Grapejamgate

Is the Supreme Court next for Grapejamgate?

And why wasn’t that question the lede on news stories about this controversy?

In case you missed it — and how could you? — the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit last week denied a petition for review of a ruling from the circuit’s chief judge that an unnamed federal judge shouldn’t be disciplined because the gift they got was no big deal.

There was also some other stuff in the ruling about the judge being harsh to clerks — typical boss behavior — but agreeing to get counseling. The shocking part, though, were charges that included “the judge’s acceptance of a gift from a departing law clerk and solicitation and acceptance of a jar of grape jam from a member of chambers staff.”

Finally, a court insider has had the courage to expose corruption in the judicial system!

The unnamed whistleblower clerk filed a “request for assisted resolution” in September 2022 claiming “abusive and harassing conduct in the judge’s treatment of chambers staff.” It’s unclear whether the abuse included the demand for jam.

The clerk was allowed to transfer to another judge. That might have ended things but this clerk was on a mission for justice. The day after the transfer, they filed a complaint about not only abuse but also the jam and a couple of other things including the judge supposedly texting to a friend who happened to be a lawyer.

Last December, Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston issued a ruling that might again have ended this tale. Some of it may be hard to believe.

“The judge shared on several occasions how deeply troubled and saddened the judge was at hearing the concerns expressed by the complainant and others, and wanted it to be clear that the Judge is committed to creating a better workplace environment for chambers staff.”

They’re shocked! Shocked to learn people thought they were mean! They’re so sorry.

The judge, you’ll be happy to know, agreed to be better and get counseling.

Whew.

As for the graft — which also included “a gift from an outgoing law clerk of a framed newspaper cutting from the 1970s featuring one of the judge’s favorite bands” — the chief decided it was no big deal.

End of story?

Nope. The relentless complaining clerk asked for a Judicial Council review. The quest for social justice never ends.

Or maybe the quest for career suicide.

Do you get the feeling there’s more to this story than we’re being told? There’s got to be a spurned lover or something here.

Anyway, don’t we all want to hear what Clarence Thomas has to say about Grapejamgate? Let’s hope the Supreme Court grants cert.

Mysterious exodus explained. Finally we know why veteran lawyers are leaving the profession.

The California Bar last week issued an amazing news release that included the results of an inactive attorney survey that “was the first in-depth look at when and why attorneys choose to go on inactive status.”

I don’t know why we need to know about this unless inactive means homeless or paralyzed. That would be important to know about, but there’s no mention of destitute bedridden lawyers.

Here is one of the findings: “The analyses suggest that retirement is a significant reason for transitioning to inactive status.”

It turns out that “the growth in inactive attorneys was primarily driven by those age 70 and older.”

Maybe an in-depth look wasn’t that necessary.

Categories / Op-Ed