The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times

More Mayer Brown Legal Woes

Though perhaps not the litigious mayhem of the $54 million pants guy, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw is certainly getting its pants sued off. According to the New York Law Journal, a private equity group sued Mayer Brown last week for securities fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and—as the cherry on the lawsuit sundae—RICO violations. The suit alleges that the firm helped cover up fraudulent activity at Refco Inc., a now bankrupt brokerage firm. Check out this Legal Times article for more insight into the Chicago-based firm and its current struggles.

U.S. Attorney Firings

What does an unsolved murder have to do with the firing of a U.S. attorney? Quite possibly everything, writes Jeffrey Toobin.

Vick's Co-defendant Pleads Guilty

In another bad turn for Michael Vick, one of his co-defendants pleaded guilty to dogfighting conspiracy charges in a plea deal with federal prosecutors this morning.

Tony Taylor, 34, told U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson that he's not expecting leniency during his sentencing, which is scheduled for December 14, according to the AP

He faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for helping Vick find the Surry County property where he allegedly hosted "Bad Newz Kennels." He'll probably see only a fraction of that five years, promises or no promises. Taylor is also accused of purchasing pit bulls and killing at least two of them.

McNulty Joins Baker & McKenzie

This just in — Paul McNulty announced his next career move this morning. The former deputy attorney general has joined Baker & McKenzie as a partner in the firm’s D.C. office and will have a hand in a slew of practices: business crimes and investigations, corporate compliance and risk management, and global dispute resolution groups.

The trajectory of McNulty’s career follows almost entirely an arch of government service, with stints in the House Judiciary Committee, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia, and various appointments in the Department of Justice. His last fling with the DOJ was his year and a bit stint as the deputy attorney general where he crafted the McNulty Memo and got an up close look at the U.S. attorney debacle.

His February testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the firing of nine prosecutors reportedly angered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and pushed Congress into a full court press on the issue. His testimony pointed to White House involvement and political motivations behind the personnel decisions. 


He announced his resignation in May citing the “financial realities of college-age children.”

The Morning Wrap

Generally Dishonest: U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has had “trouble with the truth” for more than a decade, apparently.

Legal Green Zone: In Baghdad, justice unfolds behind barricades. The Rule of Law Complex represents another piece of Iraq’s overstressed judiciary. And another target.

Poet with a Camera: Famed Swedish director Ingmar Bergman died today. He was 89. During his more than 40-year career, Bergman made about 50 films, from “The Seventh Seal” to “Cries and Whispers.”

False Statements Made to Obtain Warrant May be Libelous

The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that there is no blanket immunity for actions police take to obtain a warrant. The decision overruled the dismissal of a libel lawsuit brought by Sgt. Robert Smith and former Detective Vicki Mengel who were subject to a search warrant that claimed they had drugs in their desks and lockers. Drugs were found in the raid but they were never charged. Both denied any wrongdoing.

The defense argued that investigating officers Detective Sgt. Scott Danielczyk and Detective John Jendrek had immunity since the warrant was a part of the judicial process. This was unanimously rejected by the court, which found that, as judges often don’t have the time or ability to review warrants for accuracy, officers are responsible for the accuracy of information contained in the warrant.

Concerns are that the ruling may result in fruitless warrants generating lawsuits. It isn't clear how being sure that a warrant is well grounded before issuing it is a bad thing. However, the threat litigation could curtail the willingness to seek warrants and burden the police with legal fees.

Privatizing Freedom of Speech

We don't usually report on decisions of the New Jersey Supreme Court, but an exception seems in order. That court handed down a decision Thursday that could affect First Amendment rights in the growing number of planned developments and gated communities nationwide. The ruling is Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association.

The unanimous court ruled that regulations restricting freedom of speech adopted by the homeowners association and agreed to by residents (examples: only one sign per lawn, no signs on utility poles) are not unconstitutional -- even if those same regulations would be tossed out if adopted by a city or town. Many such communities have similar rules, and even sillier ones, ostensibly to preserve the aesthetic appeal of the community and to reduce clutter. Some even bar flying flags. The decision appears to be the first by a state Supreme Court on the power of homeowner associations to restrict speech, but may not be the last.

Political scientist Evan McKenzie reports extensively and disapprovingly on the ruling on his Privatopia blog, and notes that Rutgers School of Law prof Frank Askin, who represented residents challenging the rules, sees a silver lining: the New Jersey top court left the door open to future challenges if regulations are particularly censorious.

In the meantime, though, as these communities grow around the nation, it's fair to wonder at what point First Amendment rights will start to wither. As far back as 1946, the Supreme Court said in Marsh v. Alabama that residents of company towns did not surrender their freedoms. "When we balance the Constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position," wrote Justice Hugo Black.

Wiretapping and Fredo

The folks over at TPM have an interesting theory about Gonzales' testimony that's worth a read. TPM speculates that the AG’s testimony on Tuesday was an attempt to parse language while shielding Congress and the public from the still unknown specifics of a surveillance program that eventually evolved into what is now known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The TSP has been widely talked about.

What remains untold is how wide ranging the NSA’s surveillance was before being reigned in by the demands of Ashcroft, Comey and Mueller. All three threatened to resign if changes weren’t made – culminating in Gonzales’ visit to a bedridden Ashcroft. The money quote:

In essence, the issue is this: if Gonzales succeeds in convincing the committee that there really is a material distinction between the program as it existed before and after Comey’s intervention, he won't just save himself from perjury. He will perhaps have preserved an administration strategy of concealing the scope of Program X from the public and most of Congress -- making it appear that the program that Bush disclosed in December 2005, incorporating Comey's objections, is the same program that existed since October 2001, long before Comey put the brakes on at least some aspects of it. That may be at the heart of the White House's claim of executive privilege to prevent the Senate Judiciary Committee from seeing documents detailing the genesis of Program X.

We may be about to learn whether a perjury investigation will pierce the obfuscations and begin to explore the extent of Program X -- a program the American public was never supposed to know about.

Morning Wrap

Sauced in Space: An independent panel appointed by NASA found occasions where some astronauts were apparently too boozy to fly and should have been grounded. It’s not clear whether the astronauts were drunk during shuttle flights or test flights. NASA’s “bottle to throttle” rule prohibits drinking before takeoff.

Um...sorry?: Mike Nifong, the prosecutor made notorious by the Duke Lacrosse case, admitted yesterday that there isn’t credible evidence to backup his year-old accusations that the players raped a stripper. A superior court judge is presently deciding whether to hold Nifong in criminal contempt of court for his handling of the case.

Oh Alberto: F.B.I. director Robert Mueller III told the House Judiciary committee yesterday that a 2004 confrontation was about the N.S.A.’s eavesdropping program. The account contradicts Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s sworn testimony from Tuesday that there hasn’t been conflict about the program within the Bush administration. No surprise here: The Bush Administration’s support for the embattled attorney general has not wavered.

In the fetal position: Sure, we’re all happy it’s Friday, but something tells me no one is professing T.G.I.F. more loudly than the world of sports, which clearly needs to cry and/or hug it out all weekend long. The Slate sums up just how dismal its week has been.

Heard on the Street

Moments ago we were returning from a rather mundane meet and greet with a PR rep who shall remain nameless (you know who you are).

While out in front of Legal Times headquarters we noticed a young woman drop something out of her purse, unnoticed. Then, from out of nowhere, the gallant George Stephanopoulos charged in to the rescue. The This Week host picked up the object and urgently jogged through the mind-altering 90-degree heat to return it to the young woman, his tie flapping over his left shoulder. He tapped her on the arm. She turned around, puzzled. Then she thanked Stephanopoulos. He turned and walked away.

Another woman, who also saw the encounter, motioned to the lucky woman and told her the name of the man who’d come to her aid. The young woman shrugged and asked: “Who’s that?”

Ah. Interns.