Big shifts in law school rankings, stalled Biden judicial nominees move ahead, federal courts to end remote access, and more ??
Reuters Legal
From the courts to law firms, we bring you the latest legal news. Subscribe to our newsletters: https://bit.ly/3nhgllA
?? Good morning from The Legal File! Here are today's top legal stories:
This year's U.S. News & World Report?law school rankings brought an unprecedented number of dramatic shifts—the result of a revamped methodology that placed greater emphasis on graduate employment and bar pass rates.
The ranking changes were generally modest among top schools but were significant just beyond the so-called T-14 schools. More than a third of the 199 American Bar Association-accredited law schools saw their ranks go up or down by 10 spots or more, compared with 27 schools last year. And 31 schools saw their ranks change by 20 spots or more this year — up from four schools the previous year.
Former University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law dean Donald Tobin, in a post on TaxProf Blog, wrote the following:
"Unless U.S. News changes its methodology, I expect you will see far more volatility in these rankings than we saw prior to these changes."
Carey noted that bar passage and employment rates tend to fluctuate annually, particularly during market downturns.
With U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein?back in Washington, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to advance three of President Joe Biden's judicial nominees for consideration by the full Senate.
Without Republican support, the candidates--Charnelle Bjelkengren for the Eastern District of Washington, S. Kato Crews in Colorado, and Marian Gaston for the Southern District of California--had been stalled in the committee during the California Democrat's health-related absence.
Feinstein, 89, was hospitalized with shingles in March and remained away from Washington until this week, undermining Democratic plans to quickly approve Biden's judicial nominees.
Bjelkengren and Crews drew fire from Republicans after they both fumbled questions related to constitutional law from Republican Sen. John Kennedy during their confirmation hearings.
Republicans on the panel suggested their performance showed they were unqualified to sit on the federal bench.
"One response during a hearing does not negate a lifetime of service," said Committee Chair Sen. Dick Durbin.
A Democrat, Durbin defended the nominees, noting they have both been deemed qualified by the American Bar Association and as sitting judges have already presided over courtrooms.
领英推荐
Remote access to U.S. civil and bankruptcy court hearings will end in September, the federal judiciary said Wednesday, declaring that the COVID pandemic is no longer affecting how the federal courts function.
The country's federal district courts shifted to allow phone and sometimes video access to hearings after the pandemic shuttered courthouses in March 2020. Remote access to criminal proceedings that was authorized under COVID-era legislation ended on Wednesday, and it will end for other cases on Sept. 21.
The policy changes do not apply to the thousands of state and local courts in the United States, many of which allow cameras in their courtrooms.
The changes by the executive committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference were announced the same day that the U.S. government is?ending?the COVID Public Health Emergency, which granted Americans access to free testing and vaccines in order to curb the pandemic's spread.
The end of remote criminal court access means the public and media must now attend hearings in-person.
A federal judge rejected an effort to disqualify the law firm defending JPMorgan Chase & Co?against a lawsuit by women who claim they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein and that the bank aided in the late financier's sex trafficking.
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan said the firm WilmerHale did not have a conflict of interest because it once represented an anti-sex trafficking group that supported Courtney Wild, one of Epstein's accusers.
Rakoff also found no proof Wild gave WilmerHale confidential information that was material to the JPMorgan case, and said the bank would suffer "great prejudice" from being disqualified "so late in this litigation," five months before the Oct. 23 trial.
The disqualification request had been?made?by Brad Edwards, who represents Epstein accusers in the proposed class action against JPMorgan. His request was joined by the named plaintiff, Jane Doe 1.
The Washington, D.C.-based law firm is also defending JPMorgan against a lawsuit by the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein allegedly abused women on a private island he owned.
Epstein was a JPMorgan client from 1998 to 2013. The New York-based bank has denied aiding in his sexual abuses.
?? That's all for today! Thank you for reading?The Legal File, and have a great weekend!
For more legal industry news, read and?subscribe?to?The Daily Docket.