By Julius Melnitzer | March 25, 2025
AMERICAN LAWYERS’ INACTION ON TRUMP REMINISCENT OF NAZI ERA
Most of the criticism surrounding Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP’s capitulation to Donald Trump’s retribution campaign has focused on the firm. But firm chair Brad Karp’s widely disseminated email accusing the profession of not being supportive and taking competitive advantage of the situation, if accurate, is a frightening indicator of the self-interested disunity that could disable lawyers’ collective potential as vital architects of the struggle against the erosion of democracy in the US. Chief Justice John Roberts’ courageous pushback against Trump’s threat of impeaching a judges who ruled against him and Perkins Coie LLP’s principled – and so far successful – litigation against the President aside, Karp’s accusations can’t help but bring to mind the fact that, as the late Justice Richard Fybel of the California Court of Appeal explained, lawyers, judges and legal academics were deeply linked to the rise of the Nazi regime. Indeed, 77% of senior justice ministry officials in Germany in 1957 had been party members. To be sure, passivity isn’t always complicity – and to this point, hasn’t been in the current situation – but we don’t know just how far Trump will succeed in his anti-democratic aims. Bear in mind, however, that the irony of “revolutions” may be that many arise incrementally. Will there be some point at which US lawyers rise up collectively, or will they remain true to their historical record of herd behaviour, followers and conformists for the most part, rather than leaders? The comparisons aren’t pretty, but are they necessary for an awakening?
Related Article: Jones Day & Trump: Thank God for the lawyers
MORE FIRMS SANCTIONED FOR ALM TRANSGRESSIONS
In a three-day span, the UK’s Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has fined three law firms for failing to adhere to anti-money laundering (AML) transgressions. The cumulative fines and costs imposed on Howard Fitton Solicitors in Cheshire, Wolf Law Socitors LTD in Merseyside, and Liverpool’s Bennett & Co, totalled about C$25,000. The sanctions followed on similar action in February, when the SRA imposed some $83,000 in penalties on four firms, including a maximum fine approaching $50,000 on Duffield Harrison LLP in Hertfordshire. According to The Law Society Gazette, there is mounting evidence that “small firms are more likely to come under scrutiny by the SRA regarding AML obligations”.
Related Article: Dentons faces AML Charges
HERBERT SMITH FINED FOR BREACHING UKRAINE SANCTIONS
The UK Office of Official Sanctions has imposed a penalty of C$883,000 on HSF Moscow, a Herbert Smith Freehills LLP subsidiary which closed in May 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The fines related to six payments totalling about C$7.5 million that HSF made to banks subject to an asset freeze as it closed down its offices.
Related Article: Ukraine wants to trademark “go fuck yourself” war slogan
SELF-INCRIMINATON PROHIBITION INFORMS CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that compelling individuals facing civil contempt proceedings to testify against themselves offends the Charter’s prohibition against self-incrimination. The issue arose after a motion judge required the appellant to attend examinations and answer questions from the respondent while he was facing allegations relating to contempt of an Anton Piller order. The respondents used the testimony to support the court’s finding of contempt, which led to a sentence of five months’ incarceration. But the OCA rejected the notion that the right against self-incrimination did not apply to civil contempt proceedings: “The civil contempt power is a fundamental feature of the administration of justice,” the court stated, noting that it had “many features in common with criminal proceedings”: an individuals facing contempt allegations was “charged with an offence” for Charter purposes and faced “true penal consequences”. The right against self-incrimination therefore applied whether “the purported objective is coercing compliance or punishing non-compliance”.
Related Article: What to do about sharp rise in self-represented litigants
ALEXI REPORT: AI DOES THREATEN LAWYERS
AI litigation platform Alexi, in partnership with Talker Research, has released its 2025 North American AI Outlook Report. Among its key findings:
- Thirty-five percent of North Americans believe AI will be capable of performing most tasks in the legal field by the end of 2025;
- Forty-four percnet of North Americans are optimistic that AI will take over monotonous tasks in the future;
- Forty-seven percent of North Americans predict that AI will ultimately be less biased than humans in the future;
- Eighteen percent of North American respondents think it is very unlikely AI will achieve emotional intelligence by the end of 2025, while 15% believe it is very likely; and
- Overall, Canadians are more open to AI than Americans.
Related Article: Meeting the AI Challenge
Julius Melnitzer is a Toronto-based legal affairs writer, ghostwriter, writing coach and media trainer. Readers can reach him at [email protected] or on his website.