robinsloth.bsky.social
Labor lawyer (not your lawyer), not providing legal advice (or any advice). SF by way of Chicago. She/her
864 posts
718 followers
826 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
But of course, "Supreme Court holds that the same test applies to gay and straight plaintiffs claiming sexual orientation discrimination" with a picture of Title VII would generate much less outrage or interaction.
comment in response to
post
*Correction: four other circuits, so five total (6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, DC)
But the Court did not address the merits of Ames's claim that she suffered "anti-straight discrimination" at all.
It's good to report on more technical statutory cases, but this framing implies an opinion that no one wrote!
comment in response to
post
Hard to tell why she waited (could be many reasons), but the NYC media narratives do fixate on the last shiny thing, so there is some benefit to acting near the election.
E.g. Adams surged at the right time to be painted as the main alternative when Yang finally stopped getting all the press.
comment in response to
post
That's the worst!
I just ran into it for a non-SCOTUS case withiut the benefit of Oyez, and after several consultations, the strategy was 1) use other cases if possible, 2) use a shorthand of "the [subject] case" (which was luckily distinct), before 3) just go ahead and butcher it
comment in response to
post
Bluesky needs a way to pin another person's post. This is a timeless feeling
comment in response to
post
Importantly, we got better! I first read that story on a wall display at the courthouse where we most recently successfully convicted a governor.
comment in response to
post
My favorite Illinois governor story is that one of the first to be indicted for corruption was tried and acquitted
...and then 9 of his jurors got government jobs.
comment in response to
post
Okay, I won't have false hope, but can I still think wistfully about how hilarious it would be? Because I'd laugh for hours
comment in response to
post
The AI models also don't provide any way to find their sources (for any particular answer or generally with their training data).
That's the opposite of Wikipedia, which links to sources, even if people often don't click through. Some do, and can double-check the content
comment in response to
post
Yeah, those responses are wild. I generally don't talk to people sitting next to me on planes, but I don't mind if someone wants to chat briefly.
Plus, I have some amusing anecdotes of absurd things ppl said to me on the plane (or long train or bus ride)
comment in response to
post
Judges get to drive the obvious points home very very thoroughly in the absence of page limits. But it seems to be warranted here.
comment in response to
post
That seems right, but I luckily have not run into that problem!
I do think the state and federal rules here might differ a little on this precise question of voluntary disclosure, which is interesting (and of course involves Dershowitz!), but not so much on the inadvertent filing question
comment in response to
post
So the attorney's disclosure of communications is an ethical violation here but does not make it admissible, and does not mean that the client couldn't assert the privilege if someone tried to question the lawyer. (Work product is in the Code of Civil Procedure and operates a little differently)
comment in response to
post
Thanks!
I'm also realizing my intuition is partly b/c I'm in CA, where attorney-client privilege is in Evidence Code 912 & 954, and "a waiver of the right of a particular joint holder of the privilege to claim the privilege does not affect the right of another joint holder to claim the privilege."
comment in response to
post
Do you have a cite that an attorney can waive attorney-client privilege on behalf of a current client if called to testify? That seems contrary to my recollection of the rules and intuition, but to be fair I've never had it come up.
comment in response to
post
Yes, I think that's right here.
Some of the discussion was hypothetical about the second part of the memo, which could arguably be used to show pretext if DoT tried to shift to that approach. The pretext also seems clear enough without the memo, but just speculating
comment in response to
post
Maybe something analogous in the "file left on the train/in the restaurant" type context? The facts would have be specific so might be hard to find something exactly on point where the press picks it up
comment in response to
post
Right--you'd have to show that the press meaningfully changed the standards for inadvertent disclosure, and I don't think it would.
comment in response to
post
But the client holds the privilege? So even if the lawyer disclosed in the press, it's not coming in absent specified exceptions
comment in response to
post
Some is, and some would depend on who holds the privilege, right? If a government lawyer discloses privileged info to the press, I'm not actually sure that litigants can use it. The press article is not evidence, and you can't depose the lawyer and ask
comment in response to
post
Yeah, no one wants a rule that immediately calling the clerk isn't sufficient to rectify inadvertent disclosure.
It might be different if this was a smoking gun doc from DoT, but SDNY saying "your case sucks" seems less useful to MTA at this stage (tho if DoT follows the advice part, who knows)
comment in response to
post
Even here, I don't think the judge is going to say that the government waived privilege such that New York can introduce the memo for any evidentiary purpose.
So everyone proceeds like it was clawed back and they didn't read it, but absolutely read it and knows how weak the arguments are
comment in response to
post
Also if you don't so flagrantly break the law, any accidentally filed memos aren't so hilariously blunt about how terrible your arguments are
comment in response to
post
It does seem ironic that what she was supposed to file was basically "is there more justification for this DoT action in the admin record?"
And in a way the filed memo did answer the question: No. This was likely arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional
comment in response to
post
Yeah, I do still have some horrified sympathy for the specific lawyer here (and deleted a post with the docket entry text as it used her name)
But given the current context, there's inevitable schadenfreude. Stop doing illegal things! Then there won't be memos this bad, at least!
comment in response to
post
Okay, a little more sleuthing shows that the gov't had until today to "inform the Court ... whether they anticipate the administrative record to include any documents other than Secretary Duffy's [Feb 19] letter."
That's what they meant to file (maybe with a letter for the record). They failed.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, this seems like the best read.
But NY's attorneys filed the same attached letter (dated 4/21) as 64-1, and the text of dkt 65 mentions a 4/20 letter as Exhibit A. So not sure if that was a typo or they also meant to file a different document at 65-1.
comment in response to
post
Howell - explanation is in the revocation order, if you want the number, it's number
Lawson - the essential factor in the security clearance is trust in the holder
Howell - and 40 million in legal services is enough to make the president trust the firm?
comment in response to
post
Some courts require informal discovery conferences or evidence of a long meet and confer process before taking up discovery disputes. Others send parties to a magistrate first.
Judge Xinis just ruled on every objection and gave the parties a day to supplement. This is phenomenal and lightning fast
comment in response to
post
This is an AI-in-law approach I hadn't even contemplated. Not just AI judges but *specific* AI judges.
AI Boasberg gives a fake quote angry at the administration. AI Jones lists fake tweets from prominent law professors. AI Thomas randomly generates citations to prior Thomas dissents.
comment in response to
post
Did someone make an AI Boasberg?!
Or is that just a generic federal judge image?
comment in response to
post
*Laughs in WordPerfect*