The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times

Dow Lohnes Hired to Represent Fox Affiliates Group

Washington-based firm Dow Lohnes has been hired by the Board of Governors of the Fox Affiliate Association as counsel.

The firm will advise the association on legal, regulatory and policy issues. The association is a membership organization for independently owned affiliates of the Fox Television network.

“With the ever changing relationship between the Fox Network and its affiliates coupled with the paradigm shift in the industry, the board felt strongly that it needed legal representation to help navigate the sea change,” Brian Brady, chairman of the association's board, said in a statement. “The future of the broadcast industry hinges on a meaningful relationship between the network and the affiliates so both can grow and prosper while remaining relevant to the viewer.”

The network has been asking affiliates to give up a certain percentage of retransmission fees paid to them by cable operators.

“The Fox affiliates have played a critical role in the success of the Fox Network, due in part to the strength of the Fox Affiliate Association,” Kevin Latek, a partner in the firm’s communications practice said in a statement.

Obama: Consumer Chief Will Counter Corporate Lawyers

President Barack Obama introduced former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray today as his choice to lead the new consumer protection agency, saying Cordray would be an advocate for people who can't afford to hire "teams of lawyers from blue-chip law firms."

Obama and Cordray appeared together at the White House alongside Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law School professor who as an Obama adviser has worked to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Some Democratic congressmen and consumer lobbying groups had hoped Obama would nominate Warren to head up the bureau, but Warren has praised Cordray’s selection.

Cordray, who now faces the Senate confirmation process, served as Ohio’s attorney general as a Democrat from 2009 until this year. He lost reelection in November. Previously, he served as Ohio’s treasurer and as its solicitor general. He clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for two terms in the 1980s, for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy.

In brief remarks, Obama praised Cordray’s qualifications and said Cordray would help to simplify the financial system for consumers.

“They shouldn’t have to be a corporate lawyer in order to be able to read something they’re signing to take out a mortgage or to get a credit card,” Obama said, in one of a few pointed comments about corporate lawyers. He said that middle-class families, unlike financial institutions, do not benefit from having “teams of lawyers from blue-chip law firms.”

Obama also said the 2008 financial crisis occurred in part because of lax regulation, and he said he would fight against attempts to change the 2010 regulatory overhaul known as the Dodd-Frank Act. “There is an army of lobbyists and lawyers right now working to water down the protections and the reforms that we passed,” Obama said. “We’re not going to let that happen.”

Cordray made no remarks, but in March 2010, he appeared in Washington with other state attorneys general to support the idea of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He compared the idea to the creation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1972. “What we have now seen, in this generation, is that financial products can be just as hazardous to the health and safety and well-being of households as other products, and we need protection at the federal level,” Cordray said then.

Since leaving his Ohio post, Cordray has been the bureau’s head of enforcement, as “one of the first people” Warren recruited, Obama said.

Obama took note of one other piece of Cordray’s background: He was a five-time champion on the television quiz show Jeopardy! Obama quipped, “All his answers at his confirmation hearing will be in the form of a question.”

Prosecutors, Defense Lawyers Question Potential Jurors In Clemens Case

Prosecutors and defense lawyers in the Roger Clemens case today continued examining prospective jurors, exploring their professional and family life, their interest in baseball and their thoughts on whether Congress should play any role in policing drug use in major league sports.

Four prospective jurors were questioned for an hour this morning in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton. The judge swiftly excused one woman from service when she said that Clemens was probably guilty because he was charged with a crime.

Clemens, in court this morning with his lawyers, including Russell Hardin Jr. of Houston, is accused of lying to Congress under oath when he denied ever taking steroids. The former pitching star is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.

One prospective juror, a lawyer for the Federal Communication Commission, was asked to return to court at 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, the time Walton said he’s hoping to have jury selection wrapped up.

The prospective juror, who said she once worked at Kirkland & Ellis, is employed in the FCC’s video services division and handles television licensing issues. She has worked at the agency since 1994.

She said she is close friends with the wife of Zuckerman Spaeder partner William Taylor III, who is representing former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The potential juror’s husband is a solo practitioner who represents radio stations before the FCC.

Hardin, addressing the juror, expressed the general concern attorneys have over whether lawyers who serve on juries tend to control deliberation by imposing their knowledge of the law on others. “I don’t practice this kind of law,” the woman told Hardin. She said she was once a foreperson in a civil action in D.C. Superior Court.

Another prospective juror, who served as a criminal defense investigator in Superior Court for eight years, was also questioned this morning.

The woman said she did not have any negative experiences with law enforcement officials or prosecutors.

Hardin questioned the juror over whether she would be able to treat Clemens fairly even thought he made a “good deal of money” playing baseball. The woman said she could be impartial.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Durham asked another prospective juror, a corporate compliance official for a software company, whether she thinks Congress should play any role in policing drug use in sports.

The woman said she was interested whether there were any “mechanisms” in place to monitor drug use prior to Congress jumping into the fray. Judge Walton said any such internal mechanism was not a part of the prosecution of Clemens. The woman replied that said she understood.

Movie Critical of Trial Lawyers Is Set for Debut

A television movie scheduled to premier on Monday will highlight some of the most embarrassing moments of the past decade for the nation's trial lawyers.

InJustice recounts the stories of several nationally prominent members of the plaintiffs’ bar who made millions in litigation before falling from success in criminal cases. The movie, with financing help from the legal arm of the business-backed U.S. Chamber of Commerce, goes so far as to label the tactics of some plaintiffs’ lawyers a “cancer” on the nation.

The movie is set to debut two weeks after another legal documentary, the pro-plaintiff film Hot Coffee, appeared on television. The timing appears to be coincidental because both works have been years in the making, but they’re likely to serve as counterpoints for each other as trial lawyers and businesses contend for the public’s support.

InJustice is set to air at 10 p.m. on Monday on Reelz, a cable movie channel, though its creators are hoping to make it more widely available in the future.

Executive producer Brian Kelly said in an interview that he wanted to make a movie that focused on the crimes that some trial lawyers were committing as they tried to put together cases. InJustice zeroes in on Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, who made millions in tobacco litigation before being convicted in a Mississippi judicial bribery scheme, and on Milberg Weiss partners William Lerach and Melvyn Weiss, two famed securities class-action lawyers who pleaded guilty in a case about kickbacks to plaintiffs.

“If these are three of the most influential trial lawyers in the country, and they do end up in jail, what is wrong?” Kelly said.

Kelly said he knew little about those criminal cases until he began making InJustice about three years ago. Other things inspired him to pursue the project: a Reader’s Digest story about failed silicosis litigation, in which medical diagnoses were retracted after fraud allegations, and Kelly’s own experience with the legal system when he tried to evict a tenant who then sued him in Maryland state court.

“What they did successfully was just keep me in the court system. I won, but it cost me $80,000,” he said.

The movie includes clips from interviews with a handful of well-known corporate defense lawyers, including John Beisner, head of the mass torts practice at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and Philip Howard, a partner at Covington & Burling.

Click here to see the movie’s trailer.

Judicial Nominations Pops Up as Issue in Presidential Race

The presidential campaign of Republican Tim Pawlenty is out with an advertisement this week that touts his record appointing conservative judges to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The mention in the 30-second ad is brief, but it makes Pawlenty an early advocate on the issue of judicial nominations during the 2012 election cycle.

Carrie Severino, who praised the ad on the National Review Online’s Bench Memos blog, wrote that it “bodes well for what he might do for the federal courts if he were elected president…. Let’s hope the other Republican hopefuls won’t be far behind.” Severino is chief counsel of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network.

Pawlenty mentions four issues in the ad: government spending, unions, judicial nominations and health care. He says he “appointed a conservative supreme court” and ends the ad with, “If I can do it in Minnesota, we can do it in Washington.”

Pawlenty left office in January after eight years as Minnesota’s governor. His final appointment to the court, David Stras, is a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas who taught at the University of Minnesota Law School.

Michael Jackson's Former Manager Pleads Guilty in Tax Case

The former general manager for the late pop idol Michael Jackson pleaded guilty in Washington federal district court today to charges she failed to file federal and District income tax returns.

Raymone Bain, a resident of the District, faces a maximum of a year in prison and a $100,000 fine for the federal charge, six months in prison, and a $5,000 fine for the D.C. criminal violation, the U.S. Justice Department said. U.S. Magistrate Alan Kay scheduled sentencing for Aug. 31.

Bain of Washington’s Davis, Bain & Associates, a public relations firm, became the personal general manager for Jackson in 2006. DOJ officials said Bain was responsible for the daily operations of the Michael Jackson Company, including financial, public relations and marketing tasks. She received $30,000 monthly as general manager and president.

Bain received a law degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1984 but was not a licensed attorney, according to court records.

Prosecutors alleged Bain did not pay income tax from 2006 to 2008. The government estimated the tax loss between $200,000 and $400,000. In 2007 and in 2008, Bain, according to court records, requested an extension to file U.S. income tax returns.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan Menzer and DOJ Tax Division trial attorney Karen Kelly were not immediately reached for comment this morning on the plea deal. Kelly is the assistant chief for the division’s Northern Criminal Enforcement Section.

“Bain well knew, and was fully aware that the law required she file federal tax returns and DC tax returns each year, but nevertheless failed to file,” prosecutors said in court papers. A copy of the plea agreement is here.

Bain’s attorney, Frederick Cooke Jr. of Washington’s Rubin, Winston, Diercks, Harris & Cooke, was not immediately reached for comment. Bain also was not reached for comment.

The Washington Post in 2006 wrote this profile of Bain, describing her as a "master of the care and coddling of famous folk, especially those who happen to find themselves in exceedingly hot water."

The death of Jackson in June 2009 left behind multiple lawsuits involving the pop music star. In one suit filed before Jackson's death, Bain demanded $44 million she claimed under a contract with Jackson. A trial judge in May 2010 sided with the Jackson estate. Bain's lawyers are fighting to get the judgment set aside.

Restrictive Rules Announced for Federal Courts Camera Experiment

The upcoming experiment with camera coverage of federal district courts will be governed by a restrictive set of rules announced Wednesday by a committee of the Judicial Conference. The three-year experiment begins July 18 at 14 district courts around the country.

The Judicial Conference voted last September to launch the pilot project testing the impact of camera access in federal district courts. The Conference ran a similar experiment in the early 1990s with generally positive results. But then the excesses of the O.J. Simpson trial set back the cause for cameras in federal courts for more than a decade. The new experiment comes after prodding by Congress, with an assist from some federal judges who see a need for the courts to tap technology in the interest of educating the public.

Cameras have been allowed in almost all states at one or more levels, in some cases for decades. The federal appeals courts have been allowed to permit broadcast coverage at their discretion, but only the 2nd and 9th have voted to do so. The Supreme Court's own ban on cameras continues without any prospect for change.

Even as outlined last September, the federal experiment at the district court level seemed like a limited one. Video would be allowed only in civil proceedings in which both parties consented. In the two federal appeals courts where cameras are allowed, the parties have no such veto power.

But the fine details of the experiment were left to the conference's committee on court administration and court management. Those were announced today, imposing even more limitations on the experiment -- some of which echo rules in state courts, and others that do not.

Under the new rules, no live broadcasts will be permitted, but the video will be posted at some later point on the federal courts' central Web site as well as the local court's site, at the court's discretion. It is entirely up to the judge which cases are recorded, and "it is not intended that a grant or denial ... be subject to appellate review," the guidelines state. The judge must inform court participants that a proceeding is being recorded, and can impose additional restrictions on the recording.

The cameras must be under the complete control of the court, according to the rules, and cameras either owned by the court or a contractor with the court will be used. No photos of jurors, jury voir dire, or sidebar conferences will be permitted.

What's more, the presiding judge must have the ability to switch off the coverage at any time, and can do so to protect the rights of parties and witnesses, the dignity of the court, or "for any reason considered necessary or appropriate" by the judge.

C-SPAN general counsel Bruce Collins criticized the guidelines for giving judges and the parties too much power over the process. "The judges are showing no courage in this, compared to the states," said Collins. "We ought to be able to cover court proceedings the way we cover congressional hearings. What are they afraid of?"

Morning Wrap

Japanese Internment Cases: We just posted our story on an unusual statement made on the Justice Department's blog by Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal on Friday discussing the mistakes his office made during World War II in defending the Japanese-American internment program before the Supreme Court.

Republican Race: It was a busy weekend in presidential politics, with Mitch Daniels out, Tim Pawlenty in, and Republicans in general recalibrating their views on the candidates. Politico covers it all, including a look at the Daniels family veto.

Online Libel: A New York appellate court ruled that an online critique of Sandals, the resort operator, was opinion, not libel, in a decision that also asserts that readers give less credence to emails and online comments than other communications. Sibling publication New York Law Journal has the story.

TV Justice: New York Times columnist David Carr surveys the landscape of television treatment of true crime, from Nancy Grace to "America's Most Wanted."

Prop 8 and the Polls: With several polls now showing majority support for same-sex marriage, the Los Angeles Times considers the possible impact of public opinion on judges ruling on the issue. (Hat tip to How Appealing.)

Mets and Madoff: In this week's New Yorker, writer Jeffrey Toobin takes a long look at New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon, his relationship with Bernie Madoff, and the future of the Mets.

Morning Wrap

Inside Trader: After lengthy deliberations, a Manhattan jury found hedge fund mogul Raj Rajaratnam guilty on all counts of conspiracy and securities fraud. He faces upwards of 15 years in prison, according to this story in sibling publication New York Law Journal.

Demjanjuk Guilty: In the latest chapter of a 30-year legal battle, a German court has just found John Demjanjuk guilty for the role he played in a Nazi death camp during the Holocaust. The 91-year-old former Ohio auto worker was sentenced to five years in prison, MSNBC reports.

Revolving Door: FCC commissioner Meredith Baker is leaving the commission to become a lobbyist for Comcast, just four months after voting to approve Comcast's merger with NBC Universal. The New York Times has the story here.

McCain on Torture: Former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, also a former prisoner of war, writes today in The Washington Post that the capture and death of Osama bin Laden should not be used as vindication or justification for the use of torture in questioning detainees. "This is a moral debate. It is about who we are," the Arizona Republican wrote.

E-mails at the Heart of Suit Against MSNBC Personality Ed Schultz

A breach of contract lawsuit filed yesterday against MSNBC host Ed Schultz aims to prove that a series of e-mails between Schultz and an aggrieved NBC employee over the development of Schultz's television career constituted a binding contract.

Schultz, the host of MSNBC's "The Ed Show," is being sued by NBC broadcast engineer Michael Queen in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Queen claims (PDF) that he came up with the idea for Schultz to move from radio to television and worked with him to secure a deal, only to have Schultz renege on promises to pay him 25 percent of the profits.

As Queen notes in his complaint, however, the two never signed a formal contract. Instead, Queen is arguing that a series of e-mails the two exchanged, along with verbal agreements, constituted the terms.

Schultz’s attorney, Los Angeles-based solo practitioner Jeffrey Landa, said in a phone interview today that the e-mails have nothing to do with Schultz’s MSNBC show, and that he plans to file cross-claims against Queen for what Landa claims is ongoing harassment. Landa said Queen initially misrepresented his identity to Schultz, and that Queen only worked with Schultz on the idea for a local Sunday morning talk show, not the MSNBC program.

“They’ve been threatening lawsuits for almost three years now,” Landa said. “We’re going to aggressively defend this case. We’re not going to settle.”

James Holm, a producer for Schultz’s radio show, referred a request for comment to Landa.

Queen is being represented by Charlottesville, Va.-based attorney Mark Lane and Washington attorney Frazer Walton Jr., both solo practitioners. Lane, in a phone interview this afternoon, said the e-mails show that Schultz had promised to pay Queen at the very least as his agent, and at the most as a partner in putting the show together.

“It is true that Mr. Schultz…never signed a contract,” Lane said. “That was the problem. He kept on agreeing, over and over, to the terms…email after email. But he wouldn’t sign anything.”

According to Queen’s complaint, the two first met in 2007, when Queen presented Schultz with his idea for a television show. Queen says he worked with Schultz on the concept and pitched the idea to various network executives, but ultimately was turned down. He also notes that he served partly as Schultz’s agent, in one case helping Schultz find a home in Washington.

From 2007 to 2009, Queen claims he exchanged a series of e-mails with Schultz that confirmed he would be paid 25 percent of profits if Schultz got his television show. In March 2009, Queen states that MSNBC reached out to Schultz directly to offer him a show. After that point, Schultz cut off all contact, according to the complaint.

The case is before U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell.