ABA Urges Supreme Court to Adopt Ethics Code - California State Bar Seeks John Eastman's Disbarment - Second Circuit Maintains New York's Legendary Rent Control Law

• Pages: 10-10
• Date: 01 April 2023
• Author: Hon. Oran F. Whiting (Ret.)
• Subject Matter: Civil Law

ABA Urges Supreme Court to Adopt Ethics Code

California State Bar Seeks John Eastman’s Disbarment

Second Circuit Maintains New York’s Legendary Rent

Control Law

U.S. SUP REME COURT

Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments

The U.S. Supreme Court has been peti-

tioned to decide on the case of Kelley-

Lomax v. City of Chicago, Illinois, in

which the petitioner was arrested and

his personal property was inventoried

and designated “available for return to

owner,” making it available for pickup

by the petitioner or his designee for

30 days. A police policy required the

sale or disposal of all property not

reclaimed during that 30-day period

and did not include an exception for

arrestees held in custody for more than

30 days.

The petitioner sued under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 when unable to retrieve his

property, complaining that he had

been deprived of rights secured by

the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth

Amendments. The respondent moved

to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court

granted the motion, relying on the deci-

sion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Seventh Circuit in Conyers v. City of

Chicago. The Seventh Circuit armed.

Circuits are divided on whether the

Constitution protects an individual’s

interest in personal property that has

been lawfully seized, and the petitioner

argues the conf‌lict is ripe for resolution.

Kelley-Lomax v. City of Chicago, Illinois,

No. 22-603.

Ethics

The American Bar Association’s pol-

icy-making body recently passed ABA

Resolution 400 urging the Supreme

Court to adopt a bi nding code of

judicial ethic s. The Seattle-area King

County Bar A ssociation of the ABA

believes that “[t]he a bsence of a

clearly artic ulated, binding code of

ethics for the jus tices of the Court

imperils the le gitimacy of the Court.”

AND MORE . . . BY HO N. ORAN F. WHITI NG (RET.), LITIGATION NEWS ASSOCIATE EDITOR

U.S. fede ral judges are subject to the

Judicial Conf erence of the United

States’ Code of Con duct, which details

rules concern ing conduct, extrajudicial

activities, and f‌inancial matters.

STATE

California

The state bar f‌iled 11 disciplinary

charges against John Eastman, who

advised former President Trump on how

to overturn the 2020 presidential elec-

tion. State bar ocials seek Eastman’s

disbarment in part because he knew

or should have known his actions and

assertions were “false and misleading.”

Charges include failure to support the

Constitution and the laws of the U.S.;

misrepresentation; seeking to mislead a

court; and making false and misleading

statements constituting acts of “moral

turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption.”

State Bar of California v. John Charles

Eastman, SBC No. 23-O-30029.

U.S. CIRC UIT COURTS

Second Circuit

The Second Circuit armed decades-

old rent stabilization laws in response

to two related court challenges from

landlord trade groups and a collec-

tion of property owners seeking to

dismantle the tenant protections. The

court rejected the landlords’ argu-

ments that the law violates the Takings

and the Due Process Clauses of the

U.S. Constitution. The Takings Clause

of the Fifth Amendment states that

“private property shall not be taken

for public use, without just compensa-

tion,” and the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment states that

“nor shall any State deprive any person

of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law.”

The lower court previously dismissed

the lawsuits due to the claimants’ failure

to state claims with available remedies.

The Second Circuit explained that the

plaintis did not allege sucient facts

to constitute a physical taking because

the property owners are not forced to

place their properties into the regu-

lated housing market. 74 Pinehurst

LLC v. State of New York, No. 21-467,

and Community Housing Improvement

Program v. City of New York, No.

20-3366.

CIVIL RIGHTS

Facial Recognition Software

New York Attorney Genera l Letitia

James has notif‌ied Madison Square

Garden (MSG) Ente rtainment Corp.

that its use of facia l recognition soft-

ware to identify an d deny entry to

MSG venues for all l awyers aliated

with law f‌irms represe nting clients

in pending litig ation related to MSG

Entertainme nt may be a civil rights

violation.

According to James , MSG

Entertainme nt’s use of facial rec-

ognition soft ware may violate the

New York Civil Rights Law an d other

city, state, and fede ral laws prohibit-

ing discrimina tion and retaliation for

engaging in prote cted activity and

be “plagued with b iases and false

positives against people of color

and women.” Ja mes also fears MSG

Entertainme nt’s use may deter lawyers

from accepting cases involving litiga-

tion against MS G Entertainment.

SPRING 20 23 • VOL. 48 NO. 3

10 | ABA LITIGATION SECTIO N

KEEPING WATCH EMERGING DEV ELOPMENTS FOR LITIGATORS