Trump’s Lawyers Will Get Away with Facilitating His Anti-Democratic Antics and They Know It

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—predicts that because the lawyer discipline process is broken, President Trump’s lawyers will get away with facilitating his anti-democratic misconduct. Professor Sarat notes that Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) released a letter calling on bar authorities to investigate and punish members of Trump’s post-election legal team, but he points out that while LDAD can shame those members, it still lacks the ability itself to discipline or disbar.

Read More

State v. Quinones Rodriguez

Citation: 2020 S.D. 68

Opinion Date: December 9, 2020

Judge: Kern

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and other offenses, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) if the circuit court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement, the error was harmless because the statements were cumulative to other evidence received; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion or commit prejudicial error by refusing to declare certain witnesses adverse; (3) Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated; and (4) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant's guilty verdict on all counts.

Luze v. New FB Co.

Citation: 2020 S.D. 70

Opinion Date: December 9, 2020

Judge: Devaney

Areas of Law: Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

In this insurance dispute arising from an employee's death, the Supreme Court remanded the determination that the employer's insurer providing underinsured motorist coverage and workers' compensation insurance was entitled to a lien on a portion of settlement proceeds received by the estate, holding that, given a lack of factual findings, there was no way to evaluate whether the court clearly erred in its assessment of the various factors impacting an equitable allocation. Charles Luze died in a work-related accident. His employer paid his wife, Jeanette Luze, workers' compensation benefits. Jeanette, as the representative of Charles's estate, then brought suit against the negligent driver and settled the claim. The estate also settled a claim against the New FB's insurer providing underinsured motorist coverage, Zurich American Insurance Company, which was also New FB's workers' compensation carrier. The circuit court determined that Zurich was entitled to a statutory workers' compensation lien on fifty percent of the settlement proceeds received by the estate and was able to subrogate against its own settlement payment of underinsured benefits. The Supreme Court remanded in part, holding (1) this Court was unable meaningfully to review the circuit court's allocation determination; and (2) the circuit court properly allowed Zurich to subrogate against the amount it paid in underinsured motorist benefits.

Ferguson v. Thaemert

Citation: 2020 S.D. 69

Opinion Date: December 9, 2020

Judge: David Gilbertson

Areas of Law: Medical Malpractice

In this case brought by a patient who sued her doctor for lack of informed consent, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court granting in part Plaintiff's motion to compel the production of medical records of Defendant's non-party patients, holding that the circuit court erred. Plaintiff underwent an anterior spinal surgery with Defendant, a general surgeon, to relieve lower back pain. After Defendant performed a vertical incision rather than Plaintiff's requested horizontal incision Plaintiff brought this action alleging that Defendant performed the vertical incision without Plaintiff's informed consent. At issue was Plaintiff's motion to compel certain non-party patients' medical records. The circuit court granted the motion to compel in part, limiting the scope of the discoverable records. The Supreme Court reversed the order, holding that the records Plaintiff requested were irrelevant and therefore not discoverable.