “false positive” on his test. During the lawsuit, the plaintiff moved that the judge allow a re-test of the same sample. The judge ordered the re-test to proceed. The parties knew the re-test could result in the same result, which it did.

Regarding summary judgment, the court noted that it does not matter whether the drug test was valid or not. Even if the third re-test had produced a different result, that would still not create a fact so as to avoid summary judgment. Citing Little v. Republic Ref. Co., Ltd., 924 F.2d 93, 97 (5th Cir. 1991), the court noted that the existence of competing evidence about the objective truth of a fact supporting the employer’s preferred reason does not in itself make it reasonable to believe the employer was not truly motivated by its proffered reason. The plaintiff presented evidence that the doctor certifying the initial drug test had a felony conviction did not create a fact issue either. The court was saying that just because the drug test had issues does not indicate the employer did not sincerely believe the results were genuine. Something more would be needed to show that Union Pacific had doubts about the drug test.

The employee also argued that the employer had shifted its explanation over time. But, said the court, the shift was not perceptible to it. So, the judge granted the motion for summary judgment. See the decision here.

And, we are reminded that it is never wise to allege too many bases for discrimination.

A group calling itself the National Policy Institute at a popular Washington, D.C. restaurant. The owner of Magliano’s Little Italy says he did not know the folks at the NPI would engage in Nazi style salutes. They also proclaimed “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory.” Ok. Well then.

See CBS news report. It is a strange sight to see Americans engaging in Nazi salutes with no trace of a smile in their faces.

The restaurant owner apologized, saying the group made the reservation under a different name. I think this presidency is going to be bumpy ride. Bigotry does not get any bigger than self-styled Nazis.

Threats of a lawsuit are always a little dubious. It is easy to make threats. Filing an actual lawsuit requires much more work. Donald Trump fired off such a threat the day after the New York Times published a piece describing his sexual assault of two women. Mr. Trump’s lawyer threatened to sue the Times for libel. The in-house counsel for the Times quickly fired back with his own letter. But, his lawyer contained actual legal reasoning. Libel, explained the Times‘ lawyer, indicates someone’s reputation has been harmed. The essence of libel is protection of one’s reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his nonconsensual touching of women. Mr. Trump let a radio DJ refer to his daughter as a “piece of ass.” He said publicly that he would walk in on beauty pageant contestants in a state of undress. Several other women, apart form the Times article, have come forward to report on Mr. Trump’s sexual shenanigans. The in-house counsel concluded, this reputation was created by Donald Trump himself through his words and actions. Nothing in the Times article had any effect on the reputation he created.

Exactly. Libel only applies if the reputation has been harmed. If a person proclaims he has robbed stores, then a newspaper article that describes him as a robber does not harm his reputation. It is no wonder that a few lawyers on my Facebook page described the Times response as drafted by a “real” lawyer. Threats to sue only work if they convey some minimal legal ability to follow through. See ABA Bar Journal report.


Andrea Tantaros, has sued Fox News for sexual harassment. I wrote about that suit here. Now, Fox News has asked that her case be sent to arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. In effect, it is asking that her case be sent to the secret, Star chamber of American society. But, in so doing, they first lodge some pretty strong attacks against her. In its motion to refer to arbitration, the news outlet accuses her of not recalling the specific instances of sexual harassment; it claims the men involved all denied her claims; it claims she did not allow Fox News to review the cover of her book before she published it; and it claims her lawsuit is littered with falsehoods. It is ironic that a major employer seeks the privacy of arbitration, but only after first lodging accusations which she can only defend in private. See Vanity Fair report about the allegations against her and the move to arbitration.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who claims to be the toughest sheriff in America, has received the first step in the contempt process of federal court. The court found him in contempt last year. See my prior post about Sheriff Joe here. Judge Snow in Maricopa County, or Phoenix, Arizona, has ordered a re-organization of the internal affairs department at the Sheriff’s office. The Sheriff’s office has already been found in civil contempt. Civil contempt simply means jail time is not an option.

It seems that someone in the internal affairs department kept a set of video tapes showing racial profiling in some traffic stops. Those tapes were expected to be used at trial. But, suddenly, they went missing. Ok.  . .  no one said Sheriff Arpaio is subtle. Of course, hiring a private investigator to investigate Judge Snow’s wife was not subtle other.

Still unresolved is the possibility that the Sheriff and his top aide, Jerry Sheridan, will be found in criminal contempt. They did violate the Judge’s orders. Criminal contempt would involve fines or jail time. See CBS news report.

According to the report, the citizens of Phoenix will have to pay another $13 million over the next year to pay for this case. They have already paid $41 million. All this just so Sheriff Joe can profile Hispanics.

Gretchen Carlson has filed suit against Fox News and Roger Ailes for sex discrimination. Ms. Carlson was Miss America in 1989 and is attractive. In her lawsuit, she accuses Mr. Ailes of ogling her, repeatedly commenting about her legs, and once told her she was sexy but “too much hard work.” Nine months ago, he told her she should have had a sexual relationship with him long ago. Things would have been better for her, he assured, if she had. Mr. Ailes is 76 years old. Ms. Carlson is 50.

As the suit points out, Ms. Carlson anchored her own show until a few weeks ago. She was demoted three years ago from a position as host of the morning show when she complained about sexual harassment. She had apparently complained about one of her co-workers, Steve Doocy, who, she said, condescended toward her and treated her in a sexist way. She should, said Mr. Ailes at the time, learn to get along with “the boys.” Mr. Ailes also accused her at the time of being a “man hater.” See CBS news report. I bet Fox’ lawyer really cringes over that last statement.

An employer should not say things like that. The chief executive officer should not bring sex or gender into a discussion when someone complains about sex harassment. That should be a basic principle for avoiding lawsuits. Sex harassment is subjective. It is hard to show. Mr. Ailes gained nothing by making comments suggesting she was not “one of the boys.” If Fox did not then conduct some sort of investigation about her complaints, it will start out in this lawsuit with a deficit. Sex harassment is hard to prove. Retaliation is much easier. At least so far, Ms. Carlson’s case looks pretty good.


John Owens’ information apparently hit a nerve. Within a day of the news report regarding the AG’s refusal to sue Trump University, Ken Paxton’s office has issued a “cease and desist” letter to Mr. Owens. I wrote about that investigation here. The cease and desist letter warns the former head of the consumer protection division not to use documents from the Trump University investigation. The letter claims the information is privileged and confidential. But, Mr. Owens insisted he has not violated any ethical rules or laws. See San Antonio Express News report.

The Express-News report states that records from investigations are usually public after the investigation has concluded. It is strange that years after the investigation has concluded, someone argues that the records are confidential for some reason. What would be the reason? Trump University is closed. It no longer exists. So, it is quite unlikely it might return to Texas and then be re-investigated. So, the cease and desist letter suggests the real concern is more political than legal.