Interesting story: an immigration lawyer, frustrated by what he viewed as unlawful and unfair detainment of families, deliberately leaked a sealed tentative ruling by a federal judge holding that the detention was unlawful. Stories here and here. The lawyer's statement to the court, basically admitting the violation and asking for mercy, is here. Excerpt from the lawyer's response to the court:
Mr. Johnson fully admits that he violated the Court’s May 12th order and that he acted wrongfully by disclosing to the media the Court’s tentative ruling and the plaintiffs’ settlement proposal. The violation was not directly involved in a proceeding. It was more directly related to the parties’ settlement negotiations. However, it involved a specific order of the Court entered upon the stipulation of the parties. While Mr. Johnson had no intention of showing any disrepect toward the Court nor in disrupting any of the proceedings in this litigation, his conduct amounted to a breach of the Court’s trust.
And Mr. Johnson fully admits this and accepts responsibility for his actions.
The question before the Court is what is the minimal necessary action by the Court to achieve the desired result. Here, the clear end for the Court is to ensure that no further disruptions to the litigation occur, to ensure that the Court is given proper respect, and that it’s orders are followed.
The practical opportunities to correct this error are limited. There is no way for Mr. Johnson to undo the disclosure to the media. However, the Court is assured that no further breach of the Court’s trust nor any disobedience to the Court’s orders will occur in the future. Mr. Johnson is no longer affiliated with the case. He is no longer a consultant to plaintiffs’ counsel, nor does he have access to any confidential information regarding the matter.
In evaluating the appropriate action for Mr. Johnson’s conduct, the Court should weigh heavily the circumstances surrounding Mr. Johnson’s conduct but also his character and dedication to the legal cause of immigrant children and their families. As more fully set forth in Mr. Johnson’s declaration, as well as the evidence from the letters of support for Mr. Johnson, he is dedicated to the plight of immigrant families from Central America, and his commitment to their cause as well as his expertise are highly valued in the immigration law community.
While Mr. Johnson has gained much notoriety and respect among immigration law practitioners, he is still a young lawyer. The Court should also consider that in this particular case, Mr. Johnson’s actions here were not in his capacity as a lawyer representing specific clients. Of course, as a licensed attorney, he should still have behaved in a manner becoming of an officer of the Court—he should have known better. He should have foreseen the conflict between his position as a consultant in this litigation and his obligation to his own clients. And it was this commitment to his clients and his motivation to end the suffering they have and continue to endure that led to his rash decision and wrongful conduct—not any disrespect for the Court or intent to impede the fair administration of justice.
There is no need for any additional sanction nor a referral to the New York State Bar here. The publicity of Mr. Johnson’s actions has already had a detrimental effect on his reputation in the immigration law community—particularly among the organizations in which Mr. Johnson has been involved. It will take some time he can regain the trust of other professionals who work in the immigration field. Additional discipline by the licensing authority would only add restrictions on his ability to practice entirely. As Mr. Matthew Guadagno, Adjunct Professor at Brooklyn Law School, writes in his letter to the Court: “[Mr. Johnson] needs guidance, not punishment.”