Houston attorney Steven Swain, better known to his clients as S. Tyler Swain, is facing a bestiality charge after his wife discovered surveillance footage allegedly showing him engaged in sexual conduct with their pet. Swain’s wife positively identified her husband and their dog in the surveillance footage. Fox 26 Houston has additional details:

According to court documents, Swain is charged following an incident involving the family dog “Shipley” after Swain’s wife caught the incident on surveillance cameras that she recently installed as contractor work was being done inside the home.

The court documents provided very graphic details about what happened between Swain and “Shipley.” We are unable to disclose the details other than to say the incident involved “licking.”

Fox declined to publish the more graphic allegations contained in the charging documents but in our opinion, you can guess where this incident was headed. Thankfully for Swain, Shipley didn’t follow McGruff’s advice and take a bite out of crime.

Following his arrest, Swain was released from jail on a $75,000 bond.

Houston man accused of bestiality involving family dog [Fox 26 Houston]

Staci Zaretsky is the managing editor of Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Bluesky, X/Twitter, and Threads, or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The post Lawyer Lands In Doghouse After Disturbing Bestiality Allegations Surface appeared first on Above the Law.

What are the dangers of social media and who is responsible? The questions were once fodder for abstract discussions about objective violence, but the questions are becoming more concrete and demanding answers. Teenagers have said that the pressure to use social media is stronger than the pressure to drink and smoke — what does that mean for the companies that are accused of ramping up how addictive they are to use?

Meta is one of the big names being drawn into court over their algorithmic choices. Meta and YouTube had to pay their share of a $3M lawsuit back in March when a jury found them liable for encouraging a child’s development of depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia. And while the case was notable for the damages, it was only one of many cases going for Meta’s pockets. The social media giant tried to get the Supreme Court to dismiss one of these lawsuits, but the Court chose to let Meta fend for themselves. Reuters has coverage:

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to hear a bid by Meta Platforms to avoid a lawsuit brought ​by Vermont’s attorney general accusing the company of designing its Instagram social media app to be addictive to young users, as big ‌technology companies face mounting legal risks over child and teen safety.

The justices turned away Meta’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that let the lawsuit proceed, rejecting the company’s argument that courts in Vermont lack jurisdiction over the dispute.

Gotta love civil procedure! Meta argued that it was unfair for them to be subject to Vermont’s jurisdiction, but the state’s Supreme Court wasn’t buying it:

“A company that reaches out and purposefully avails itself of a forum state’s market for its own economic gain can expect to be haled into court in that jurisdiction to account for its conduct related to ​those business activities,” the Vermont Supreme ​Court said.

If other state courts see the situation similarly — and the Supreme Court doesn’t step in at a later time — that opens Meta to be sued in any state. Hey, gotta pay the costs of doing business. If you can target any and every customer where they are, any and every customer should be able to sue you if targeting them does damage where they are. This is a win for any parties threatening social media lawsuits or are in the middle of settlement talks with Meta.

US Supreme Court Won’t Hear Meta’s Challenge To Vermont Social Media Addiction Lawsuit [Reuters]

Earlier: Jury Finds Meta And YouTube’s Negligence Led To Addiction In Kids

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boat builder who is learning to swim and is interested in rhetoric, Spinozists and humor. Getting back in to cycling wouldn’t hurt either. You can reach him by email at christopherrashadwilliams@gmail.com and by Tweet/Bluesky at @WritesForRent.

The post Supreme Court Tells Meta To Lick Their Lower Court Wounds appeared first on Above the Law.

[We’re] pretty certain we will bring the full firm operationally to our clients on day one. We have the expertise, because Hogan Lovells was created through a merger 16 years ago. Our business team is quite solid, and a lot of people were involved in that [prior] merger who are helping us here. There are fewer challenges now than in that deal.

—  Miguel Zaldivar, CEO of Hogan Lovells, in comments given to the American Lawyer, concerning his firm’s impending merger with Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, to form Hogan Lovells Cadwalader. He went on to note that “[t]his is a merger where the word is growth, not restructuring.” Zaldivar continued, explaining, “In terms of the people integration and client receptivity, we’re very confident that’s on a very good track. We benefit from having the same four values: excellence, vision, collaboration, and commitment to clients. When you have that, everything we put together stays together.” As of July 1, 2026, the combined firm will have about 3,100 lawyers spread across the globe, with a gross revenue of about $3.9 billion. 

Staci Zaretsky is the managing editor of Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Bluesky, X/Twitter, and Threads, or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The post Hogan Lovells Doesn’t Expect Its Mega-Merger With Cadwalader To Be A Headache appeared first on Above the Law.

Look, with a legal landscape dominated by qualified immunity, it’s refreshing to see federal judges can still screw law enforcement.

Despite this, the Eleventh Circuit responded with a private reprimand. Last week, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability affirmed that order. To call this a wrist slap is an insult to wrist slaps.

Sex in the office is certainly frowned upon, but what makes this case especially troubling is that during the two years of the affair, the police officer’s department was involved in numerous criminal and civil cases being litigated in the district. The judge never disclosed the affair and therefore could have been assigned a matter implicating the officer as a litigant at any point, but apparently dodged that bullet.

Was the chambers sofa as lucky?

As for corroborating evidence, the Chief District Judge reported that: (1) according to Law Clerk A, at least one other term clerk, identified in the letter, saw and heard similar things; and (2) one of the cushions on a sofa in the Subject Judge’s chambers was stained in a manner that was consistent with being caused by semen.

Some further misadventures of the cushion are relegated to a footnote, explaining that the clerk thought the cushion was subsequently cleaned… “However, one day, when the Subject Judge was not in the office, Law Clerk A entered the office, turned over a cushion, and found the stain. This led Law Clerk A to reasonably surmise that the Subject Judge had attempted to conceal the cushion by turning it over.” A judge who’s not afraid of being overturned.

It seems the court decided to check out the couch, but wrote about this in the most comically stilted way:

Removing the above-referenced sofa cushion from the Subject Judge’s chambers and arranging for a qualified biological laboratory to conduct an acid phosphate test of the cushion to determine whether semen was present;

The result was negative, by the way. Since this is in the South, we’ll just assume it tested positive for Duke’s.

The investigation also involved “Inspecting the layout of a judge’s chambers similar to the Subject Judge’s chambers to determine whether a law clerk seated outside of a judge’s office (with the door closed) could hear the noises Law Clerk A claimed to hear,” and I’m really interested to know how that went down. “All right, Tom… you go in there and start moaning and me and the other fellas will sit here and see if we can hear it.”

“Undoubtedly, a bad actor could have used these facts to try to blackmail the Subject Judge,” the Eleventh Circuit committee report notes. “Even absent a blackmail attempt, the publication of these facts would have greatly damaged the Subject Judge’s credibility as a judge and brought disrepute to the federal judiciary.” YES! Probably something deserving of more than a private reprimand.

It’s also worth noting that Article III Sexcapades weren’t the only allegations in the complaint.

As for the staff-treatment and staff-supervision allegation, counsel, on behalf of the special committee, questioned the former law clerks about the allegation. The supervision aspect of the allegation related primarily to civil case work. The Subject Judge’s longstanding practice was to handle all criminal case work without law clerk assistance.

Yeah they did. Definitely hearing no argument that the judge wasn’t personally handling the criminal work.

Each of the six former law clerks interviewed reported that: (1) when assigning a clerk to work on a substantive civil motion, the Subject Judge did not indicate to the clerk how the judge was inclined to rule on the motion or otherwise provide any direction; (2) it was generally understood that the Subject Judge did not wish to discuss substantive civil-case related issues with clerks; and (3) the Subject Judge rarely, if ever, substantively edited civil orders the clerks drafted. Multiple clerks stated that, given their inexperience, they were uncomfortable with the level of discretion they appeared to exercise in handling civil cases.

So civil cases in this courtroom are being decided by clerks? Fantastic! The judge later “reported making edits to between 30 and 40 percent of draft orders.” The judge admitted that they do “not offer clerks guidance, in advance, as to whether a motion should be granted or denied,” meaning they enter the dispute from the frame introduced by the clerk. Even if the judge edits a third of the drafts, how often are those edits making significant changes? This seems like a fundamental betrayal of the role of a judge.

That should also warrant at least a public reprimand.

No, it does not.

Instead, they gave the judge this…

In light of these findings, the special committee recommends that the Judicial Council issue the Subject Judge a private reprimand. The Subject Judge informed Chief Judge Pryor that the Subject Judge would not oppose or challenge this sanction. The Subject Judge has also agreed to (1) issue letters of apology to the six former law clerks interviewed by investigation counsel (with the special committee to provide to the Subject Judge a list of those law clerks); (2) forego service as chief judge should the Subject Judge be otherwise eligible to serve in that capacity; and (3) indefinitely refrain from service on any Judicial Conference committee.

The judge will never have to deal with extra administrative hassle. That’ll show ’em!

For what it’s worth, the judge asked that they “be allowed to word the letters of apology vaguely so as to ensure that a letter could not be ‘used against [the Subject Judge] in some way.'” Because when being given a slap on the wrist it’s always important to ask if it can be even lighter. In response, “The special committee recommends that the Judicial Council instruct the Subject Judge to use the judge’s best judgment in drafting letters of apology that communicate the judge’s sentiments without risking undue embarrassment to the Subject Judge or the judiciary.”

To quote Melkonian’s response to this footnote, “I’m really slowing boiling into an angry kettle over here.”

For its part, the Eleventh Circuit report provides three reasons for keeping this quiet. First, “the Subject Judge’s correction of the judge’s false statements and subsequent candor with the special committee,” which is nonsense. It’s all well and good to credit normal people for recanting, but judges should be held to a higher standard. Indeed, in rejecting the recantation defense to liability, the report found that the judge only began recanting after there was “a high likelihood that… the judge knew that the falsehood had been or would soon be exposed.” That really should bear upon the sanction too.

Second, “the unlikelihood that the Subject Judge will engage in similar misconduct in the future, evidenced by the judge discontinuing the relationship with the Officer and commitment to avoid future partisan political events.” We didn’t even get into the partisan political events stuff, which dealt with an allegation that the judge went to a fundraiser for a DA. But in any event, this doesn’t seem like much of a guarantee that the judge won’t close the office door and declare “All rise” with someone else down the road.

Third, “the Subject Judge’s otherwise exemplary service to the court.” What part of “exemplary” is having clerks decide your civil motions for you? The committee balked on labeling the civil docket allegations as misconduct, but admitting that it was “troubled.” How does that not carry over to preempt the phrase “otherwise exemplary service”?

The clerks who reported this conduct had to stick their necks out. The judge — the one who actually did the thing, then lied about it — gets anonymity and to keep the gavel. The judiciary’s own climate survey suggests roughly one in 17 federal judges is abusive toward staff, and almost none of it is ever formally reported, because clerks correctly understand that the system protects the institution and not them. This case is the rare one that got investigated and proven. And the lesson the next clerk will draw from it is that none of that matters.

This is the response to multiple layers of misconduct. The federal judiciary stared down the misconduct and just flipped over the cushion.

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

The post Federal Judge Had Sex In Chambers Bringing New Meaning To Gavel Bang appeared first on Above the Law.

Trump the individual sued. Trump the president ordered the government to surrender. Trump the individual then seized the funds for his own purposes. Infinite money glitch! “I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself,” Trump told reporters at the time, proving he’s capable of remarkable candor when describing corruption.

That’s not how administrative law is supposed to work. And now two law enforcement officers who tried to push back the rioters have sued to put a stop to it.

Former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and current Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges — the latter best known to the public as the cop caught in the Capitol doorway as rioters tried to crush him — filed suit Wednesday challenging the slush fund. The complaint, brought by the Public Integrity Project’s Brendan Ballou and Samuel Ward-Packard, opens with by noting: “In the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century, President Donald J. Trump has created a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name.”

The settlement plan Trump worked out with himself places $1.776 billion in taxpayer money into a fund administered by a five-member commission. Those members are personally appointed by Trump’s lawyer Blanche and the commission’s decisions are not subject to judicial review. Trump himself gets no money, though the settlement included a waiver that purports to block the federal government from ever going after Trump for *gestures at everything*.

Count I says DOJ cannot create a new federal commission with the authority to recognize new federal claims and dole out federal money, without congressional action. Blanche purports to sidestep these legal requirements by citing 31 U.S.C. § 1304, and 28 U.S.C. § 2414, but these only allow the DOJ to pay to settle federal claims, but they don’t allow the administration to INVENT federal claims and then pay them. Count II says the Judgment Fund itself cannot be tapped because there is no “actual or imminent litigation” — a byproduct of structuring this as settling Trump’s IRS claim by paying Proud Boys who currently don’t have cognizable legal claims against the government. The DOJ never even entered an appearance in the IRS case it’s claiming to settle with this fund.

Count III quotes Section 4, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

It seems as though every legal cause Trump really cares about involves erasing chunks of the Fourteenth Amendment. That’s probably significant. While we don’t know exactly which January 6 rioters will end up making claims on this fund, Trump’s own rhetoric suggests those already convicted of seditious conspiracy would be in line — directly implicating the Amendment’s language:

DOJ has authorized the Anti-Weaponization Fund to make payment of monies from
the United States Treasury to the January 6 rioters.

Those rioters engaged in an act of “insurrection . . . against the United States” by
attacking the Capitol in an attempt to prevent the lawful certification of a presidential election.

As a consequence of that conduct, many insurrectionists incurred sizeable debts and
other financial obligations—in particular, legal fees incurred defending against criminal charges
and, for the many convicted, restitution obligations.

DOJ has now committed the United States to paying those debts and obligations.

Pretty straightfoward. It’s also ultra vires and the plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment.

The hangup for these plaintiffs will likely be standing. Dunn and Hodges explain that they are listed on a right-wing “retribution list” by name and that Proud Boys have physically followed them through hotel lobbies. Dunn has been swatted, has PTSD, and has had police patrol his house twice a day for over a year. The complaint quotes the death threats, and Enrique Tarrio saying, on the fifth anniversary of January 6, “I want them to pay . . . we need to make an example out of them.”

Is that enough of a connection to constitute a concrete interest in stopping this policy? The Trump administration has spent its second term betting — often correctly — that the federal judiciary will, after enough appeals, find a way to let them do just about anything.

But someone has standing to challenge the theft of taxpayer funds to pay for, as the complaint puts it, “a Potemkin lawsuit, a sham brought about only so that it could be settled.” If it’s not the officers facing the prospect of the people threatening to kill them getting millions of our tax dollars, then whoever does have standing needs to get their own lawsuit together.

(Complaint on the next page…)

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

The post Capitol Police Officers Sue To Block Trump Slush Fund For Rioters appeared first on Above the Law.

On January 29, 2026, President Donald Trump, his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Treasury Department seeking $10 billion in damages. The lawsuit itself drew criticism because President Trump controls both defendant agencies, raising concerns that any settlement would not result from any arm’s-length negotiations.

I suspected that the lawsuit would be dismissed or settled in Trump’s favor. If the lawsuit progressed on the merits, there is a chance that the lawsuit could be dismissed because it may have been filed after the statute of limitations. Or the plaintiffs’ damages may be nowhere near the $10 billion they are claiming.

And that is what happened. Yesterday, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. But it was after the Department of Justice agreed to set up a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” which will be used to compensate victims of lawfare.

In addition to setting up the fund, the AG’s office stated that the government will not pursue legal action against the Trumps and their related entities for anything connected to the lawsuit including tax-related actions that existed before the settlement took effect. Some have argued that this shields Trump from a federal tax audit.

Let’s look at the settlement agreement between the parties and what it means for the parties.

So why did the Trumps initiate this lawsuit in the first place? At first glance, it seems like President Trump could have simply ordered the Treasury Department to settle prelitigation and give him the money he asked for.

But by settling in court, Trump had access to the government judgment fund, a statutory appropriation of federal funds to be used to pay judgments.

Shouldn’t the judge approve the settlement? There was a settlement agreement between the parties as clearly notated here and here. But the plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal with the court that has no mention of a settlement. The notice states that the dismissal is self-executing and is not subject to court review or approval.

Why did they file it this way? Scott Greenfield found that captioning the notice as one of dismissal rather than one of settlement is to prevent Judge Kathleen Williams from exercising her general supervisory authority over a suit before seeking to use the authority of the court to circumvent the funding authority of Congress.

As I mentioned previously, filing a notice of dismissal under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require court approval.

But Greenfield also points out that filing the notice without alerting the court about the settlement goes against a local court rule:

RULE 16.4 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

If the parties reach an agreement to settle the entire case or certain claims or issues therein, counsel shall notify the Court of such settlement by filing and serving a notice of settlement within two (2) Court days of such agreement being reached. The notice shall be filed and served jointly by counsel for all parties to the settlement. Alternatively, the parties may file and serve a notice or stipulation, as applicable, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. But unless such notice or stipulation is filed within two (2) Court days of the parties reaching a settlement, the parties are still required to file and serve a separate notice of settlement.

It remains to be seen whether the judge will determine whether the plaintiffs’ attorneys should have notified the judge of the settlement agreement before filing the notice of dismissal.

So who would the money go to? According to the settlement agreement, the money would go to claimants who were victims of lawfare or weaponization. While those two words are not defined in the agreement, it is safe to assume someone who was a victim of violence, cancel culture, politically motivated lawsuits, or other forms of political persecution from Democrats or progressive groups and NGOs.

Trump and his family will not receive anything from this fund but instead get a formal apology from the United States.

The fund will be managed by five people. All will be appointed by the acting attorney general, although one will be chosen in consultation with Congressional leadership. Trump can remove any member without cause.

It is unknown how many people will apply for compensation from this fund, but some believe that the participants of the January 6 riots would be paid through this fund. According to the FBI’s website, 1,240 people have been charged with participating in the riots. Of those, 452 were charged for assaulting law enforcement officers — it remains to be seen whether these people will be eligible for compensation.

The funds could also be used to compensate other victims of lawfare and weaponization. This could include notable people like Kyle Rittenhouse, Charlie Kirk’s family, and the former Minneapolis police officers convicted of murdering George Floyd, in particular Derek Chauvin.

Chauvin is currently serving a concurrent federal and state prison sentence in Texas for his role in Floyd’s death and is expected to be released in 2037. Assuming Chauvin will be granted a federal pardon from Trump, if he is given a large award from the Anti-Weaponization fund, he can forfeit the award to the city of Minneapolis in exchange for early release. The city of Minneapolis paid $27 million to Floyd’s family to settle a civil lawsuit. Or Chauvin can keep the funds for himself to use when he is released.

The $1.776 billion allocation appears to be symbolic rather than based on projected settlement calculations . So it is possible that the amount will not be fully exhausted. The agreement states that any remaining funds after all claims are paid will be directed to federal agencies.

So are the Trumps shielded from tax audits? The settlement agreement states that the federal government is barred from (among other actions) examination or similar or related reviews of tax returns filed before the settlement date. Generally, the IRS has three years to audit a tax return and can audit any year for unfiled returns or filing false tax returns with the intent to evade taxes.

While this may shield the Trumps from federal audits, it does not shield them from state income tax audits.

Trump’s settlement with the IRS resulted in a $1.776 billion fund to be used to compensate victims of lawfare and weaponization. Since the members of this fund are appointed by the acting attorney general who was formerly President Trump’s personal attorney and can be removed by him without cause, many have accused Trump of setting up a slush fund. The fact that Brian Morrissey, the Treasury’s general counsel, resigned from the position soon after the settlement agreement could be a sign.

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at stevenchungatl@gmail.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

The post From Tax Lawsuit To Anti-Lawfare Fund: Examining Trump’s Unprecedented Settlement With His Own Government appeared first on Above the Law.

The litigation firm has announced the 25 recipients of this year’s Susman Godfrey Prize, which awards $5,000 to first- and second-year law students of color who have demonstrated academic excellence and overall achievement. The program, now in its sixth year, arrives at a moment when DEI-focused scholarships and pipeline initiatives are facing increasing political and legal scrutiny.

That timing is hard to ignore, particularly given Susman’s recent willingness to publicly defend diversity efforts while other firms and institutions have grown noticeably quieter.

“These exceptional law students have demonstrated focus, creativity, and, above all, a relentless commitment to excellence — all foundational principles of our firm,” said co-managing partner Vineet Bhatia in a statement announcing the winners.

The prize is open to students nominated by law school professors or administrators and selected through a competitive review and interview process conducted by firm lawyers.

“The prize is one of many ways we aim to support positive change in the civil trial profession,” added co-managing partner Kalpana Srinivasan. “We look forward to seeing these aspiring lawyers’ continued accomplishments in their legal careers, in the courtroom, and beyond.”

At a time when many legal institutions are carefully recalibrating how they talk about diversity efforts, Susman Godfrey is still willing to put its name — and money — behind them.

Staci Zaretsky is the managing editor of Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Bluesky, X/Twitter, and Threads, or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The post Susman Godfrey Continues DEI Scholarship Program As Other Biglaw Firms Flinch Amid Intensifying Political Attacks appeared first on Above the Law.

On Tuesday, Judge Edward M. Chen of the US District Court for the Northern District of California dropped a $3 million sanctions order on Quinn Emanuel stemming from the firm’s representation of Natera Inc. in a pharma advertising case, and the opinion is the kind of reading that should make every partner at that firm put down their coffee and stare at the wall for a while.

The conduct of the firm and its litigation team, Chen wrote in adopting a special master’s recommendation, “implicates a culture of lawyering that is deeply disturbing.” Not a rogue associate. Not an isolated lapse in judgment. A culture. “At virtually every juncture in this misadventure,” Chen wrote, “these attorneys turned a blind eye to the truth, deliberately failed to exercise diligence, violated their duties of candor to the Court, and then attempted to justify it — without basis.”

The firm and its “entire litigation team” allegedly engaged in a pattern of conduct that included propagating misleading statements from an expert witness. This wasn’t a one-time mistake that spiraled. According to Chen, it was a sustained failure at every turn.

Here’s the damage:

Quinn Emanuel must pay nearly $3 million in compensatory damages to plaintiff, plus a $100,000 punitive fine. Silicon Valley partners Andrew Bramhall and Brian Cannon are on the hook for additional sanctions of up to $58,000 each. San Francisco associate Elle Wang faces a $28,000 sanction. And two other Quinn Emanuel Silicon Valley lawyers, managing partner Victoria Maroulis and partner Margaret Shyr, may face additional sanctions, with Judge Chen deferring on their cases for now.

But the most striking part of the order isn’t the dollar figures. It’s that Bramhall, Cannon, and Wang must each complete an eight-hour legal ethics course. And the firm must develop that course itself.

Quinn Emanuel — a firm that has never been accused of lacking confidence in its own abilities — has been ordered by a federal judge to sit down, think hard about what it did, and write its own ethics curriculum. It’s the legal profession’s version of being made to write “I will not lie to the court” on the blackboard. Except the blackboard costs $3 million.

So what exactly happened at Quinn? Judge Chen opens his sanctions order not with dry legal findings, but with a narrative — a detailed, almost novelistic account of a mid-level associate at “a well-recognized law firm” navigating a cascade of ethical failures over the course of a year. It reads like a Professional Responsibility exam hypothetical. At the end of four pages, he pulls back the curtain: “This is not a Professional Ethics issue spotter. These are the facts of Quinn Emanuel’s conduct in the instant litigation.”

You should absolutely read Judge Chen’s full description of the facts, but it involves an expert witness with access to embargoed study results, a late-breaking supplemental expert report (six weeks before trial), “thin distinctions” about how and when the new data was obtained that are “not apparent to the Court or opposing counsel,” and troubling phrases like “Maybe I don’t want to know [how the expert got the study results early].”

Chen’s conclusion: the associate and her firm “deliberately and knowingly misled the Court.” When asked about it afterward, “the associate doesn’t believe that she did anything wrong.”

Chen didn’t pull any punches on what’s really at stake here beyond this one case. The actions, he wrote, are “particularly damaging to younger associates, who take their cues and learn their practice from partners who fail to model ethical behavior, creating a vicious cycle.” That’s the line that should haunt the firm’s leadership. This isn’t just about the parties in the instant case. It’s about what junior lawyers learn when they watch senior ones behave this way and face no consequences — until now.

Quinn Emanuel issued a statement that was, in fairness, more contrite than the typical Biglaw non-apology apology. “We are deeply disappointed by the conduct described in the judge’s Order. The lawyers involved have apologized to Judge Chen, and the Firm has joined in that apology.” The firm says it is “instituting concrete measures,” including having a firm executive committee member visit each office in person “to emphasize the Firm’s rejection of the conduct that Judge Chen described,” and hiring an additional lawyer to the general counsel’s staff “with the specific and sole charter to advise lawyers who face questions about disclosures to the Court.”

The punitive sanction, Chen noted, is warranted in part because punitive damages can be awarded “upon a clear and convincing finding. It is difficult to see why this standard would not apply here.” Judges don’t write sentences like that when they’re mildly annoyed. They write them when they want the opinion to be read, cited, and remembered.

Quinn Emanuel will soldier on — $3 million is a painful but survivable number for a shop of its size and profitability. But “culture of lawyering that is deeply disturbing” is going to follow this firm for a long time.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1