D.C. Attorney General Sues NFL and Washington Commanders’ Owner

   The District of Columbia’s attorney general on Thursday revealed deep-seated deceit in an independent investigation that started in 2020 of a hostile work environment at Washington’s professional football team.

   He made the allegations against team owner Dan Snyder and National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell as he announced a lawsuit against them and their organizations.

   A statement from the D.C. attorney general’s office said, “The Commanders and Dan Snyder lied to D.C. residents about what they knew about a toxic culture of sexual harassment and then they entered into a secret agreement with the NFL and Commissioner Goodell that kept the truth from D.C. residents — all in an effort to protect their profits.”

   D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine said at a press conference that as the NFL kept up the image of an independent investigation, Goodell was secretly telling Snyder what the investigators were finding.

   In addition, Goodell was giving Snyder the option of how to respond to the findings and what information should be publicly released, Racine said. 

   The investigation started after the Washington Post in July 2020 reported widespread sexual harassment of cheerleaders and other female employees followed by intimidation if they threatened to go public with their complaints.

   The news reports also accused Snyder and the formerly named Washington Redskins of financial improprieties.

   “We were led to believe that Mr. Snyder would not interfere with the independent investigation,” Racine said. “He did.”

   Racine filed the lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court under the District of Columbia’s Consumer Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The law bans misleading statements by merchants or businesses that could cause harm to local residents.

   In this case, the harm was a toxic workplace for the renamed Washington Commanders employees as well as fans who bought tickets or merchandise from them based on their good reputation, according to the lawsuit.

   The lawsuit seeks financial penalties and a court order requiring the NFL to publicly release findings from the 10-month independent investigation into the Commanders’ workplace culture.

   When the Washington Post reported the allegations, Snyder put out a statement denying any knowledge of sexual harassment, a hostile work environment or financial improprieties. He also hired an attorney to investigate, saying he wanted to figure out the truth.

   The NFL took over the investigation after saying publicly that Snyder might have a conflict of interest if he oversaw the investigation himself. Goodell pledged it would be an independent investigation.

   Racine said the secret agreement between Goodell and Snyder showed there never was an honest independent investigation.

   The NFL and Washington Commanders denied deceit in their investigation in separate statements.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Justice Dept. Reverses Policy

On Surveillance of Journalists

   The Justice Department announced a policy change late last month intended to protect the news media from the long arms of the law.

   The new policy bans nearly all subpoenas, search warrants and other legal tactics against journalists while they are gathering the news.

   The exception would be if they are acting outside the scope of their authority by engaging in criminal behavior.

   The reversal of a Trump-era policy that sometimes allowed monitoring of journalists was welcomed by media organizations.

   “This is a watershed moment,” said Bruce D. Brown, executive director of the nonprofit Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “The new policy marks a historic shift in protecting the rights of news organizations reporting on stories of critical public importance.”

   The policy change follows reports last year that the Justice Department sought phone and email records of reporters at The Washington Post, CNN and the New York Times.

   U.S. attorneys were investigating the source of news leaks that revealed classified information during the Trump administration.

   The Justice Department disclosed the investigations publicly this year, prompting President Joe Biden to call seizure of reporters’ phone records “simply wrong.”

   The announcement was met with outrage by media organizations. They said the investigations would put a chill on their First Amendment right to report the news and the public’s right to know.

   U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland explained the policy change by saying in a statement, "These regulations recognize the crucial role that a free and independent press plays in our democracy."

   He said in a memo to employees that the Justice Manual of guidelines the department follows would be updated to include the revised regulations. Employees who might be affected by them will receive training on them.

   The training is supposed to help them balance competing concerns, such as "protecting national security" and "ensuring public safety," before using surveillance techniques on reporters, according to the Justice Department.

   In addition to criminal activity, exceptions to ending the investigations include surveillance of journalists working for foreign governments or affiliated with terrorist groups.

   The new policy also does not apply to “an imminent or concrete risk of death or serious bodily harm, including terrorist acts, kidnappings, specified offenses against a minor … or incapacitation or destruction of critical infrastructure,” the Justice Department said.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

SEC Requires Executives to Pay Back

Bonuses from Flawed Financial Reports

   The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission late last month finalized a rule that eliminates the right of corporate executives to collect bonuses if there are accounting errors in their companies’ regulatory filings.

   One of the agency’s motivations is to prevent executives from profiting off quarterly reports that exaggerate their companies’ earnings.

   The rule is nearly certain to generate more business for Washington-area law firms that represent clients before the SEC.

   Inflated reports to the SEC are a persistent problem that often spills over into where investors put their money in the stock market, sometimes only to be surprised when the inaccuracy is discovered and the stock value falls.

   The new rule says executives must return their bonuses if the errors are found within three years after they file their financial disclosure reports and even if they are not responsible for them.

   Corporate boards of directors normally tie the bonuses to their companies achieving financial targets.

   The SEC rule represents an effort to comply with integrity provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act approved by Congress in 2010.

   The law overhauled financial regulation in response to corporate credit abuses contributing to the Great Recession that started in 2008. The changes affected all federal financial regulatory agencies and most of the nation's financial services industry.

   The rule the SEC approved Wednesday says Congress did not intend to "punish wrongdoing, but to require executive officers to return monies that rightfully belong to the issuer and its shareholders."

   “Executive officer” is defined broadly under the rule. It includes the principal financial officer; principal accounting officer or controller; vice presidents in charge of business units, divisions or functions such as sales administration or finance; and any other officer involved in policymaking at either the parent company or a subsidiary.

   Errors that initiate “clawback” requirements on bonuses could include minor oversights, or “little r” mistakes, that might become major if they are left uncorrected.

   SEC Commissioner Jaime Lizarraga defended the broad scope of the rule by saying corporate financial restatements "have made up an increasingly high share of all financial restatements in recent years."

   Including them in the rule ensures "executives do not have an incentive to opportunistically classify material errors," Lizarraga said.

   The Washington-based nonprofit financial industry watchdog group Better Markets issued a statement praising the new rule.

   "We are particularly gratified to see that it will cover a broad range of accounting restatements, not only those necessary to correct the very worst accounting abuses," the statement said. "This rule is necessary because evidence has surfaced that some companies have been mischaracterizing their accounting restatements to avoid having to claw back their executives' inflated and undeserved compensation."

   Republican SEC commissioners expressed misgivings that the rule might be too broad, perhaps ensnaring executives who were blameless.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Quinn Emanuel Drops Client Ye

After His Anti-Semitic Remarks

   Washington-based Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP dropped hip hop musician and fashion designer Ye as a client late last month in the latest backlash against his anti-semitic comments.

   The Quinn Emanuel decision to cut ties with its controversial client is part of a recent trend among Washington’s BigLaw firms to distance themselves from politically troubled professional interests.

   They are trying to protect themselves from the kind of backlash suffered by Jones Day for representing the Trump administration in challenging the validity of the 2020 election results. In addition to criticism in the media, protesters picketed the Jones Day offices in New York.

   Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, along with clothing companies Adidas and Gap, Inc., also severed their contacts with Ye, formerly known as Kanye West.

   Ye tweeted, "I'm a bit sleepy tonight but when I wake up I'm going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE." He also wore a "White Lives Matter'' T-shirt during his recent fashion show in Paris. 

   Twitter and Instagram responded by locking him out of their social media accounts. When asked by journalists about the comments, Ye was largely unremorseful.

   A similar departure of law firms from controversial clients arose when Russia invaded Ukraine in February. At least 25 international law firms shut down their Russian operations, including Baker McKenzie and White & Case.

   A Baker McKenzie statement explained that “we strongly condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which stands in stark contrast to our values, the values of our clients and those of the wider global business community. We will not act for any individuals or entities that are controlled by, or directly linked to, the Russian state and/or current regime, anywhere in the world.”

   In a similar move based on ethics, Kirkland & Ellis LLP announced in June it was ceasing its contracts with appellate attorney Paul Clement for his representation of gun manufacturers.

   Clement, who served as solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration, won a major Second Amendment case in the Supreme Court for a National Rifle Association affiliate in June. Hours later, Kirkland & Ellis announced in a press release it will “no longer represent clients with respect to matters involving the interpretation of the Second Amendment.”

   The announcement coincided with public outrage over recent mass killings, such as the murders of 21 students and teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, a month earlier.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Pro-Choice Abortion Protesters Arrested

During Hearing Inside Supreme Court

   Three female protesters are facing charges in District of Columbia Superior Court after being arrested last week at the Supreme Court for interrupting a hearing.

   They denounced the recent Dobbs decision that eliminated a constitutional right to abortion.

   The women stood up one after the other during the first minute of an unrelated tax case hearing and shouted slogans.

   "Our right to choose will not be taken away," one of the protesters said. "Women vote for our right to choose." 

   Minutes later, a second protester said, "We will restore our freedom to choose."

   After each interruption, the attorney arguing his case continued his presentation without acknowledging the protest. The justices also ignored them.

   The protesters were quickly taken away without a struggle by court police. They were charged with demonstrating to obstruct the “administration of justice” and with a federal crime that forbids "loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building."

   Police transported them to the Metropolitan Police Department's central jail. They were identified as Emily Archer Paterson, Rolande Dianne Baker and Nicole Elizabeth Enfield.

   They were protesting the Supreme Court June opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a landmark ruling that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Roe v. Wade held that a woman’s right to abortion was protected under privacy provisions of the Constitution.

   The Dobbs ruling replaced the constitutional protections by saying abortion policy was a matter of discretion for each state.

   Although rare, several protests have been staged inside the Supreme Court in recent years.

   In 2015, demonstrators interrupted a hearing to protest the earlier Citizens United campaign finance ruling.

   Also in 2015, a spectator was removed while interrupting during oral arguments in as challenge to state bans on same-sex marriage.

   For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.