By: Barbara Grzincic

Greetings from Chicago and the American Bar Association’s Annual Meeting through a Maryland-focused lens!

First, just let me say, the public art and architecture is jaw-dropping, the deep-dish pizza is jaw-inspiring, and the water in Lake Michigan — well, I haven’t been in yet, but I hear it’s jaw-chilling, even in the height of summer.

Speaking of jawing, let me just give you a flavor for what’s on offer here.

One panel this morning – Hot Topics and Recent Developments in Public Corruption Investigations & Government Ethics – seemed particularly apt in light of the (re)indictments handed up this week in the Baltimore City Hall corruption cases.

Moderator Patrick M. Collins, who successfully prosecuted former Illinois Gov. George Ryan and was U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s corruption unit supervisor before going into private practice, kicked off the session with a video montage of seemingly endless local news coverage of the prosecution of this state’s notoriously corrupt politicos. It included a clip from The Daily Show in which host Jon Stewart, with statistical backing, claims a person is more likely to go to jail if he is an Illinois governor than if he is a murderer.

The ensuing discussion centered on the botched prosecution of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the recent high-profile cases here in Chicago and how prosecutors and judges should handle sticky issues like turning over Brady material and interaction with the media in such cases.

The panel unfortunately did not include any current prosecutors – the DoJ and Fitzgerald’s office were invited but declined – but nothing else about the panelists was wanting: Ed Genson, who represented Rod Blagojevich; Robert Cary, who represented Stevens; U.S. District Judges Paul L. Friedman (D.C.) and Amy St. Eve (Ill.); and Abner J. Mikva, the former five-term Congressman and D.C. Circuit Judge, were all in attendance. (Friedman and Mikva are shown in the photo above.)

Cary laid into the prosecutors from the DoJ’s public integrity unit for withholding exculpatory evidence in the Stevens case, and praised an FBI whistleblower, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the presiding judge, Emmett Sullivan, as heroes. That kicked off a debate on Brady v. Maryland.

“I don’t think prosecutors understand their Brady obligations,” Judge Friedman said. “Judges should not accept representations that, ‘We know our obligations and we’re meeting them.’”

Friedman went on to say that while the appellate standard might be whether the information is material, “it sure as hell shouldn’t be the standard the prosecutor applies.”

“That’s looking at it pretrial through the wrong end of the telescope,” he said, a stance with which Mikva seemed to agree.

Cary and Genson support going one step further: an open-file policy. And Judge St. Eve suggested the safest course of action is to ask the judge.

Mikva would also probably approve of at least one aspect of Maryland State Prosecutor Robert A. Rohrbaugh’s conduct over the past few years in his pursuit of Baltimore Mayor Sheila A. Dixon, City Councilwoman Helen L. Holton and developers Ronald H. Lipscomb and John Paterakis. “I do not like…the prosecutor trying his case, and particularly tainting the jury pool, with a big press conference,” Mikva said, calling the prosecutor’s duty to inform the public “nonsense” given the presumptive openness of the courts. But, he admitted, “I’m not sure we can do anything about it.”

And as for the jury’s exposure to public information, all agreed that jurors conducting outside research is a big problem, especially in the age of the Internet, and that establishing a rapport with them that makes them feel invested in doing things right is the only way to check that tendency.

“Do you Twitter, Eddie?” Rollins quipped to his longtime rival.

“I don’t even know what that word means,” Genson responded to laughter.

What do you think these lawyers and judges would say about this year’s action in the City Hall cases?

– BRENDAN KEARNEY

By: Barbara Grzincic

Wednesday’s reindictment of Mayor Sheila A. Dixon is reinvigorating our interest in the fight between her lawyers and the state prosecutor over three grand jury subpoenas issued well after her first indictmen.

Even though the state prosecutor withdrew the post-indictment subpoenas shortly after her lawyers sought to quash them earlier this month, the presiding judge asked for more discussion of the issue.

And lawyers on both sides, none particularly shy, have obliged, poised to make pretrial hay of the controversy.

Last Monday, State Prosecutor Robert A. Rohrbaugh said the public filing of Dixon’s motion to quash — to prevent two current city employees and one former city employee from offering testimony and evidence to the grand jury — was “in direct contravention” of the Maryland rules and that it could “inappropriately influence the potential jury pool and prospective jurors.” He promised to say more in a private hearing.

Dixon’s lawyers called Rohrbaugh’s two-page response “paltry” and accused the state prosecutor of blaming Dixon for his mistake.

“By withdrawing the subpoenas, the State impliedly admits that it abused the grand jury process by issuing them in the first place,”their motion reads. “Yet, in what can only be described as the height of irony, the State Prosecutor complains that the defendant has wrongfully exposed his abuse of process by filing her motion on the public record.”

“The grand jury is not the prosecutor’s private discovery cell, and he should not be permitted to undermine the integrity of the Court’s processes to his own advantage, nor hide behind the veil of grand jury secrecy for that purpose.”

Rohrbaugh argues it’s a moot point, but Dixon’s defense team thinks there might be “other potential similar violations.”

In light of yesterday’s reindictments, is the subpoena question even more moot, or even more relevant?

– BRENDAN KEARNEY

 

By: Caryn Tamber

Once again, Miles & Stockbridge scored high in the American Lawyer’s survey of midlevel associate satisfaction. Last year, the firm placed second; this year, it’s fifth.

As a whole, though, associate morale nosedived this year, which is no surprise.

Current and former Miles lawyers: what is the firm doing that’s keeping its associates relatively happy?

By: jackie.sauter

I have a lot of fun browsing someecards.com, a goofy Web site with tongue-in-cheek cards for “when you care enough to hit ‘send’.”

The site’s good about picking up on topical news and current events — in this today’s case, the administration of the bar exam.

My favorite of their offerings reads: “May passing the bar exam be the first step in a brilliant legal career that will be publicly shredded if you’re ever nominated to the Supreme Court.”

Another funny one: “Once you pass the bar exam, you may want to warn future clients that after a few drinks you’ll divulge anything to anybody.”

There are also slightly more risque wishes.

If you’re up for a short break from the grind, check them out; but you might want to send them via your personal account, eh?