Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump Sues JPMorgan & Judges Speak Out

Transcript

Trump Sues JPMorgan & Judges Speak Out · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: You are listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:10
  Speaker 2: President Donald Trump has sued JP Morgan, Chase and its
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: chief executive officer, Jamie Diamond for at least five billion
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: dollars over allegations that the lender stopped offering him and
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: his business's banking services for political reasons. The bank closed
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: accounts for Trump and his businesses about seven weeks after
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: the January sixth, twenty twenty one, assault on the US
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: Capitol by his supporters. J P. Morgan said in a
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: statement that the suit has no merit and that they
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: the company. Joining me is an expert on the intersection
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: of business and politics. Riley Steele, a professor at Columbia
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: Law School. Riley, this is a lawsuit over a practice
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: known as debanking. What's your first reaction to the suit?
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: I want to, first of all say that this lawsuit
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: is frivolous on multiple levels, and I think the real
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: reason for filing the lawsuit. There are a few potential reasons,
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: but one big one that stands out to me is
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: they're trying to shift media coverage away from Trump's assault
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: on the rule of law like we're seeing in Minnesota
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: right now, and back towards the narrative that he's the
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: target of some grand persecution. Now, why do I think
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: this lawsuit is frivolous? Well, two big categories of reasons.
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: The first, there's this big threshold barrier before you even
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: get to the merits of the lawsuit, due to the
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: length of time that Trump and the other plaintiffs took
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: to file this lawsuit. The so called d banking occurred
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: in April twenty twenty one. They filed this lawsuit on
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: January twenty second, twenty twenty six. That's a very long time,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: nearly five years. And there is in the positive agreement
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: that is attached to complaint a two year limitation period,
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: so this is way longer than judios. So there's that
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: initial kind of threshold barrier that they're unlikely to get around.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: And then it's also a dubious case on the marriage.
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: Is it dubious because of the facts or because of
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: the law.
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: Basically, there's sort of two core factual allegations in the complaint.
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: The first is that JP Morgan wrongfully terminated the bank
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: accounts of Trump and these affiliated or organizations it's called
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: them Trump and Co. For political reasons. The second is
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: that they put them on this so called blacklist that
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: turnash his reputation. What is the nature of that alleged
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: political discrimination not entirely clear from the complaint. It's pretty
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: breast of specifics in terms of those factual allegations, but
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: that's the crux of it. What is this so called blacklist?
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: Also kind of uncleared from the factual allegation of the complaint,
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: which again are pretty thin. But what I think it
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: is is some sort of compliance related list that JP
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: Morgan submitted to federal regulators that other federal regulated banks
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: going to have access to. The theory and the complaint
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: is that by putting him on this blacklist that tarnished
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: their reputation and made it so that it was tougher
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: for them to get bank accounts at other banks with
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: equivalent services offered, which caused them damages. So that's the
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: basic sort of factual story that's being told here, and
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: then they bring a few different counts based on those
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: factual allegations. One count is sort of trade libel, and
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: the basic idea here is that by putting them on
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: this so called blacklist that constituted some sort of false
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: statement which tarnished their reputations caused them reputational harm. The
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: second count is a unfair and acceptive trade Practices Act,
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: and that's against Jamie Diamond. There's a kind of musher
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: type of claim and it's not entirely clear from the
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: complaint what exactly the theory is, but it could be
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: a sort of deception type theory that kind of amounts
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: to the same thing as that trade level claim, the
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: idea of being that Jamie Diamond directed them to put
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: them Ounce's trade list and that was a kind of
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: acceptive trade actor practice, this kind of strange legal theory.
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: And then the other sort of main substance account is
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: under the implied covenant of the good faith and fair dealing.
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: This is basically the contractual claim. The idea here, and
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: this is based on the so called debanking. The theory
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: here is that JP Morgan acted in bad faith when
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: they were terminating the bank account, which deprived Trump of
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: the benefit of the bargain because they account terminated for
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: political reasons. Each of these claims has some serious obstacles.
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: Is it also unusual to sue the CEO of the
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: bank in a case like.
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: This, Yeah, I think it's pretty unusual. It's pretty unusual,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: and there are any factual allegations to suggest any meaningful
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: involvement of Jamie Diamond and all of this other than
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: the sort of authorized at a high level. That's a
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: pretty conclusiory allegation.
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: As far as the reputational harm. Trump became president after this,
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: Does that play in anywhere here?
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: So I guess the theory would be okay, because I'm
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: on this so called blacklist, no other bank wants a
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: new business with me, well, not no other bank. I
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: assume that they found some bank that was willing to
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: accept their money, and they didn't just fit all onto
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: the mattress. But whatever bank they did find would not
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: offer them equivalent services. What does that mean in practice?
• 5:13
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: The interest rate on their seeing the account is lower,
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: that's a factual question. I don't know that's true. They
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: don't allege that in the complaint. I mean they have
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: access to loans at worse terms. I don't know if
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: the complaint doesn't allege that. So it's pretty vague about
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: what exactly the nature of this damage is. That they've
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: incurred that could be a big obstacle for them, in
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: addition to sort of whether there's any liability, like no harm,
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: no foul, there's no damages, they don't have much of
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: the case there.
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I was wondering about damages because Donald Trump Junior
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: has said that because they couldn't get banking that they
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: went into crypto, and they've made a ton of money
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: in crypto. So I'm wondering where the damages are.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah. If the so called debanking prompts them to go
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: to crypto and they've made tons and tons of money
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: much more than they would have made have they just
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: to their traditional banking arrangement in place, then it seems
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: like this is a blessing in disguise and there's no
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: damages to be had.
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: Bloomberg Intelligence, one of our analyst, Elliott Stein, gives a
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: seventy percent chance of the case being dismissed before trial.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: It's not higher. Well, first of all, you know, there's
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: an arbitration clause in this agreement, So I assume that
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: JP Morgan would seek to compel arbitration, I would say
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: there's a higher than seventy percent chance of the case
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: being dismissed before trial. But maybe there's something I'm missing there.
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: I'm not sure on the exact percentage, but it seems
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: like a very weak case to me, I will say
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: that much.
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: So what do you see as the main hurdles for
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: Trump in this lawsuit?
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: I opened up by saying this limitations period is going
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: to be a major hurdle for them. I don't really
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: see a way around that unless there's something I'm missing there.
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: The second thing being just generally the thinness of the
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: factual allegation is in complaints are a big problem. The
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: idea that somehow or another, this list constitutes a false
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: statement because trade lebel requires them sort of false statement
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: of fact, and this seems more like a judgment call
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: to me, JPM. We're going to be made a judgment
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: call based on perhaps regulatory obligations, based on perhaps some
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: sort of business decision about whether to a terminate account
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: and be put them on this list, and that I
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: don't see the false statement in any of that. So
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: that's just going to be a big legal barrier. Based
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: on the factual allegations that they currently appear in the complaint,
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: I assume if there was more there, they would have
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: put it in the complaint, so you know, of course
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: that they would potentially have a you know, chance to
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: if it was dismissed, you know, amend their complaints and
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: that additional detail. But if the lawyers are any good,
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: they would have put that in there in first place,
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: especially because I think a lot of this case is
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: a messaging thing, you know, directed to the public rather
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: than actually directed at obtaining legal relief for Trump. So
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: from a sort of pr perspective, why wouldn't you just
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: add more that detail to the complaint and help you
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: tell your story.
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: I thought that about some of the lawsuits against you know,
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: A B and Paramount and everything, but they settled those
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: suits for significant amounts of money.
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that I thought it across my mind as well.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: So I think about the CBS lawsuit which CBS's parent
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: company settled, where I believed sixteen million dollars, and you
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: could view that as a kind of protection money scheme,
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: you know, settle this lawsuit and I will approve your merger,
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: as they did the Paramount merger. So that could be
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: what's going on here, JP Morgan. There are all sorts
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: of pressure points the government can desert on. JP Morgan,
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: a JP Morgan's highly regulated entity, so perhaps they're trying
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: to extract some protection money here. The weakness of the
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: of the complaint, I mean, people said the same thing
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: about the CBS case that I was also weak. But
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: this is especially week, especially due the limitations issue, which
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: is just a procedural issue. It could be easily disposed
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: of on emotion to this mess.
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: So apparently the Justice Department has been investigating JP Morgan.
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: How odd is it instead of having the Justice to
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: Department filed charges, to have the President of the United
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: States file a private lawsuit.
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: Totally totally unusual. I can't think of any anyone else
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: in president in my lifetime has done this, so it's
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: totally bizarre. Another weird thing about the complaints is he
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: calls himself President Trump in the complaint. Even though this
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: is a lawsuit he's bringing in his individual capacity as
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: citizen Trump, he calls himself President Trump, which I think
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: says something about the kind of erosion of the barriers
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: between the president as the president as an officer of
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: the United States and the sort of President Trump as individual,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: sort of personalist brand and politics he's practicing.
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: So you think that part of the motivation of this
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: lawsuit is messaging.
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: This is kind of just setting a message don't defy me,
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: or you're going to have trouble, which kind of could
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: be a message not to just a JP mortgamant, to
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: all sorts of actors, executives, directors, corporate America not to
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: step out of line or you're going to have trouble.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: So I think this lawsuit is potentially accomplishing motives there.
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: I don't really think that the money is the main one,
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: because he now has so much of it, especially after
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: all his you know, the money they've been making in
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: crypto recently. Let that money make a great part of
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: it too.
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: We'll see if there's a motion to dismiss first or
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: emotion for arbitration. Thanks so much, Riley. That's Professor Riley
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: Steele of Columbia Law School. Last year, President Trump used
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: executive orders in presidential memos to penalize law firms for
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: representing clients or taking actions he opposed. Some of those
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: law firms targeted by executive orders sued the administration, calling
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: the orders unconstitutional, but the firm of Paul Weiss settled.
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: In addition, eight other firms made preemptive deals to avoid
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: being targeted by executive orders. As part of the settlements,
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: the nine law firms agreed to provide a total of
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: nine hundre undred and forty million dollars in pro bono
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: work to efforts supported by the President and the firm.
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: It wasn't a particularly good look for the legal profession. Now,
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: with rising threats to the rule of law, two retired
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: judges have suggested a new initiative to publicly defend the
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: independence and ethical obligations of lawyers. It's entitled A Simple
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: Proposal for the Legal Profession to Regain its Dignity. It
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: was written by Shira Shinlan, a former judge of the U. S.
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: John Jones the Third, the former Chief Judge of the U. S.
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Judge Jones
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: joins me, Now, Judge Jones, how would you characterize the
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: way the legal profession reacted last year to being targeted
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: by President Trump?
• 11:52
  Speaker 4: I think it was a mixed bag. The firms that
• 11:55
  Speaker 4: dug in and fought won because I think the executive
• 12:02
  Speaker 4: orders were clearly beyond the purview of the president, and
• 12:08
  Speaker 4: in any event they violated the firm's First Amendment rights.
• 12:12
  Speaker 4: But there were other firms that felt, for a variety
• 12:17
  Speaker 4: of reasons, compelled to bend and capitulate and make arrangements,
• 12:22
  Speaker 4: typically citing the loss of clients, the determination that they
• 12:27
  Speaker 4: didn't want to get at odds with the administration, and
• 12:30
  Speaker 4: so forth. So it was truly mixed and divergent in
• 12:34
  Speaker 4: terms of the reactions.
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: Why have you and Judge Shyland written this off ed?
• 12:39
  Speaker 4: It was something that Judge Shyland I give her abundant credit.
• 12:43
  Speaker 4: She thought of this and started the ball rolling. In
• 12:48
  Speaker 4: terms of forming the principles, I was very happy to
• 12:52
  Speaker 4: sign on. We felt that it was within the clear
• 12:56
  Speaker 4: mission of the Article three coalition. Both of us are
• 13:01
  Speaker 4: a part of which, of course is now over sixty
• 13:05
  Speaker 4: former federal judges banding together dating back to Reagan appointees,
• 13:11
  Speaker 4: and as we said in the op ed, as jurists
• 13:15
  Speaker 4: who had a combined service of probably near five decades
• 13:22
  Speaker 4: on the bench, we felt that it was important for
• 13:26
  Speaker 4: us to speak up for the legal profession in a
• 13:30
  Speaker 4: way that perhaps it would be difficult for individual firms
• 13:35
  Speaker 4: to be the rallying points. It has to start somewhere,
• 13:38
  Speaker 4: and we thought this was the proper way to do it.
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: Tell us a little about the Sullivan principles and what
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: you're aiming for here.
• 13:46
  Speaker 4: Well, as Sullivan principles of course date back to the
• 13:50
  Speaker 4: Reverend Leon Sullivan in Philadelphia and South Africa and corporations
• 13:55
  Speaker 4: and so forth. But what we wanted to do was
• 13:59
  Speaker 4: to state clearly that law firms should feel empowered to
• 14:05
  Speaker 4: resist this type of overreach from the administration. Lawyers govern
• 14:10
  Speaker 4: themselves and do so quite well through bar associations, through
• 14:16
  Speaker 4: the disciplinary apparatus that exists in every state. But to
• 14:21
  Speaker 4: find themselves in the penalty box because a particular president
• 14:28
  Speaker 4: doesn't like who they've hired, or doesn't like the clients
• 14:32
  Speaker 4: that they've represented, or the viewpoints that they've espoused, or
• 14:35
  Speaker 4: the pro bono work that they're doing, flies in the
• 14:38
  Speaker 4: face of the tradition of the legal profession, which is
• 14:42
  Speaker 4: to provide legal services even in the face of potentially
• 14:47
  Speaker 4: unpopular causes, and in particular serving those who can't afford
• 14:53
  Speaker 4: legal services, free of being mandated to support certain causes
• 15:00
  Speaker 4: but to abandon others, again by an executive order. So
• 15:05
  Speaker 4: the principles are kind of a reaffirmation of what we
• 15:11
  Speaker 4: believe has always been in the best tradition of the
• 15:14
  Speaker 4: legal profession, which is to provide representation free of coercion
• 15:21
  Speaker 4: or being sanctioned by some third party because of a
• 15:27
  Speaker 4: particular cause or a viewpoint.
• 15:30
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I was going to say, it didn't seem like
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: there was anything new in what you were suggesting. Are
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: you just trying to give other lawyers courage to stick
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: to the principles.
• 15:42
  Speaker 4: I think that's precisely it. I think it's really in
• 15:45
  Speaker 4: a sense of reaffirmation. There isn't anything new. It's not
• 15:49
  Speaker 4: for us to add something to I think a system
• 15:53
  Speaker 4: that historically has worked very well. We all know the
• 15:58
  Speaker 4: story of John Adam representing the British soldiers in history,
• 16:03
  Speaker 4: something that was hardly popular in Boston at that time.
• 16:08
  Speaker 4: All of us who practiced law, and I did for
• 16:12
  Speaker 4: a lot of years before I took the bench, had
• 16:15
  Speaker 4: occasion to represent clients who perhaps had causes that people
• 16:21
  Speaker 4: would disagree with. But that's the nature of giving people
• 16:25
  Speaker 4: access to the courts. It's essential to the rule of law,
• 16:29
  Speaker 4: and it strikes at the heart of that when you
• 16:33
  Speaker 4: have an administration that labels. For example, a law firm
• 16:38
  Speaker 4: that is completely reputable as a rogue law firm, that
• 16:43
  Speaker 4: locks lawyers out of federal courthouses, that strips security clearances
• 16:48
  Speaker 4: for lawyers, just in a sort of fit of peak
• 16:50
  Speaker 4: because they don't like what those lawyers are doing. That's
• 16:53
  Speaker 4: the type of behavior that an authoritarian regime exposes.
• 16:57
  Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Judge Jones, It's always great to have
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: you on the show. That's John Jones the Third, the
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: former chief Judge of the United States District Court for
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He's now the president of
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: Dickinson College. Retired federal judges Shira Shineland and Johnny Jones
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: the Third have suggested a new initiative to reaffirm the
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: foundational role of lawyers in our constitutional system. It's entitled
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: a Simple Proposal for the Legal Profession to Regain its dignity.
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: Joining me now to talk about their initiative is former
• 17:33
  Speaker 2: Judge Sirah Shineland. Judge Shiland, why do you think so
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: many successful top tier law firms ended up caving to
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: President Trump's demands and settling last year.
• 17:47
  Speaker 3: Well, first of all, I haven't used the word cave ever,
• 17:50
  Speaker 3: but I know they are those who do. I think
• 17:52
  Speaker 3: they really felt that their sort of existence was threatened,
• 17:57
  Speaker 3: even though you say they're very successful firms, very large firms.
• 18:01
  Speaker 3: But if somebody threatens them and says you will not
• 18:05
  Speaker 3: be able to enter a federal courthouse, we will eliminate
• 18:09
  Speaker 3: your security clearances, we will not give government contracts to
• 18:15
  Speaker 3: your clients. I mean the clients will plead they'll find
• 18:19
  Speaker 3: other firms to do the work. And so I think
• 18:22
  Speaker 3: these firms were seriously concerned as to the impact of
• 18:27
  Speaker 3: this executive order on their bottom line, their financial existence,
• 18:32
  Speaker 3: and they weren't willing to go to court oppose the
• 18:37
  Speaker 3: executive order as other firms did, which results in four
• 18:41
  Speaker 3: very positive decisions. Say that the eos are called eos
• 18:45
  Speaker 3: executive orders were unconstitutional, But I think the first firms
• 18:49
  Speaker 3: to get these notices just said it's be easier to
• 18:53
  Speaker 3: work it out than to fight. And I know that
• 18:56
  Speaker 3: the very first firm, Paul White, mister Carr went to
• 18:59
  Speaker 3: the White and negotiated a resolution that he thought would
• 19:04
  Speaker 3: be something that he could live with. When I think
• 19:06
  Speaker 3: he was surprised by is how the reaction to his
• 19:10
  Speaker 3: decision was so negative that the legal profession was critical
• 19:14
  Speaker 3: of his decisions. But then you know a few more
• 19:17
  Speaker 3: of the very big firms did the same thing, and
• 19:19
  Speaker 3: I think it came to nine in the end. So
• 19:22
  Speaker 3: even though there was an outcry after the first firm
• 19:25
  Speaker 3: made a deal, several mores did the same things.
• 19:28
  Speaker 2: So it seems as if the Trump administration, at least
• 19:33
  Speaker 2: for now, has backed off on the threats to law firms.
• 19:36
  Speaker 3: Just to know. They're not sending out any new executive
• 19:40
  Speaker 3: orders that I know of, but they are appealing the
• 19:44
  Speaker 3: decisions of the four district courts which have all held
• 19:49
  Speaker 3: that those original executive boards were unconstitutional. They really wanted
• 19:52
  Speaker 3: to back off, they wouldn't bother with the appeal, but
• 19:55
  Speaker 3: they're continuing to fight and say we had every right
• 19:59
  Speaker 3: to those executive orders and threaten those law firms and
• 20:02
  Speaker 3: tell them what they could or couldn't do in their practice.
• 20:06
  Speaker 3: So they are taking appeals, so I wouldn't entirely say
• 20:09
  Speaker 3: they've backed off. Maybe they're just holding off to see
• 20:11
  Speaker 3: how the appeals work out.
• 20:13
  Speaker 2: So I mean, what are you hoping to accomplish with
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: your peace in the times?
• 20:18
  Speaker 3: The peace in the times is really just a way
• 20:21
  Speaker 3: so to seek to publicize the principles for the Independence
• 20:25
  Speaker 3: of the legal profession that a number of former federal
• 20:29
  Speaker 3: judges associated would keep. Our republic has worked one very
• 20:34
  Speaker 3: hard to make them straightforward, simple and clear. We want
• 20:39
  Speaker 3: to have them widely adopted by law firms, as law schools,
• 20:45
  Speaker 3: and individual lawyers, and general counsels of corporations and nonprofits,
• 20:52
  Speaker 3: and eventually even government lawyers. So we're hoping that if
• 20:57
  Speaker 3: hundreds and hopefully thousands of people adopt these principles, and
• 21:02
  Speaker 3: hundreds of law firms do and hundreds of law schools,
• 21:06
  Speaker 3: that they're going to say to the legal profession, silence
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: is not an option. You must buy these type of
• 21:14
  Speaker 3: executive orders because they impinge on your independence. And how
• 21:20
  Speaker 3: does that relate to courts? Because courts can't rule on
• 21:24
  Speaker 3: cases they don't have right. They can only respond to
• 21:28
  Speaker 3: cases brought to them by lawyers. So if lawyers are independent,
• 21:32
  Speaker 3: then the courts are so as a group of former judges,
• 21:36
  Speaker 3: we know that it's lawyers that bring cases to court.
• 21:40
  Speaker 3: It's lawyers who to the government when they think the
• 21:42
  Speaker 3: government is acting inappropriately. So we feel that there is
• 21:46
  Speaker 3: a connection there that we as former judges who care
• 21:50
  Speaker 3: very much about the independence of lawyers, because lawyers bring
• 21:54
  Speaker 3: cases to the court and then the court's rule and
• 21:57
  Speaker 3: then law is made in our country, And judge.
• 22:00
  Speaker 2: What can you do about the public's seeming loss of
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: confidence in the courts.
• 22:07
  Speaker 3: I do think they have lost some confidence in the
• 22:11
  Speaker 3: court because primarily of the United States Supreme Court, meaning
• 22:17
  Speaker 3: that the district courts have ruled against the government when
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: they think it's appropriate. The appellate court has affirmed those
• 22:25
  Speaker 3: opinions when they think it's appropriate. But then it goes
• 22:28
  Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court on an emergency docket appeal, which
• 22:31
  Speaker 3: we call the shadow docket, and then a stay is entrant,
• 22:34
  Speaker 3: and all of a sudden, the bad conduct can continue,
• 22:38
  Speaker 3: maybe for a year, maybe for two years, so they
• 22:40
  Speaker 3: actually hear the merit. So I think there's been a
• 22:43
  Speaker 3: real loss of confidence at the top of the judiciary
• 22:47
  Speaker 3: because of the extremely deferential attitude the Supreme Court is
• 22:52
  Speaker 3: taken to the executive branch. You may have seen those
• 22:55
  Speaker 3: statistics that if there's been I don't know thirty five
• 22:58
  Speaker 3: appeals to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration has one
• 23:01
  Speaker 3: eight ninety percent of those emergency docket appeals not a
• 23:06
  Speaker 3: full hearing, So I think that's what's caused the laws
• 23:09
  Speaker 3: of confidence in the judicial branch. As far as the
• 23:13
  Speaker 3: attacks on judges, that's so wrong and so bad that
• 23:16
  Speaker 3: I think the public doesn't like to hear about that,
• 23:20
  Speaker 3: about judges being threatened physically of their family, or judges
• 23:24
  Speaker 3: being impeached for doing their job. So I think the
• 23:27
  Speaker 3: public is supportive of the lower courts for sure, and
• 23:31
  Speaker 3: it doesn't like to see them threatened like that.
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: And what kind of response have you gotten to your
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: outreach here?
• 23:38
  Speaker 3: Oh so, so far we're having a wonderful response. And
• 23:41
  Speaker 3: I think that was the point of the op ed
• 23:43
  Speaker 3: I saw. After we finished drafting the principles, which is
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: way back in September, it took several months of them
• 23:49
  Speaker 3: to be adopted by to Keep Our Republic Article three Coalition,
• 23:54
  Speaker 3: which is a subset of Keep Our Republic. By the
• 23:57
  Speaker 3: time that was adopted by the majority of the judges
• 24:00
  Speaker 3: in the Article three Coalition, it was almost January. But
• 24:03
  Speaker 3: I said, we need to write a quick op at
• 24:05
  Speaker 3: and get it hopefully widely disseminated, which means the New
• 24:09
  Speaker 3: York Times because it's sort of the premier paper records.
• 24:13
  Speaker 3: Let's see if we can get it published there because
• 24:15
  Speaker 3: I think then it's widely seen, and that's what happened.
• 24:18
  Speaker 3: It was, of course posted online last Monday, and it
• 24:21
  Speaker 3: was a prince on Friday. We've had a wonderful response.
• 24:24
  Speaker 3: We now have over six hundred lawyers who have signed
• 24:27
  Speaker 3: on to the principles, and I think by the time
• 24:29
  Speaker 3: we're done, it's going to be well over one thousand.
• 24:32
  Speaker 3: And we're also doing outreach to organizations, not just lawyers individually,
• 24:38
  Speaker 3: but to law firms, law schools, corporations, nonprofits. We are
• 24:43
  Speaker 3: reaching out to all those sectors of the legal profession.
• 24:47
  Speaker 3: Oh I forgot a very important bar association, and if
• 24:50
  Speaker 3: they begin to sign on, it's going to become a
• 24:53
  Speaker 3: really powerful tool to say we've adopted these principles. Therefore,
• 24:57
  Speaker 3: we have to resist if anybody were to try to
• 25:00
  Speaker 3: tell us who we can represent or not, what we
• 25:02
  Speaker 3: can write or not, and who we can give money
• 25:04
  Speaker 3: to or not, and who we could give pro bono
• 25:07
  Speaker 3: hours two or not. If anybody tries to tell us,
• 25:10
  Speaker 3: we can hold these up and say I'm sorry, we
• 25:12
  Speaker 3: can't not do these things because that would be unethical.
• 25:16
  Speaker 3: These are the principles that govern the legal profession and
• 25:19
  Speaker 3: its independence, you know.
• 25:20
  Speaker 2: Talking about the public's confidence in the legal system, and
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: you mentioned the Supreme Court. I'm wondering if another component
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: of that is the way the Department of Justice is
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: acting recently. A good example is what's happening in Minneapolis
• 25:37
  Speaker 2: right now.
• 25:38
  Speaker 3: Of course, So the answer to that is the Justice
• 25:41
  Speaker 3: Department used to be independent of the executive of the
• 25:45
  Speaker 3: White House. Ever since the Nixon administration and Watergate scandal,
• 25:49
  Speaker 3: it was very important that the White House did never
• 25:53
  Speaker 3: even talk to the Attorney General, try to always have
• 25:56
  Speaker 3: them be distant and independent of each other. But under
• 26:01
  Speaker 3: this administration, it does appear that the President tells the
• 26:06
  Speaker 3: Attorney General what he wants. Go out and indict James Tomy,
• 26:11
  Speaker 3: go out and indict Letitia James. And it doesn't stop
• 26:16
  Speaker 3: with those two. Go out and indict for the head
• 26:19
  Speaker 3: of the Federal Reserve, Gerald Pouse, go out and indict
• 26:22
  Speaker 3: John Bolton. I mean, go out and invite Lisa Cook
• 26:25
  Speaker 3: and think oh, go out and inde Jacksmith. Now sure,
• 26:29
  Speaker 3: so the White House seems to be telling the d
• 26:33
  Speaker 3: o J what to do, and so the Department of
• 26:36
  Speaker 3: Justice seems to be not a non partisan place. It
• 26:41
  Speaker 3: seems to be very, very political and if the views
• 26:44
  Speaker 3: of what happened in Minnesota have been terribly upsetting, I
• 26:49
  Speaker 3: think to the people of Minnesota who are enraged as
• 26:54
  Speaker 3: to how I has behaved there, and they're very troubled
• 26:58
  Speaker 3: that the so called investtigation into the shooting of Renee
• 27:02
  Speaker 3: Goods was shut down in two three days. It was
• 27:04
  Speaker 3: not a real investigation. Anybody who watched the videos, I
• 27:08
  Speaker 3: think knows exactly what happened. But this is kind of
• 27:12
  Speaker 3: a cover up. And now we have Alex pretty and
• 27:15
  Speaker 3: again they're saying state and local law enforces stay out
• 27:18
  Speaker 3: of this. We will investigate, but I'm not sure that
• 27:21
  Speaker 3: people trust them to investigate in a neutral and fair way. Again,
• 27:26
  Speaker 3: the videos of that shooting are compelling, and they don't
• 27:30
  Speaker 3: match the narrative that we're hearing from the administration not
• 27:34
  Speaker 3: at all. So sure that causes people to lose trust
• 27:38
  Speaker 3: in the Department of Justice. Now, you know another thing
• 27:41
  Speaker 3: we should highlight is the government attorneys have resigned or
• 27:46
  Speaker 3: been fired at an enormous rate. Thousands of vacancies have
• 27:51
  Speaker 3: occurred in the main justice that is Washington and in
• 27:55
  Speaker 3: all of the US attorney's offices around the country. Because
• 27:58
  Speaker 3: so many governments, profecutors have been fired or have resigned
• 28:03
  Speaker 3: because they don't want to follow the orders coming out
• 28:07
  Speaker 3: of main Justice. Now that happened in Minnesota career prosecutors.
• 28:11
  Speaker 3: The second person in charge there, who had done work
• 28:14
  Speaker 3: on the big fraud case, just resigned because he was
• 28:19
  Speaker 3: so upset with what he was told to do, which
• 28:22
  Speaker 3: was to investigate Renee Good's widow to see if she's
• 28:25
  Speaker 3: a terrorist. I mean, it just was silly. Instead of
• 28:27
  Speaker 3: investigating the shooter, they just switched gears and said you
• 28:31
  Speaker 3: got to go after the widow. And that's when six
• 28:34
  Speaker 3: I think it was six assistant US attorneys there resigned
• 28:37
  Speaker 3: and for resigned in Washington over the other issue. I
• 28:41
  Speaker 3: think the federal reserved. They didn't want to pursue the
• 28:45
  Speaker 3: penis and whatnot on with your own power situation. So
• 28:48
  Speaker 3: there are just tons of vacancy because people have lost
• 28:52
  Speaker 3: faith that this is really a neutral and fair agency
• 28:55
  Speaker 3: and that it does what it thinks is right. That
• 28:59
  Speaker 3: there was investigator first and charge later, and now we
• 29:02
  Speaker 3: seem to have charge first and investigate maybe later. So
• 29:05
  Speaker 3: if you could make a case, we'll.
• 29:07
  Speaker 2: See if there are any changes. As the borders are.
• 29:10
  Speaker 2: Tom Homan meets with local officials. Thank you so much,
• 29:13
  Speaker 2: Judge Shinland. That's Sheri A. Shinlan, a former judge of
• 29:17
  Speaker 2: the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
• 29:20
  Speaker 2: She's now a full time arbitrator and mediator. And that's
• 29:23
  Speaker 2: it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember
• 29:26
  Speaker 2: you can always get the latest legal news on our
• 29:28
  Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 29:32
  Speaker 2: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law,
• 29:38
  Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
• 29:40
  Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
• 29:44
  Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg