Piatt's Discrimination Complaint

It came out a couple of weeks ago, but in case you haven't seen it, Texas Lawyer has a story on Rosanne Piatt's discrimination complaint against St. Mary's university:

A full-time instructor at the San Antonio law school since January 1999, Piatt alleges in a charge of discrimination she filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division that St. Mary's University notified her a year ago that her contract would terminate on May 31, the end of the 2008-2009 academic year.

In the charge, which Piatt filed in November 2008, she alleges her belief that St. Mary's law school has discriminated against her because of her age and gender. She is 57 years old.

"If you're an older female at St. Mary's, you're at risk," Piatt alleges in an interview.

There's also this letter to the editor (scroll down) in the Express-News which says the dismissals of Rosanne Piatt and Cheryl George are not because of discrimination, but due to academic politics:

All across the school, faculty and staff members who had any connections to former Dean Bill Piatt are finding themselves without a job. Many of these people have excelled in their jobs and received excellent performance reviews, yet were let go with spurious excuses and little warning.

Finally, here's a question from a member of the academic community on the Legal Writing Prof Blog:

One question that comes to mind is: why is the legal writing community hearing about this for the first time from the TaxProf blog? And what are we doing to help her? Like the Marines, we don't leave our wounded behind. Professor Piatt, if you're reading this and need our help, let us know and we'll spread the word. Semper Fi.

Soliciting Plagiarism

I saw this ad on Craigslist from someone in Northwest San Antonio:

I need a two to three page legal opinion letter for a class assignment. I do not have time to do this assignment, so I am willing to pay $40 for a legal assistant, paralegal, or law student to do this assignment for me.

I know it's unethical for students to claim others' work as their own. But what about the ethics of a legal assistant, paralegal, or law student who accepts this work? Seems to me that for a legal assistant or paralegal, as long as they spell out the fact that they're not giving out legal advice and don't commit the unauthorized practice of law, they're (legally, if not morally) in the clear--just like anyone else who took money to perform a class assignment.

Regarding law students, pretty much every law school bans plagiarism and other forms of cheating. For example, Rule 2.02(b) of the St. Mary's law school's Code of Student Conduct (found at page 50 of the Student Handbook) forbids conduct that might give "that student or another an unfair advantage in an academic matter." But does the Code refer just to St. Mary's students, or any student at any institution?

I wonder what sort of class this assignment is for, and what sort of school (high school, community college, or four-year university). And I wonder how many classmates of this Craigslist advertiser--not to mention the instructor--would like to know what this student is up to.

Judge Lamberth Says Judicial Nomination System Is Broken

S.A. native Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, , who spoke to the San Antonio Bar Association in February, returned to the Alamo City this weekend (he and his wife have family here).

The judge spoke at the Bar Association's Law Day luncheon (my thanks again to Burns & Black P.L.L.C. for sponsoring the table where I sat; one of the attorneys there gave James A. Rodriguez some tickets, and he brought me and another classmate).

With the impending retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter on lawyers' minds, Judge Lamberth spoke about how the judicial nomination process is broken:

• He said he was disgusted by how some politicians criticized nominees for the U.S. Attorney General's office positions because of clients they had represented.
• The judge noted that his confirmation in 1987 took six months; today there are some judicial nominees who have been waiting two or four years.
• He said these partisan attacks come from both sides of the aisle, and each side needs to acknowledge that the other side has a point about the partisanship.
• The judge said that the appointment of the most qualified candidates should be the goal of all Americans.
• He added that this country needs the best and brightest; judge who will set aside their personal views and apply the law and the Constitution.
• The judge said he's very impressed by President Obama's first three judicial nominations (to the Second, Fourth, and Seventh circuits).
• He acknowledged the tradition of senatorial courtesy in signing off on the president's judicial nominations, but said that tradition is not absolute.
• Judge Lamberth said that during the nomination hearings, special interest groups feed questions to their senators and attend the hearings to make sure the senators stick to the script.
• He noted that the federal judiciary now has more than sixty vacancies--and twenty-two of them are considered judicial emergencies because of the excessive workload placed on their fellow judges.
• He also mentioned one person unsuccessfully nominated to a judgeship during the Bush administration who asked the President not to resubmit her nomination because the process was so demeaning.

All in all, it was an interesting speech, and I hope Judge Lamberth comes back to town soon for another talk.

Prado's (Indirect) Response

Earlier, I mentioned a four-year-old movement to put Fifth Circuit Judge Ed Prado on the Supreme Court.

Today at the San Antonio Bar Association's Law Day luncheon, one of the speakers was Judge Prado, who took the podium to talk about San Antonio lawyer Gus Garcia, one of the litigators in Hernandez v. Texas, a key civil rights case.

As he stepped up to the microphone, the judge pulled out his cell phone. "Hello Mr. President. Yes, Mr. President. It would be an honor." The audience laughed as he ended the "phone call."

Judge Prado then told us that he had a better chance of singing with The Supremes than becoming one of the Supremes.

Prado for Supreme Court Justice?

With lawyers and policy wonks everywhere buzzing about the impending retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the big question is, who will replace him on the nation's highest court?

Right now, the leading candidates include Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm--but there are plenty of other names floating around.

However, there's also one local whose name has been discussed before: Fifth Circuit Judge Ed Prado.

Law Professor Orin Kerr notes over at the Volokh Conspiracy that four years ago a liberal group tried to get President Bush to nominate Judge Prado to the Supreme Court:

With the news that Justice Souter is retiring, and with thoughts turning to his possible successor, I'm reminded of the "independent grassroots campaign" -- headed by a group of liberal activists -- that received some attention in 2005 to urge the President to nominate Fifth Circuit Judge Ed Prado for the Supreme Court.

I admit I was dubious about the effort back in 2005. But I've been thinking about it a lot in last 4 years -- or at least in the last 4 minutes, since learning that Souter is going to retire -- and I think it's high time to take that campaign seriously.

Unfortunately, the old movement and Prof. Kerr's post both seem more like wishful thinking and trying to score political points than an actual desire to see Judge Prado move to Washington. Still, it would be nice if he ends up in the running.

St. Mary's Law Grad Displeased with Changes to His Letter to Editor on professors article

Fellow 2008 St. Mary's law graduate Jason Petty isn't too thrilled with the changes to his letter to the editor that the Express-News ran today. Jason was responding to the E-N's story on St. Mary's law students protesting the dismissal of two law professors. Here's his response when I asked him what happened:

Mack,

Forgive my fantastical ego trip. Below is the original letter I emailed to the Express-News in response to the April 25th report on the student protest:

Dear Editors, I am a very recent St. Mary's Law alumnus. (Disclosure: I passed the bar, got a legal job, and love St. Mary's.) Your decision to frame the article "Students protest 2 St. Mary's law profs [sic] terminations" (Apr. 25, Metro p.3) as an expose on race and sex discrimination at St. Mary's confused me. Why does this paper insist on giving credit to a few students' claims of discrimination when none of the terminated professors/instructors/ administrators are making those claims themselves? There are only two possible outcomes of this publication decision on your part: one, a venerable San Antonio institution has its reputation lowered because it cannot defend itself against the accusations of students who are unable to distinguish correlation and causation; or two, these women, a few of whom I count among good friends, have their professional reputations tarnished because the university is forced to justify its decision to terminate them by making statements like "Not all minorities, even in a national context of pervasive if somewhat unconscious racism and sexism, are qualified.”

Not well done at all, Express-News. St. Mary, pray for us.

Jason C. Petty, J.D., St. Mary's, 2008

Here is what they put on their website:

A hit on St. Mary's

I'm a recent St. Mary's Law School alumnus. I was confused by your decision to frame your April 25 report, “St. Mary's students protest 2 law professor terminations,” as an exposé on race and sex discrimination there.

Why did the newspaper give credence to a few students' claims of discrimination when neither of the terminated professors/instructors/ administrators made such claims themselves?

Two possible reasons:

• A venerable law school has its reputation lowered because it cannot defend itself against accusations by students who are unable to distinguish correlation and causation, or;

• These women, a few of whom I count among good friends, have their professional reputations tarnished because the university is forced to justify its decision to terminate them.

Not well done at all, Express-News. St. Mary, pray for us.

- Jason C. Petty, J.D., Alexandria, La.

My original beef, motivated by my love of the school, is that the article doesn't give any information about credible allegations of sex or gender discrimination by St. Mary's against the professors themselves. All the article gives us is the students' suggestive protest. Yet at most all we have is a throwaway argument of retaliation for defense of other minorities in the EEOC complaint made by the beloved Instructor Piatt. Is Professor George alleging actual discrimination, or just saying that she, personally, felt uncomfortable at St. Mary's? We don't know. That's all the article gives us. In other words, where's the discrimination?

My new, entirely personal beef is that the change in my letter switches "two possible outcomes" of the report to "two possible reasons" for it, which would have me be some sort of crystal-ball wielding apologist for the reporter's insinuations. Are
cause and effect wholly obliterated in our post-metaphysical world? And then they don't change the grammatical construct of the two items they bullet, which would make sense if I were providing hypothetical effects rather than the causes they suggest. That just makes me look dumb and, I believe, undercuts any argument I might have. (Sort of like the comment box below the online version of the article, where one commenter self-identified as a "Steller Law Student.")

I loathed that April 25th report: no one comes out a winner. The school looks bad and the professors look bad.

jcp

I know what Jason means about the online comments to that article. I look at some of the spelling and grammar mistakes from supposedly educated people--not to mention the attitudes of some who posted--and I wince.

Disclosure: Jason and I worked on the St. Mary's Law Journal during our second year of law school.

E-N Story on St. Mary's Shakeup

The Express-News covers student reactions to the ouster of two law professors:

A group of students at St. Mary's University School of Law are protesting the school's decision to terminate contracts for two female professors, one of them black, saying the move is a blow to diversity on a faculty where women and minorities are already underrepresented.

Raul Pelaez-Prada, the student leading the protest, has put up fliers on campus and collected around 150 signatures on a petition supporting Professors Cheryl George and Rosanne Piatt, who are both fighting their terminations.

I'd be happy to post a copy of that petition, if someone will send it to me. The newspaper also posted a letter (page 1 and page 2) from the American Association of University Professors on Rosanne Piatt's de facto tenure claim, which I wrote about earlier this month. The letter states in part:

Because Ms. Piatt has served as a full-time lecturer in the law school for more than eight years, she would therefore be entitled under the above documents to the procedural protections that normally accrue with tenure. ... They include the right to a pre-termination hearing of record in which the administration bears the burden of demonstrating adequacy of cause for dismissal before an elected faculty committee.

One possible reason for the dismissals? From the E-N article:

Students say the ousting is due in part to the professors' connection to former law school Dean Bill Piatt, who was forced out in 2006 after a rocky tenure. Rosanne Piatt is married to the former dean, and claims she has earned de facto tenure after teaching for 10 years. George was hired by the former dean and has been a staunch supporter.

In addition, the story notes that Bill Piatt tried to bring in four other African-Americans besides Prof. George to teach at the law school.

One was never hired and another worked as a visiting professor for a year. A third taught at St. Mary's for six years before accepting a tenure track position at another university. Reached at her office, the professor did not want to be identified, but said she too felt unwelcome at St. Mary's.

The fourth is Sharon Breckenridge-Thomas, director of the Office of Academic Excellence, whose contract was not renewed this year. Breckenridge-Thomas declined to comment.

I'm more inclined to believe that it's office politics, not racism, that led to this result. However it happened, it sure makes the law school look bad.

St. Mary's students and alumni should take a look at the comments on this article. A few samples:

• This has little to do with racism or sexism. This is an example of the incompetence of Dean Charles Cantu. ...
• The termination of these two professors is just another bad mark on a Law program struggling to regain a positive reputation in this State. ...
• Staffing decisions should not be based on race/gender. Professors who can't teach should be released. End of story. ...
• These comments are embarrassing to those of us who are proud to be students at St. Mary's. ...

Justice Dept. Names Interim U.S Attorney

First Assistant U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy will step in temporarily to replace U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who resigned as the top prosecutor in the Western District of Texas. According to the Express-News:

Murphy has spent nearly 34 years in the Western District, 14 of them as the first assistant U.S. attorney. He will hold the job until the Obama administration nominates a U.S. attorney, a process that requires Senate confirmation.

According to Murphy's State Bar of Texas member directory entry, he's a 1972 St. Mary's grad.

Piatt Claims De Facto Tenure

Last month I blogged about how three individuals will not be back to teach at St. Mary's law school after this semester. I just received an email from one of the three, Instructor Rosanne Piatt. She said that because she has been a full-time faculty member at St. Mary's for ten years, she has tenure.

Here's her email, in its entirety (links added by yours truly):

St. Mary's Law School is a member of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS). One of the conditions of membership is that member schools agree to adhere to the standards regarding academic freedom and tenure of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The AAUP standards describe two categories of full-time teachers: probationary (up to 7 years) and tenured. If a school continues a full-time teacher beyond seven years, that professor is tenured, per the AAUP (and AALS). Twice now the American Association of University Professors has written to St. Mary's, informing St. Mary's that I hold tenure and requesting my reinstatement, or the initiation of formal tenure revocation proceedings, with the burden on the university to show cause. St. Mary's has refused to comply. I will be able to share additional information within a week. Thank you for your interest.

According to the AAUP, de facto tenure exists if, after the probation ends, a faculty member continues teaching or working at the school:

Upon continuance of full-time service beyond the maximum probationary period, faculty members who so serve should be recognized as having an entitlement to the procedural safeguards that accrue with tenure, even in the absence of institutional regulations to that effect or of specific action by a particular college or university.

However, the case law on de facto tenure runs both ways. The AAUP lists a number of federal and state court cases on this subject, including a couple of federal cases from Texas:

• Owens v. Board of Regents of Texas Southern University, 953 F. Supp. 781 (S.D. Tex. 1986): Faculty manual adopted subsequent to plaintiff's appointment explicitly provided that tenure would be granted only upon affirmative action by governing board and would not be granted automatically. Factual question existed as to whether plaintiff had rights under earlier manual that administrator testified provided for tenure by default through length of service. Court denied university's motion for summary judgment.
  
• LaVerne v. University of Texas System, 611 F. Supp. 66 (C.D. Tex. 1985): Under the applicable university regents' rules, there was no tenure by default, de facto, or "common law" tenure. When university published written tenure procedures, "the legitimacy of a claim to tenure acquired outside the procedures is vitiated because there is no basis for mutuality." Because no entitlement to continued employment existed, no property or liberty interest existed.

I will post more on this subject as soon as I hear anything.

Who Will Be the Next U.S. Attorney?

Now that Johnny Sutton, the somewhat controversial U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, has announced his retirement (his last day will be April 19), who will take over his job?

Maybe an attorney from San Antonio--one with a St. Mary's connection. According to news reports, potential replacements include:

• Travis County Attorney (and U.T. grad) David Escamilla
• San Antonio City Attorney (and St. Mary's alumnus) Michael Bernard
• private practice attorney and former federal prosecutor (and former St. Mary's adjunct professor in trial advocacy) Michael McCrum (read about him in his own words here)

I would love to see a San Antonio attorney step into this office, but who knows?

Hat tip: Grits For Breakfast

Peacemaker Awards

I attended the Peacemakers Awards Gala on Friday, thanks to San Antonio attorney Michael Black of Burns & Black P.L.L.C.. His firm paid for a table at the event and one of the attorneys there gave my co-blogger James Rodriguez some tickets to the awards banquet, and I tagged along. We shared the table with attorney Ted Lee of the intellectual property firm Gun & Lee P.C., along with some members of the St. Mary's School of Law Student Bar Foundation.

The event, of course, benefits the San Antonio Bar Foundation, and this 2009 its 25th year of existence. The point of the evening (other than eating, drinking, and socializing) was to announce the 2009 Flight of Peace Peacemaker Awards:

• Peacemaker Award: San Antonio Food Bank
  
• Carolyn Thurmond Community Service Award: Thomas J. Smith
  
• Business Community Service Award: Richard H. "Rick" Cavender
  
• Outstanding School Peer Mediation Program Award: Encino Park Elementary School

There were several judges in attendance, and I saw a bunch of people I knew from the San Antonio Young Lawyers Association, the Bexar County Women's Bar Association, , a few classmates I graduated with and some of my professors, along with some other local lawyers , including Nancy Shivers of Shivers & Shivers and mediator Dan Naranjo. All in all, it was a fun evening.

Shakeups at St. Mary's (2nd update)

While attending the SAYLA Counselors & Cocktails fundraiser Thursday night, I heard about some recent personnel changes at St. Mary's University School of Law, including some professors that might not be teaching next semester.

I haven't been able to confirm all the names mentioned, but after making some inquiries, I verfied the following:

• Sharon Breckenridge-Thomas, director of the Office of Academic Excellence and professor, said that she still has not yet heard whether her contract will be renewed. However, I found that the law school does have a nationwide advertisement seeking candidates for a very similar postion.
• On the staff side, Annette R. Wilson is no longer director of the law school's Career Services department. In her place, the office website lists Faye Bracey as the interim director.

There are two other individuals who may not be back to teach at St. Mary's; once I get them confirmed, I will update this post.

UPDATE: I spoke with one of the other individuals I heard about:

• Assistant Professor Cheryl George, who teaches educational law and criminal law, is under consideration by the law school's faculty senate tenure committee, but she told me that she doesn't think she is at liberty to talk about her situation. She said she will let me know what happens.

SECOND UPDATE: I talked to the final individual I had been trying to reach:

• Roseanne Piatt, an instructor at St. Mary's for 10 years, also did not have her contract renewed. This comes as no surprise; she is the wife of former law school dean Bill Piatt, who had his share of controversy and later was ousted as dean (unjustifiably, in my opinion, since St. Mary's bar passage rate increased while he was dean). Bill Piatt remains on the St. Mary's faculty, since he has tenure.

Roseanne Piatt told me she received high evaluations from law students who took her classes, and students held a rally on her behalf recently. She said she will do what she can to convince administrators to change their minds. Meanwhile, she plans to stay in San Antonio.

DISCLOSURE: While a law student at St. Mary's, I took classes from all three of the professors/instructors I mentioned above.

Help Needed at Mock Trial Finals

Law students from across the country will take part in the National Trial Competition finals next week at the Bexar County Courthouse, and the organizers still need volunteers to serve as witnesses and/or judges (judges must be licensed attorneys). The event will take place Thursday, March 26, and Friday, March 27; volunteers will be there for a half-day.

Attorneys who serve as judges become eligible for up to five CLE credit hours. To sign up as a judge or witness, click here and scroll down.

The competition is hosted by the Texas Young Lawyers Association and the American College of Trial Lawyers.

Possible Criminal Charges in Traffic Ticket Fiasco

San Antonio police recommend charging the suspended lawyer in the traffic ticket mess. The Express-News quotes an assistant district attorney as saying detectives "brought a case of fiduciary misapplication" against Diana Minella, who clients say took their money and ignored their traffic tickets. Before taking her to court, however, the DA's office must follow up on the police investigation.

In the Texas Penal Code, Section 32.45 Misapplication of Fiduciary Duty definse this offense as "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misappl[ying] property [held] as a fiduciary or property of a financial institution in a manner that involves substantial risk of loss to the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property is held." In Sabel v. State, an unpublished opinion from 2001, the Fourth Court of Appeals held that "In common parlance, one acts in a fiduciary capacity when the money or property that he handles is not his own or for his own benefit, but is for the benefit of another person."

According to the E-N story, the investigation mentions a loss of $20,000, meaning the crime is a state jail felony. The statute makes this crime a third-degree felony if the loss is between $20,000 and $100,000; a second-degree felony for loss from $100,000 to $200,000; and a first-degree felony if the loss totals $200,000 or more.

Hat tip: Man 'o Law.

On a related note, the City of San Antonio will offer a free continuing legal education course on representing clients with traffic tickets on March 20.

Changes on the Way

I attended the CLE on "Changes that Could Affect Your Practice" on Friday. I saw several former classmates of mine, a number of local county, district and appeals judges, and many local attorneys. It was great to get out and see some familiar faces and meet a few new people. The CLE itself was also worthwhile, addressing a possible revamp of the state's court structure.

The Lone Star State's court system can confuse even lawyers, with constitutional county courts, statutory county courts (county courts at law), justice of the peace courts, and district courts--with all sorts of overlapping jurisdiction. The details are laid out in a lengthy report by the Court Administration Task Force, which suggests several revisions to Texas courts.

Sen. Jeff Wentworth, one of the panelists, discussed Senate Bill 992, which would enact most of the report's recommendations. The 130-page legislation would, among other things, eliminate the patchwork court jurisdiction that gets added to each year by the legislature and create uniform jurisdiction for all courts, allowing local districts to decide whether to create special courts (the Senator noted that because the special district courts were added by the Lege in a piecemeal fashion, the bill has to go back in and change each court specifically--that's what gives the legislation its heft). The bill would also limit district courts to cases involving $10,000 or more, and put a cap of $200,000 on county court cases.

I haven't read the entire bill, but I have skimmed through most of the Court Administration Task Force Report, and it has some good suggestions. I want to blog about this in greater detail soon.

Meanwhile, there are more sweeping changes on the table, such as a change in rules for jurors and for justices of the peace, which I also plan to address at a later date.

New U.S. Attorney Candidates

Over at Grits for Breakfast, Scott Henson solicits rumors on who the Obama administration will pick for the top federal prosecutor slots in Texas.

He points to a Dallas Morning News article mentioning five candidates for the Northern District spot, but here in the Western District, there's just one name being floated: Travis County Attorney David Escamilla. He would replace current U.S. Attorney Johhny Sutton.

No mention of possible picks for the Eastern or Southern districts.

American Gateways Gathering

Earlier on Thursday, I attended a get-together for American Gateways, a nonprofit that provides free and low-cost services for immigrants. The organization operates out of Austin, with a growing San Antonio presence working out of the St. Mary's Center for Legal and Social Justice, and it recently changed its name from the Political Asylum Project of Austin.

Props to International Bank of Commerce, which hosted the event at its downtown location and provides teleconferencing facilities for the Austin and San Antonio branches. I met a lot of nice folks who work in the immigration field at this function, and I hope to hear more from this group in the future.

"Slaps on the Wrist"

Yesterday the Express-News published a letter from San Antonio attorney Edgar W. Bridges (scroll down to the second from the bottom) mentioning a February 12 article on the Diana Minella ticket mess, and calling for the State Bar of Texas to do more than administer "slaps on the wrist" to attorneys who violate the state's rules of professional conduct for lawyers:

The lack of rigorous enforcement by the State Bar results in the public painting the honest attorneys with the same brush as the dishonest ones — we're all guilty.

Does the State Bar go easy on its own when it comes to discipline? Every month, the Texas Bar Journal publishes the sanctions that lawyers receive for rules violations. Are the sanctions too light, or too harsh, or do they fit the crime?

Busy Times in Criminal Court

Things are about to get hectic in Bexar County district criminal courts as judges try to resolve thousands of pending felony cases, the Express-News reports:

Beginning March 2, and for the following three weeks, nearly 3,000 felony cases ranging from allegations of welfare fraud to capital murder will be called into their courts of origin, and defendants will be given a final chance to plead or otherwise reach a resolution.

The remaining cases will go to trial in any given court at some point between March 23 and April 17 — a four-week period in which all district courts will suspend their regular trial dockets and work to purge the most stubborn cases. Inspired by a similar effort in Tarrant County, Judge Raymond Angelini of the 187th Judicial District Court said he's cautiously optimistic.

Why all the rush? The folks at the courthouse want to start using a new system to manage felony cases, but they have to take care of the current backlog first.

Judge Lamberth's Speech to the San Antonio Bar

I received an email noting that many of District of Columbia Chief Judge Royce Lamberth's friends in Washington are interested in what he had to say to the San Antonio Bar Association at Thursday's luncheon.

I did not take notes during the speech, but here (paraphrased) are a few things I recall Judge Lamberth mentioning:

• On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, he was in the middle of a trial, but had recessed that morning for a dental appointment. He was on the freeway next to the Pentagon when the plane hit, and smoke from the crash blocked the road.
• The U.S. Marshals could not get to him to escort him to his chambers, so he granted several warrants over his cell phone while in his car. The FBI finally reached him to escort him to his destination.
• After the terrorist attacks, he did not get another good night's sleep until March, when the U.S. captured al Qaida's No. 3 man.
• He disagrees with the idea that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was a "rubber stamp" for the government. He said while he was on the court, he took care to make sure that people's rights were protected.
• After the Foreign Intelligence Suveillance Court ruled against the Bush Administration in 2002, the case was appealed to the Foreign Intelligence Suveillance Court of Review--the first appeal in the more than two decades of the surveillance court's existence--which struck down the ruling. Judge Lambreth said the review court concluded that the surveillance court and previous attorneys general had been doing it wrong for all those years.
• During the Robert Hanssen spy case, the judge met regularly with Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI director Louis Freeh. There were some 300 agents working the case, and the judge, AG, and director were the only three people connected with the investigation who did not take weekly polygraph tests.
• In the first months of the Clinton administration, he found that because Hillary Clinton was not a federal employee, her health care task force meetings should be made public. The D.C. circuit overturned him, holding that she was the "functional equivalent" of a federal employee, but the judge told us he thinks "you either are a federal employee or you're not."
• During that controversy, he attended a function for federal judges at the White House. When he introduced himself to Bill Clinton, the president replied, "Oh, I know who you are."

I will try to add to this later. If anyone remembers something I left out, please feel free to post in the comments below.