Lambda Legal's Carl Charles was referred for possible criminal investigation
A “judge shopping” incident has gotten three LGBTQ rights litigation lawyers sanctioned by Alabama federal judge Liles Burke, reported Reuters.
The three lawyers were among a group of 11 Burke had asked to demonstrate why they should not be penalized for attempting to circumvent procedures designed to have cases randomly assigned a judge. The lawsuit in question involved the state ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth; according to a report by a three-judge panel, the lawyers initiated the “judge shopping” because they believed Burke, who was appointed during US President Donald Trump’s first term in office, would decide against them.
The lawyers had wanted the case assigned to US District Judge Myron Thompson by tagging it as related to a transgender case Thompson had previously presided over and decided in favor of. However, after a process of reassigning, the case landed before Burke, who ruled in the lawyers’ favor and enjoined the enforcement of the law though it was reinstated by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals eventually.
Burke determined that most of the group did not warrant sanctions; however, Carl Charles (LGBTQ rights group Lambda Legal) and Melody Eagan and Jeffrey Doss (Lightfoot, Franklin & White) did because they “refused to accept responsibility or apologize sincerely for their actions” and “deflected responsibility for their unabashed misconduct,” Burke said in a statement published by Reuters.
All three were publicly reprimanded; Eagan and Doss were disqualified from acting as lawyers in the suit, Burke referred their case to the Alabama State Bar for further evaluation.
Charles was slapped with a US$5,000 penalty and referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Alabama for potential criminal investigation. Burke also referred Charles to lawyer licensing organizations in at least four states wherein the Lambda Legal lawyer practised, citing Charles’ false testimony to the judge panel investigating the judge shopping incident.
“Judge-shopping is an affront to the rule of law. It erodes public confidence in judicial impartiality, burdens courts with procedural glut, and casts unwarranted suspicion on judges and case assignments alike,” Burke wrote in a snippet of the ruling published by Reuters.
However, Lambda Legal argued that Charles acted rightly.
“He acted in accordance with the letter and spirit of the rules governing the practice of law in the State of Alabama, including the rules of professional responsibility. We stand firmly behind him,” Lambda Legal said in a statement published by Reuters. Lightfoot, Franklin & White, which had taken on the case pro bono, also voiced its challenge of Burke’s decision and said it was weighing its options.
The case is Boe v. Marshall, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, No. 22-cv-184. In addition to Eagan, the plaintiffs were represented by Asaf Orr of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Jennifer Levi of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders; and Scott McCoy of Southern Poverty Law Center.
The state of Alabama was represented by Barrett Bowdre of the Office of the Alabama Attorney General and David Thompson of Cooper & Kirk.
