Washington, D.C., Bar Criticizes
Law Firm Settlements with Trump 

     The District of Columbia Bar has put its lawyers on a potential collision course with the Trump administration over a new ethics opinion that criticizes recent settlements with major law firms.
     The D.C. Bar sets the standards for thousands of Washington, D.C., lawyers and their firms. A violation of its rules could result in fines or disbarment.
     In its opinion released last week, the D.C. Bar referred to its “Rules of Professional Conduct” that would call into question the propriety of settlements that nine major firms reached with President Donald Trump to avoid sanctions.
     The opinion did not specifically mention Trump or the firms that settled with him but left no doubt it referred to them. The D.C. Bar said it was responding to “inquiries from bar members related to prospective agreements between a government and lawyers or law firms with conditions that may limit or shape their law practices.”
     Trump threatened to end government contracts with the firms and to bar their lawyers from federal courthouses unless they agreed to provide pro bono work for conservative causes that he chose.
     To avoid the sanctions, nine firms agreed to provide a total of $940 million in legal services for veterans, first responders and to combat anti-semitism. They also agreed to end their hiring and promotion policies based on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) preferences.
     They said they had no other choice when they were faced with the possibility of losing huge swaths of their business.
     Other firms refused to capitulate and instead chose to sue the Trump administration to block sanctions against them. Their lawsuits are pending but so far have won preliminary victories.
     Each of the firms had represented Trump's political adversaries in previous years, thereby prompting his anger.
     One of the three firms that refused to settle was WilmerHale. Trump issued an executive order with tough sanctions against WilmerHale on March 27. The firm won a federal court ruling in May that blocked the Trump administration from taking away WilmerHale’s government contracts, security clearances and access to government buildings.
     WilmerHale had outraged the president by employing lawyers like former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who represented the Democratic National Committee and investigated allegations that the Russians tried to influence the 2016 presidential election in Trump's favor.
     "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon. "The [executive] Order [against WilmerHale] is intended to, and does in fact, impede the firm's ability to effectively represent its clients!"
     The D.C. Bar opinion said such settlements appear to infringe upon the firms' duty of independent decisions while representing clients. 
     The committee said rules of professional conduct forbid lawyers from making agreements "in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice is a part of the settlement of a controversy between parties."
     The opinion also said the settlements effectively allow non-lawyers to guide how they practice law.
     The law firm of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison stunned the legal profession in March by settling with the Trump administration to avoid sanctions. The firm agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono representation for the president’s conservative causes.
     Paul Weiss’s chairman said in an internal message to staff that the firm faced an “existential crisis” if it refused the president’s demands.
     Another law firm that settled was Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, which agreed to at least $100 million in pro bono work for the federal government.
     Democratic members of Congress are investigating whether the settlements for pro bono work violate federal law.
     House Oversight & Government Reform Committee Democrats, such as  Rep. Dave Min, D-Calif., say the settlements create the appearance of extortion. If true, they might violate the ‎Hobbs Act, which prohibits public officials from using coercion to affect commerce.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Major Corporations Face Nov. 7 Deadline
To Explain White House Ballroom Donations

     Friday is the deadline for major corporations to respond to a congressional inquiry about possible conflicts of interest in their donations to a controversial addition to the White House.
     Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., sent letters late last month to corporate donors demanding more information about their motives for contributing millions of dollars to the huge ballroom being built to replace the East Wing of the White House.
     The donor list includes some of the nation's most profitable firms, such as Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta.
     Google’s parent company, Alphabet, is making the biggest contribution at $22 million but it is part of a settlement. President Donald Trump had sued the company after Google subsidiary YouTube suspended his account.
     Defense contractor Lockheed Martin is contributing more than $10 million. Construction company Boxabl is contributing another $10 million.
     Thompson is most interested in knowing whether they were given promises by the Trump administration in return for their donations.
     Thompson is the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee. He says he will take further legislative action if he believes the answers from the corporations are inadequate. He gave them until Nov. 7 to respond.
     The entire East Wing of the White House has been torn down by a wrecking crew to prepare for construction of the 90,000 square foot ballroom. It is scheduled for completion in 2029.
     Thompson called the project a “travesty.”
     “Today, there is a gaping hole in the side of the White House, and no one in the White House has been honest with Americans about the construction plans or the costs,” Thompson wrote in his letter to the corporate executives.
     Cost estimates for the ballroom started at $200 million before the demolition but now reach as high as $350 million.
     A July 31 Trump administration announcement of the construction plan said, “The White House is one of the most beautiful and historic buildings in the world, yet the White House is currently unable to host major functions honoring world leaders and other countries without having to install a large and unsightly tent approximately 100 yards away from the main building entrance.”
     Thompson’s letter to 21 corporations demands that they explain why they contributed to the project, whether their contributions were solicited, how much they contributed and whether they were offered any benefit or recognition in exchange.
     He told the companies they must list their contracts with the federal government, any new contracts they seek and any regulatory actions they have endured.
     “The White House is a treasured symbol of our democracy, and the President has begun to demolish part of it with funds your company contributed. You owe Americans an explanation,” Thompson’s letter says.
     Supporters of the project, such as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., defended the renovation as just one more of several remodelings since the White House was completed in 1800.
     Unlike prior renovations, the Trump administration did not seek pre-approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, which Congress established in 1924. The East Wing was added in 1942.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Senate Told Prompt Action Needed
Against Rising Political Violence

     A Senate panel heard frightening testimony last week about growing rates of political violence in the United States.
     Expert witnesses and lawmakers at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing urged quick action as statistics show the violence is rising. American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab reports that domestic terrorism incidents are up by 67 percent in the past year.
     About 55 percent of them succeed in hitting their targets with violence, the lab reported.
     Most of the proposals pending in Congress envision a bigger police presence for monitoring risks of political violence along with tougher law enforcement against the perpetrators.
     One proposal, called the EAGLES Act, would expand the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center with a broader focus on “targeted violence,” such as school shootings and other public threats.
     A second proposal, the Break the Cycle of Violence Act, would create incentives for community outreach and group violence intervention to reduce all forms of violence.
     “Either we confront this violence and end it or it will end us,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
     Sen. Peter Welch, D-Mass., made a plea that was largely ignored for Democrats and Republicans to avoid blaming each other in a way that would “demonize one side or the other.”
     Among the incidents mentioned at the hearing was the arrest this month of a Minnesota man who offered $45,000 on TikTok to anyone who kills U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.
     The TikTok post allegedly said, "WANTED: Pam Bondi. REWARD: 45,000. DEAD OR ALIVE (PREFERABLY DEAD),” according to an FBI affidavit submitted to the federal court where he faces trial.
     In September, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was murdered during a political rally in Utah. Three months earlier, a Minnesota state legislator and her husband were murdered at their home.
     A Pew Research Center survey released last month shows 85 percent of Americans believe political violence is increasing.
     Some of the witnesses, such as Chad Wolf, a vice president of the America First Policy Institute, talked about the elusive nature of tracking down domestic terrorists. They are spread among organizations of diverse political orientations and sometimes operate as lone wolves.
     “Just because they’re decentralized doesn’t make them less threatening,” Wolf said.
     William Braniff, director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab, said an obstacle often faced by law enforcement in preventing political violence is privacy protections granted under the laws.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Proposal for Non-Lawyers in D.C. Courts
Moves to Rule-Making by Judges

     The next step in deciding whether non-lawyers are allowed to represent low-income residents in District of Columbia courts is now in the hands of local judges.
     The public comment period ended Oct. 31.
     In August, a task force of judges and lawyers recommended in a report that social workers should be trained to help people who cannot afford attorneys handle their civil matters before the courts. Typically, they would include estates, small claims, rent disputes and requests for restraining orders.
     The first recommendation of the District of Columbia Courts Civil Legal Regulatory Reform Task Force says, “The task force unanimously recommends that the Courts establish a framework for Community Justice Worker (CJW) programs.”
     The trained non-lawyers would need to be affiliated with approved nonprofit legal service organizations and work under the supervision of attorneys. Although government grants might be available for the nonprofits, the clients would be represented for free by the “community justice workers.”
     Judges from the D.C. Court of Appeals and Superior Court are putting together a final rule to implement the program. It is expected to start late next year.
     The task force envisions drawing community justice workers from a variety of other professions, such as nurses, public health workers, librarians, teachers, clergy members and law students.
     “In Washington D.C., anywhere between 75 [percent] and 97 percent of high-volume, high- stakes civil cases in our local courts involve at least one unrepresented party,” the task force’s report says. “Despite the substantial pro bono efforts of D.C. Bar members and the outstanding work of legal-services providers, the access-to-justice crisis has persisted for decades.”
     Nonprofits that want to participate will need to submit training proposals for the community justice workers that complies with recommendations in the task force’s report.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Environmentalists Say Trump Pollution Policy
Risks Long-Term Health Consequences

     A group of environmentalists is suing the Trump administration over what they say is a violation of the Clean Air Act that favors industrial polluters.
     The lawsuit filed last month in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., is one of several disputes playing out in the courts and in Congress over recent changes in federal environmental policy.
     Earthjustice and fellow plaintiffs sued to block a two-year extension granted to dozens of corporations to comply with federal pollution standards. The corporations consist largely of chemical manufacturers, oil refineries, coal plants and medical device sterilizers.
     The Trump administration is giving “facilities in states from Louisiana to Michigan a free pass to continue to pollute and put communities at risk for an additional two years,” the lawsuit says. One of the pollutants is ethylene oxide, which has been linked to cancer.
     A White House statement said the organizations still need to comply with Clean Air Act standards but they are merely being given “more time.”
     The lawsuit is running headlong into a Trump administration plan to relax some pollution standards to spur economic growth.
     A similar issue was discussed during a recent Senate hearing, where chemical industry experts warned lawmakers to be careful as they try to balance safety against economic development with a planned rewrite of a federal law on potentially harmful substances.
     The chemical industry complains that prolonged regulatory approvals are making the United States fall behind other countries in a field where Americans traditionally have been world leaders.
     Environmentalists say health problems such as cancer and autism are rising from exposure to toxins. They blame microplastics, asbestos and the PFAS “forever” chemicals as some of the culprits.
     Setting the right priorities is “an issue that lies at the intersection of innovation, safety and U.S. competitiveness," said Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Chemical Safety.
     Legislation pending in Congress would revise the Toxic Substances Control Act that is the cornerstone of U.S. chemical regulation.
     The 1976 law grants agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to regulate the manufacture, import, processing, distribution and disposal of chemical substances.
     Several bills have been introduced in Congress to modify the Toxic Substances Control Act but the primary proposal is H.J.Res. 76. It aligns closely with Trump administration policy that seeks to speed up approvals for chemicals and reduce the regulatory burden on industries.
     The bill would give manufacturers an easier approval pathway for new chemicals and limit the EPA’s authority to restrict or delay their introduction into commerce.
     Environmentalists caution that too much haste could increase hazardous substance risks. Some of the risks mentioned at the hearing come from PFAS, a family of synthetic chemicals known for their durability and resistance to heat, water, and oil.
     They are linked to birth defects, cancer, cardiovascular disease and immune system problems, said Tracey Woodruff, a University of California environmental researcher.
     “These conditions are increasing in the U.S.,” she told the Subcommittee on Chemical Safety.
     Peter Huntsman, chief executive of chemical manufacturer Huntsman Corp., said he agreed safety was important but that the United States is falling behind China and other countries in getting new chemicals into marketplaces.
     “This is all about innovation and about speed,” Huntsman said.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.