I'm not sure that I followed all of the story correctly, but it sounds like the judge is the one who went shopping. And it's a bit rich, considering all the business getting sent to that one-judge federal district in Texas, so that he can exercise his policy preferences for the entire country.
That's how I read it as well, and I was curious if any of the lawyers here have a sense of how these sorts of issues normally get resolved. I feel like this can't be the expected process.
It sounds like part 2 will have more information about the demands placed on the lawyers, but the post has some details.
Nonetheless, on July 8, the panel ordered the lawyers to do substantially more, ordering 21 of the lawyers to appear in person for two days of questioning, "under oath and subject to sequestration orders," and to submit a declaration answering eight questions about the legal strategy and decisions involved in the cases, including pre-litigation preparations, discussions about Alabama judges, communications among the lawyers, and more. They also ordered one of the lawyers to turn over a "Q&A sheet" mentioned at the May 20 hearing.
Additionally, the sequestration and gag order was laid out.
"Counsel SHALL NOT share or discuss their personal declarations with any other attorney who is a subject of this inquiry. In addition, counsel are reminded that they SHALL NOT have any communications with anyone other than with their own counsel regarding any matters related to this Order or that were addressed by the court and counsel during the May 20, 2022 hearing."
That provision led some of the lawyers to challenge the propriety (and constitutionality) of such an order, leading the panel to "modify" it on July 25 -- while maintaining a gag on communications with the press about substantive submissions to the panel.
We should really do that thing from other more centralized bureaucratic countries where you can't be a judge in the state you're from.
I hate it when a judge who sagaciously ruled in my favor on something a few years ago turns out to be a right-wing asshole.
Yes, it's as bonkers as it sounds.
https://www.lawdork.com/p/alabama-judges-lgbtq-lawyers-inquiry-part-2Part 2 of the story
In the midst of that, on October 3, 2023, the three-judge panel of three Republican appointees to Alabama's federal courts found that 11 of the lawyers being investigated -- including some of the nation's leading LGBTQ civil rights lawyers -- had "purposefully attempted to circumvent the random case assignment procedures of the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Alabama and the Middle District of Alabama" with their actions voluntarily dismissing the first two challenges to the law and filing the third challenge.
All 11 of those lawyers have vigorously disputed the findings, the panel's failure to cite the proper legal standards to justify their findings, and the lack of due process involved in the investigation in their court filings. None of the attorneys -- or the lawyers they have retained to represent them in the investigation -- responded to requests for comment on Tuesday.
...
And yet, on May 17, Burke issued an order that four of those 11 lawyers, as well as another lawyer from the original group of 39 lawyers involved in the investigation, turn over a Q&A document to him -- which the lawyers have never turned over because they argued to the panel that it is protected by attorney-client privilege -- by the end of the next business day.
In this order, Burke also threatened the attorneys with being taken into custody if they did not comply, prompting a briefly filed and later withdrawn mandamus petition at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit -- and the first report on this matter at Law Dork.
...
As Shortnacy's response noted bluntly, "[N]either the Panel nor this Court has addressed the dispositive impact of Rule 41 on these proceedings."
In short, this should not be happening. At all.
More than that, in the responses, the lawyers explain -- in context and in light of the facts as they understood them at the time -- how what they did wasn't judge shopping; how, even if it was judge shopping as described, that is not against any rule; and, finally, how, even if it was judge shopping and against any rules, sanctions are not appropriate in this instance. (No, that's not weird; it's just good lawyering.)
1: There's also stuff like this, which should get multiple judges removed from the bench. (tl;dr or for those who don't want to circumvent the paywall, a Texas bankruptcy judge was schtupping his former clerk, who was appearing before him in high-dollar cases, and his buddy on the court sealed the accusation and let it continue for another two years until some reporters discovered that the judge and the lawyer owned a house together.)
6 cont.: The buddy-on-the-court is the schtupper-judge's former law partner, and buddy's daughter is Trump official/INS child cage defender Sarah Isgur. The real scandal, of course, is Hunter Biden.
Also what Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson tell WSJ "reporters" about Biden's mental acuity.