"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Monday, February 13, 2017

The true reason why large law firms lend a hand to sue for "individual rights of immigrants" appears to be to protect employers' "right" to the unhindered flow of cheap foreign labor

As I wrote before that, after a series of TROs imposed by various federal district courts upon the President's Executive Order - without any reasoning or legal analysis - a federal district court in the State of Massachusetts refused to prolong the previously granted temporary restraining order upon President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration, in a well-reasoned decision.

I also wrote that a federal court in the district of Washington then did impose a TRO nationwide, practically overruling the Massachusetts federal district court, for which the Washington federal district court had no authority - because the Washington federal district court and the Massachusetts district court were within different appellate jurisdictions.

I also wrote that the decision in the 9th Circuit to deny to the President the stay of the TRO imposed by the Washington federal district court, was made by a court, a judge and three law clerks with financial interests in the outcome of the matter, which makes the decision void.  

Nevertheless, before I post my back-to-back comparative analysis of both the lawsuits filed in the lower federal courts in Washington and Massachusetts and of the diametrically opposite decisions issued by the Massachusetts district court and the 9th Circuit, I would like to draw public attention to a statement made by one of the attorneys who have lost their application to the Massachusetts federal district Judge Nathaniel Gorton, Susan J. Cohen of a large Boston firm Mints, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Globsky & Popeo, PC commenting the 9th Circuit decision during the pendency of her own litigation in the Massachusetts federal district court.

Here are:

Here is the list of attorneys representing an individual defendant by the name of Arghavan Louhghalam (the list of attorneys of record is the same for all individual plaintiffs and one non-profit corporation, see the docket report):

Why 14 attorneys out of 4 large law firms:

Adriana Lafaille ACLU MA
Matthew Segal ACLU MA
Jessie J. Rossman ACLU MA
Sarah R. Wunsch ACLU MA
Derege B. Demissie Demissie & Church
Susan B. Church Demissie & Church
Heather Yountz Demissie & Church
Kerry E. Doyle Graves & Doyle
Elizabeth B. Burnett Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC
Michael S. Gardener Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC
Susan M. Finegan Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC
Andrew Nathanson Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC
Peter A. Biagetti Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC
Susan J. Cohen Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC

have to represent one individual plaintiff is anybody's guess, but all of them, in case of a "victory" will charge billable hours of, likely $400 per hour or more, for their "work".

The same - billing hours and throwing around the clout of each individual attorney - would be the reason why Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Globsky and Popeo, PC entrusted to represent each individual plaintiff in this case to its 6 attorneys:

Elizabeth B. Burnett
Michael S.Gardener
Susan M. Finegan
Andrew Nathanson
Peter A. Biagetti
Susan J. Cohen

including one "special counsel" Andrew Nathanson and 5 members of the PC (professional corporation), where only Susan J. Cohen is a specialist in immigration law, and only Susan J. Cohen and Andrew Nathanson had any experience in immigration cases (Andrew Nathanson's area of practice is completely different, according to his webpage, his experience with immigration cases is only through the firm's pro bono project,

and that does not say much, because often attorneys from other areas of specialization come to represent "pro bono" clients only to get free CLE credits, but provide no value to the pro bono client, or harm the client by their lack of expertise).

Why Mintz etc., Demissie & Church and Graves & Doyle attorneys had to jump into the fray at all, when there were already four ACLU attorneys in the case can be explained, likely, by greed (billable hours and recovery of attorney fees from the U.S. taxpayers under 42 U.S.C. 1988 if attorneys' collective political clout would allow to push this meritless case through the courts), since there was obviously no need for 14 attorneys representing one civil rights case.

After their bitter loss in federal court (where proceedings at this time came to a lull, there were not filings after the order of Judge Gorton denying the TRO), here is what attorney Susan J. Cohen  has to say about the 9th Circuit decision - which, once again, is diametrically opposite to the decision of the judge against Susan J. Cohen's clients, and which unlawfully overrules Judge Gorton, even though it had no territorial jurisdiction to do so, multiple financial disqualifying conflicts of interest, and extremely problematic legal analysis:


“This decision from the 9th Circuit is very significant for the employers in the United States and institutions in the United States because it sets out in the decision a number of points regarding the rights about the foreign nationals, U.S. residents, citizens and companies and institutions, employers, really, have in the United States with respect to the ability of their employees to travel in and out of the United States for purposes of research, meetings and other vitally important aspects of science, and business, and commerce in the United States. 

So, this decision has wide-ranging implications for due process rights and the future determination, perhaps, by the U.S. Supreme Court, of the rights of individual states and employers in contrast with the right of the President of the United States to control the inflow of immigrants and others into the United States to protect the country.

So, it’s an important decision, because there are many statements in the written decision which support the notion that employers have the right to have vitally important employees and others who are supporting the work of the institution or the company to come into the country and freely travel back and forth to do this important work and not tie their hands and hinder the important work that the United States needs to carry out.


You can view the video statement of attorney Susan J. Cohen here, on the left of the webpage.

It is significant that Susan J. Cohen, an immigration attorney from a large 500-lawyer strong Boston firm representing corporations, including manufacturers, puts a stress in her 1 minute 50 second statement upon the rights of employers for the free flow of immigrant workers in and out of the country, unhindered by the President's immigration policies.

While in the first part of her speech Susan J. Cohen paid lip service to the rights of "foreign nationals, U.S. residents, citizens", that was just one time in her speech that she referred to those rights.

Then - even though she represents in the Massachusetts court 6 individuals and one non-profit corporation that does not employ immigrants - Susan J. Cohen concentrated on the rights of "institutions, states and employers" for the free flow of immigrant workers "and others" "supporting their important work".

In that short speech, while Susan J. Cohen has mentioned individual rights only once, she mentioned the word

  • "employers"  - 5 times and
  • "insitutions" - 3 times.
So, it is really not about "individual due process rights".

And it is not about the rights of the States so much, as about the rights of private employers - see how Susan Cohen shifts her focus from the States that were suing in the 9th Circuit decision to all employers, private companies - to a free and unhindered flow of cheap foreign labor.

Americans, including unemployed or underemployed Americans, protesting in the streets against President Trump's Executive order on immigration should take notice of this singular focus.

Employers, manufacturers, retailers, large state and private educational institutions, clients of large law firms, are looking to fill their vacancies not with Americans, but with immigrants.

Why?  Because immigrant labor is cheaper, and because immigrants, until they receive citizenship - and a "path for citizenship" may take years - are more pliable to employer who can revoke their "sponsorship" for visa at any time, so immigrant employees are less bothersome and less of a lawsuit risk for harassment, employment discrimination, poor working conditions, low pay etc.

So, this is the most important goal that immigration lawsuits funded by legal elite and, likely, by their corporate clients pursue:


That's the goal of the main, "rainmaking" (profit-bringing) clients of the legal elite, and the reason for throwing money and effort into such court cases - in addition to the law firm's billable hours for 14 expensive attorneys getting paid for the work of one that the court thinly hinted was frivolous in the first place.

By the way, nothing in the docket report of the case where Susan Cohen appeared indicated that the work is being done pro bono.

My analysis of the court cases where Susan Cohen lost an application for a TRO, and the one upon which she commented, will follow.

Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment