The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times

Lawyers Saddle Up for Bike to Work Day

Cyclists fill Freedom Plaza in downtown Washington.

More than 14,000 bicyclists—including a few lawyers—saddled up for Washington's annual bike to work day.

The event is meant to encourage cyclists of all skill levels to commute by bike and raise awareness about biking. There are more than 70 pit stops, scattered across D.C., Maryland and Virginia, for the riders.

T. Scott Thompson, a communications partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, has been commuting to work via bicycle from Arlington, Va. for the past 12 years. Thompson, who was a competitive cyclist in college, said a couple of co-workers spurred him to start commuting by bike in 2001. After about a month, he was hooked.

D.C. Court: Judges Can Investigate Juror Racial Bias

Judges confronted with allegations of racial or ethnic bias among jurors are allowed to investigate the claims, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled yesterday. The opinion created a new exception to case law historically barring judges from questioning jurors about their process.

Whether judges can probe racial or ethnic bias among jurors after a verdict is an issue that's divided federal courts, according to the opinion, which was written by Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby. The three-judge panel found a juror's allegation of racist statements made by another juror wasn't evidence of "extraneous influence" on a verdict – a standard for examining juror behavior – but was still serious enough to raise constitutional concerns.

"The insidiousness of racial or ethnic bias is therefore distinguishable from other forms of juror misconduct or incompetence," Blackburne-Rigsby wrote. "[W]e are unwilling to rigidly bind the discretion of trial judges to prevent further inquiry where it may be necessary to ensure that a defendant's constitutional rights to a fair and impartial trial and jury are not jeopardized by racial or ethnic bias."

Unsealed Opinion Offers Few Clues on Mayoral Probe

Updated at 4:31 p.m.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today unsealed a ruling in a dispute that features a prominent Washington businessman who’s caught up in an investigation of corruption in the 2010 mayoral campaign.

Jeffrey Thompson, who has not been charged with a crime, is one of several individuals under scrutiny for possible campaign finance violations during Mayor Vincent Gray's 2010 mayoral run; Gray (D) has not been charged with a crime. Thompson is being investigated in connection with an unlawful $650,000 "shadow campaign" that supported Gray.

Thompson appealed a trial judge's order rejecting his challenge to the government's plan to review evidence seized last year from his home and office. The redacted opinion didn't offer new information about the case or the status of the grand jury investigation. But the decision did include a few hints as to Thompson's legal defense strategies, at least in the minds of the judges. (The opinion doesn’t mention Thompson by name, but he was identified as the subject of the proceedings in trial court documents.)

Senate Judiciary Approves Sri Srinivasan for D.C. Circuit

Updated 3:51 p.m.

The Senate Judiciary Committee gave unanimous approval to Sri Srinivasan to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, clearing the way for him to be the first new judge on the panel since 2006.

Srinivasan’s nomination now heads to the Senate for a full vote. Srinivasan, if he’s confirmed, would fill one of four vacancies on the D.C. Circuit. Despite the 18-0 vote of the committee, Republicans have signaled they’re not interested in adding any more judges to the appeals court.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced legislation in April that would eliminate three spots on the D.C. Circuit. Other Republicans, including Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), have signed onto the legislation. The D.C. Circuit would lose three judge positions under the plan.

D.C. Superior Court Nominees Testify in the Senate

Two lawyers who spent most of their careers on opposite sides of a courtroom testified today before a U.S. Senate committee in the hopes of serving together on the District of Columbia Superior Court bench.

Washington solo practitioner Michael O'Keefe, whose practice is mostly in criminal defense and family law, and Robert Okun, chief of the special proceedings division at the U.S. attorney's office in D.C., were nominated by the White House in March. At today's hearing, they pitched their extensive history practicing in Superior Court and experience working with a variety of litigants, including those without a lawyer.

Neither nominee faced criticism. Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who chairs the subcommittee overseeing District of Columbia affairs, said they were "well-qualified" to serve. The nominees did face questions from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the subcommittee's ranking member, about their views on the city's gun laws, which have been the subject of legal challenges; both said they would abide by rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Q&A: Latham & Watkins' Alice Fisher

In the 35 years since Latham & Watkins established its Washington presence, the firm has grown from an outpost to one of the 10 largest offices in the District. At the helm is Alice Fisher, managing partner of Washington office since March 2011.

A common thread among many of the attorneys in the office is that they have served in various high-level government positions. Fisher is no exception. She joined the firm in 1996, and decamped for the Department of Justice in July 2001 to serve as the deputy assistant attorney general of the Criminal Division. She rejoined the firm in October 2003, only to leave once more for Main Justice to serve as assistant attorney general of the Criminal Division in September 2005. She returned a second time to the firm in 2008.

Fisher focuses on white-collar matters, particularly criminal and internal investigations. Her clients include the NCAA, the Hospital Corporation of America and Eli Lilly & Co. Legal Times sat down with Fisher earlier this month to discuss firm business, the DOJ Criminal Division and diversity in the legal community.

AG Holder ‘Confident’ DOJ Followed Rules in AP Phone Review

Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. revealed Tuesday he was not involved with a controversial decision to subpoena Associated Press phone records as part of an investigation into a leak of classified information.

Holder, addressing reporters at a press conference about a health care fraud enforcement matter, said he recused from the investigation after the FBI interviewed him during the course of the leak probe. Deputy Attorney General James Cole made the decision to subpoena toll records from 20 phone lines of reporters and editors at the Associated Press.

Holder, however, stopped short of criticizing the decision during a flurry of questions from reporters. He said he was confident the issuance of the subpoena was in accordance to Justice Department guidelines concerning the collection of evidence from reporters.

"I'm not familiar with all that went in to the formulation of the subpoena," Holder said. "But I’m confident that the people who are involved in this investigation, who I've known for a great umber of years and who I've worked with for a great number of years, followed all of the appropriate Justice Department regulations and did things according to DOJ rules."

After Holder's remarks, the Justice Department issued a letter from Cole, to the AP chief executive, Gary Pruitt, that tried to allay concerns the department overstepped its authority.

"We understand your position that these subpoenas should have been more narrowly drawn, but in fact, consistent with Department policy, the subpoenas were limited in both time and scope," Cole said.

Cole noted that the subpoenas, which cover a two-month period in 2012, did not seek the content of any call. He said the "records have been closely held and reviewed solely for the purposes of this ongoing criminal investigation. The records have not been and will not be provided for use in any other investigations."

The Associated Press flap comes amid reports that the IRS had used political criteria to target conservative groups for extra scrutiny on applications from tax-exempt organizations. At Tuesday’s press conference, Holder announced that he had ordered a criminal investigation Friday into whether the IRS had broken any laws.

Holder also revealed Tuesday that the White House and Justice Department are looking at candidates for a senior official on the detention base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, part of a broader effort to close the controversial base that houses terrorism suspects and others.

Check back at NLJ.com later today for more on the Justice Department’s secret review of the Associated Press phone records.

Report: 'Confusion' About D.C. Post-Arrest Procedures

Updated at 3:36 p.m.

A committee of prosecutors, defense lawyers and law enforcement officials are calling on the District of Columbia Council to reform laws surrounding post-arrest procedures, identifying "confusion" among the public and within the criminal justice system.

A report published by the Council for Court Excellence recommended legislative changes that would clarify eligibility for certain-post arrest options and urged law enforcement agencies to create "plain English" descriptions of those options for arrestees.

"It puts the public on notice in a little clearer way: for these offenses, here are the potential options," said Cliff Keenan, director of the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia and chair of the group that put together the report.

D.C. Circuit Weighs Child Pornography Restitution Case

The thorny question of how to calculate restitution to victims of child pornography came back before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week, with the U.S. Department of Justice defending a proposed formula.

Friday's arguments marked the second time the court considered the case of Michael Monzel. Monzel pleaded guilty to one count each of distribution and possession of child pornography. A trial judge ordered Monzel to pay $5,000 to a victim known by the pseudonym "Amy," but on remand from the D.C. Circuit reduced the award to zero, finding the government didn't produce evidence on how much of Amy's losses he caused.

The government appealed, arguing U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler was wrong to reduce the award and that its proposed formula – dividing a victim's total losses by the number of individuals found criminally responsible and then adjusting based on certain factors – represented a fair solution. Monzel's lawyer, Federal Public Defender A.J. Kramer, said the formula was arbitrary and that Kessler was right to reduce the award after the government presented no evidence linking his client to specific losses.

Age Discrimination Suit Against Georgetown Law Dismissed

Former North Dakota Attorney General Nicholas Spaeth has lost his age discrimination lawsuit against Georgetown University Law Center. A Washington federal judge ruled yesterday that Georgetown presented non-discriminatory reasons – chiefly, Spaeth's lack of academic scholarship – for rejecting his application for a tenure-track teaching job.

After a long career practicing law in government and private practice, Spaeth began pursuing law school teaching posts around 2009. He sued Georgetown and five other schools in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after he failed to get an interview through the Association of American Law Schools faculty recruitment conference in 2010.

In yesterday's opinion, Huvelle found the record was clear that academic scholarship was a "primary concern" for Georgetown in weighing applicants. Spaeth failed to list any relevant publications in his application, she wrote, rebuffing Spaeth's argument that the focus on scholarship was a pretext for age-based bias. Even if Spaeth made it to the interview stage, she found, he failed to show he would have been hired over the three applicants who did get teaching jobs that year.