HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » At the Supreme Court, Eth...

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 06:21 PM

At the Supreme Court, Ethics Questions Over a Spouse's Business Ties

Source: NYT

The chief justice’s wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, has made millions in her career recruiting lawyers to prominent law firms, some of which have business before the court. Now, a letter sent to Congress claims that may present a conflict of interest.

After Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the Supreme Court, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, gave up her career as a law firm partner to become a high-end legal recruiter in an effort to alleviate potential conflicts of interest. Mrs. Roberts later recalled in an interview that her husband’s job made it “awkward to be practicing law in the firm.”

Now, a former colleague of Mrs. Roberts has raised concerns that her recruiting work poses potential ethics issues for the chief justice. Seeking an inquiry, the ex-colleague has provided records to the Justice Department and Congress indicating Mrs. Roberts has been paid millions of dollars in commissions for placing lawyers at firms — some of which have business before the Supreme Court, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.

In his letter last month, Kendal Price, a 66-year-old Boston lawyer, argued that the justices should be required to disclose more information about their spouses’ work. He did not cite specific Supreme Court decisions, but said he was worried that a financial relationship with law firms arguing before the court could affect justices’ impartiality or at least give the appearance of doing so.

“I do believe that litigants in U.S. courts, and especially the Supreme Court, deserve to know if their judges’ households are receiving six-figure payments from the law firms,” Mr. Price wrote.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/us/john-roberts-jane-sullivan-roberts.html

20 replies, 2283 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply At the Supreme Court, Ethics Questions Over a Spouse's Business Ties (Original post)
demmiblue Jan 31 OP
in2herbs Jan 31 #1
ificandream Jan 31 #2
NullTuples Jan 31 #6
mopinko Jan 31 #3
Peregrine Took Jan 31 #4
Joinfortmill Jan 31 #14
Lonestarblue Jan 31 #5
gibraltar72 Jan 31 #7
Rebl2 Jan 31 #9
Marthe48 Jan 31 #11
wnylib Jan 31 #12
J_William_Ryan Jan 31 #8
ananda Jan 31 #10
Joinfortmill Jan 31 #13
republianmushroom Jan 31 #15
dalton99a Jan 31 #16
Farmer-Rick Jan 31 #17
COL Mustard Jan 31 #18
SouthernDem4ever Jan 31 #19
machoneman Feb 1 #20

Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 06:37 PM

1. In Nov/Dec Congress voted to exclude income of spouses in disclosure information that

justices file. So, I don't see this ethics question going anywhere ----- until Biden expands the USSC and a revised Code of Ethics is passed and complied with by all justices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 06:43 PM

2. What about Ginni Thomas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ificandream (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:06 PM

6. And Jesse Barrett, too...

"A year after Amy Coney Barrett joined the Supreme Court, the boutique Indiana firm SouthBank Legal opened its first-ever Washington office in Penn Quarter, a move the firm hailed in a 2021 press release as an “important milestone.”

The head of the office, Jesse M. Barrett, is the justice’s husband, whose work is described by the firm as “white-collar criminal defense, internal investigations, and complex commercial litigation.”

SouthBank Legal — which lists fewer than 20 lawyers — has boasted clients across “virtually every industry”: automobile manufacturers, global banks, media giants, among others. They have included “over 25 Fortune 500 companies and over 15 in the Fortune 100,” according to the firm’s website.

But if anyone wants to find out whether Jesse Barrett’s clients have a direct interest in cases being decided by his wife, they’re out of luck. In the Supreme Court’s notoriously porous ethical disclosure system, Barrett not only withholds her husband’s clients, but redacted the name of SouthBank Legal itself in her most recent disclosure."


https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/29/justices-spouses-conflict-of-interest-disclosures-00059549

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 06:51 PM

3. muddying the waters r we nyt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 06:58 PM

4. When will they have enough...."when does the greed stop??" (Ted Kennedy) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine Took (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 09:18 PM

14. Never, it's an ever growing beast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:05 PM

5. Now imagine Michelle Obama, also a lawyer, doing exactly the same as Roberts' wife when she was

First Lady. Then uproar from Republicans would have been heard in Russia. Michelle chose not to practice law during her years in the WH to avoid conflict. I’m sure she too could have earned millions, but she has ethics. Republicans assume they can get away with any behavior because they generally do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:06 PM

7. Ethics are not a concern on US Supreme Court!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gibraltar72 (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:16 PM

9. No it is not

Ethics is generally not a concern for any republican from what I see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gibraltar72 (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:21 PM

11. Ethics are not a concern for the despotic majority

If a single one of the unelected, lying, bought and paid for majority of the (formerly) supreme court of the U.S. had a scintilla of ethics, they would never had accepted the seat. But not a single one of the unelected despots have a shred of decency, and they belonged to the puppetmasters before they even thought they'd attain the bench they've pulled to the ground.

Rany over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marthe48 (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 09:04 PM

12. The word is just not in their vocabulary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:13 PM

8. "Ethics are not a concern on US Supreme Court!!"

Not this conservative Court, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:21 PM

10. The word ethics means nothing to the righties on SCOTUS.

It might as well be aardvark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 09:17 PM

13. Disgusting. Joe needs to expand the SCOTUS whether he likes it much or not.

They're not giving him much choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 09:22 PM

15. Ethics (?) Roberts court. OK I'll bite, what ethics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 10:51 PM

17. Justices are required to disclose their spouses' employer and income

What they get away without disclosing is the clients the justice's spouses work with and who pays the employer of the spouses.

Mrs Roberts is bringing in tons of money in placing lawyers who appear before her husband. But all Roberts has to reveal is the recruiting firm and what they pay her. He gets away with hiding the money clients may "tip" his wife or money clients pay the firm. Slave wife Amy and of course the Thomas's also play this hidden bribery game.

This might explain the spouse disclosure loophole better:

"Under the Ethics in Government Act, federal judges and justices currently only need to list their spouse’s employer—not their clients or amount of compensation they received.

That “means a judicial spouse could earn untold sums, via legal or consulting work, from entities that have cases before their husband or wife, and the public would be none the wiser, so long as the entities paid their employer and not the spouse directly."

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/watchdogs-want-judicial-spouse-disclosure-loophole-closed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 10:57 PM

18. If there's a conflict of interest, they *should* recuse themselves.

But I doubt there's a rule that requires them to, and there's no real punishment if they don't. The only thing it does is cheapen the Court in the eyes of the American people, and I think that horse may have already left the barn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Tue Jan 31, 2023, 11:38 PM

19. What do you expect from a fascist run SCOTUS

They have no set ethics and when they are caught pushing the limits they pretend like it's nothing. Typical repuglicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Original post)

Wed Feb 1, 2023, 07:42 AM

20. This IS big news! First we all heard of it. Why didn't the media pickup on this long ago?

Amazing corruption by of all things the senior SC's justices wife!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread