Latest news with #legalnews
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Yahoo
Conviction upheld for Collierville attorney who tried to kill his wife
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A former Collierville attorney who was convicted of trying to kill his wife multiple times will stay in prison after his latest attempt at an early release was denied. The Shelby County District Attorney's Office says that a judge ruled against former attorney Fred Wortman last week. Collierville attorney sentenced 30 years after entering best interest plea In 2015, Wortman was convicted of trying to kill his wife on three separate occasions. Wortman was accused of poisoning her toothpaste, hiring a hitman who turned out to be an undercover TBI agent, and paying an inmate to murder her. Later that year, Wortman entered a 'best interest' plea and was sentenced to 30 years in prison with 30% release eligibility. According to the DA's Office, despite his plea deal, Wortman was granted an early parole hearing. Records from the Tennessee Department of Corrections show that at one point, his release eligibility date was January 2, 2018. Apology to family from attorney who tried to kill his wife The parole board ultimately denied Wortman's release. The DA's Office says Wortman then filed a motion for post-conviction relief, with his defense claiming that he 'misunderstood the release terms.' His defense reportedly also claimed that the State violated the plea agreement by opposing parole. The DA's Office says a judge denied the motion and has upheld Wortman's conviction. TDOC records show that Wortman's sentence is expected to end on August 26, 2040. Records also show that another parole hearing is scheduled for September 2026. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
New York Times
18-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
The Website Where Lawyers Mock ‘Yellow-Bellied' Firms Bowing to Trump
The decision by nine of America's biggest law firms to 'bend the knee' to President Trump drew condemnation among lawyers across the political spectrum, including from attorneys inside the firms who quit or launched resistance campaigns. Others have chosen a less career-limiting form of rebellion. That would be offering leaks to Above the Law, a pugnacious legal industry website best known for scoops about law firm annual bonuses, snarky coverage of legal news and salacious stories of barristers behaving badly. But since March, when Mr. Trump began targeting for retribution top law firms whose clients and past work he does not like, Above the Law has become a rage read for lawyers incensed at the firms that accommodated him. Fueled by a stream of inside-the-conference-room exclusives, Above the Law delivers a daily public spanking to what it calls 'The Yellow-Bellied Nine.' Those are the elite firms who pledged a collective $1 billion in free legal work to Mr. Trump after he signed executive orders threatening to bar their lawyers from federal buildings, suspend their security clearances and cancel their government contracts. In the words of Above the Law, the firms 'folded like a damp cocktail napkin' to the president's demands for 'pro bono payola.' 'For demoralized people stuck inside these firms, I think this is catharsis,' said Kevin Carroll, a Washington lawyer who once worked at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. (Quinn Emmanuel has not been threatened by Mr. Trump, although its comanaging partner, William A. Burck, was fired as an outside ethics counsel for the Trump Organization by Mr. Trump's sons in April. Mr. Burck's offense was signing up to also represent Harvard, one of Mr. Trump's prime targets in his crackdown on the nation's top colleges.) For Mr. Carroll, the site's skewering of mostly left-leaning legal titans stirs schadenfreude. 'I've always wondered,' he said, 'when pressed, would rich liberal lawyers choose to stay rich or liberal? Now we know.' A few recent headlines from the site: 'Money v. Morals: Which Will Law Students Choose When It Comes to Job Offers From Biglaw Firms That Made Deals With Trump?' 'Biglaw's Cowards Play Dumb About Pro-Bono Payola' 'This Law Firm Had to Delete A LOT to Purge Its Diversity and Pro Bono Work' 'Biglaw Firms in League With Donald Trump Now Have to Defend Cops That Kill Black and Brown People' Unlike most other legal industry outlets, access to Above the Law is free for anyone who supplies an email address and basic job information for use by its advertisers, who pay the bills. The site urges readers to 'send us your leads, gossip, leaked documents, embarrassing photos or anything else juicy.' Partners running billion-dollar firms have long eyed its morning newsletter like an elephant does a mouse. One partner at a top-tier firm told The New York Times that lawyers there have a rule: 'Don't do anything that could wind up in Above the Law.' The partner requested anonymity for fear of violating the rule. 'One of the comments I most appreciated,' said David Lat, the lawyer who founded Above the Law in 2006, 'was from an administrative assistant who told me, 'The partners are nicer to us because they don't want to show up on the site as 'The Screamer.'' Mr. Lat is the author of the now-defunct but once widely read blog among the federal judiciary, the dishy Underneath Their Robes, which featured critiques of 'superhottie' judges and courtroom celebrity sightings. Mr. Lat sold Above the Law to Breaking Media in 2019 but remains a minor investor. The law firms have defended their deals with Mr. Trump by arguing that they simply committed to representing clients no matter their political beliefs and doing pro bono legal work on causes like helping veterans and fighting antisemitism. The site occasionally points out, however, that Mr. Trump has since suggested that the firms might be drafted into negotiating his trade deals, or defending police accused of misconduct. Joe Patrice, one of Above the Law's four full-time writers (all are lawyers) said that every so often, someone pings the tipster line with a demand that the site be 'nicer, more bipartisan' in covering the current crisis. Mr. Patrice acknowledged that this gives him pause. 'When squeaky wheels are all you ever hear from, you wonder, are we being unfair?' he said. To answer his own question, he wrote an article exploring whether that might be the case. He began by researching how Mr. Trump had been 'bench-slapped' — a favorite term at Above the Law — by some of conservatism's most prominent judges. Among them is J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge, who said last month on MSNBC that Mr. Trump had 'declared war on the federal judiciary, on the rule of law and on the nation's legal profession.' Paul Clement, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush and once on Mr. Trump's short list for a Supreme Court appointment, sued the administration on behalf of WilmerHale, and won a restraining order from a Republican-appointed judge. 'The real intellectual leaders of the conservative legal movement are more incensed than we are,' Mr. Patrice concluded. None of the nine firms that accommodated Mr. Trump responded to requests for comment. Brad Karp, Paul Weiss's longtime chairman, previously said in an email to colleagues that the firm's agreement 'will have no effect on our work and our shared culture and values.' While a few lawyers interviewed by The Times found Above the Law a bit lowbrow, or 'more interesting for associates than partners,' none were allowed by their firms to say so on the record, because, as one said, 'I guess it might antagonize them or something.' The outlet has scooped heftier competitors on stories, such as one on a summer associate at a New York firm who stripped down and dove into the Hudson during a charity gala. On the weightier side, there were the former editor Elie Mystal's articles flagging allegations against Justice Brett Kavanaugh before his Supreme Court confirmation battle. Even before Mr. Trump began issuing executive orders, Above the Law's tipsters flagged firms that were quietly stripping pronouns from email signatures and halting diversity initiatives in hope of escaping the president's wrath. Above the Law covered discontent at the firm A&O Shearman before it reached a deal with Mr. Trump, and chronicled leaked tales of internal revolt at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom after it became one of the first firms to accommodate Mr. Trump. Above the Law also posted emails exposing Skadden's efforts to disable mass distribution lists on its internal email system to, as the outlet put it, 'head off anyone who might want to express their opinion about the firm becoming a cowardly laughingstock.' Another tipster offered news of Skadden's search for a public relations specialist, which Above the Law posted under the Onion-esque headline 'Skadden Posts Dream Job for Anyone Who Hates Themselves.' Above the Law is based in the garret-like top floor of the Cable Building, at the corner of Broadway and Houston in Manhattan. One recent rainy afternoon, the same day several more firms neared agreements with Mr. Trump, Kathryn Rubino, a writer and editor, was updating the 'Biglaw Spine Index.' The index charts the nation's top 200 law firms and, as the site says, 'what they're doing — or not — in the face of Trump's attack.' Firms that cut a deal with Mr. Trump are highlighted in red and include Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; Skadden; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; A&O Shearman; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. Sullivan & Cromwell, which helped broker the Paul Weiss deal with Mr. Trump, is also in red. Those that sued the White House are in green and include WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey and Jenner & Block. More than a dozen firms representing or supporting them in court are also in green. The rest of the top 200 firms were deemed as remaining silent and highlighted in yellow. Despite its outlets' humble quarters, Breaking Media is backed by well-heeled investors, including its founder Justin Smith, a co-founder of the news website Semafor, and S. Carter Burden III, son of the late New York councilman, media magnate and philanthropist. Coverage of the law firms' capitulation has increased traffic to the site, which draws about 1.5 million readers in a normal month, said John Lerner, Breaking Media's chief executive, who declined to say exactly how big that spike is. 'It's clear that a lot of lawyers want to push back against these executive orders,' he said.
Fox News
12-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Diddy faces life behind bars in sex trafficking, racketeering trial
incoming update… Sean 'Diddy' Combs' jury panel was not finalized Friday, despite the original trial schedule. Diddy's legal team was concerned about jurors getting cold feet over the weekend, and Judge Arun Subramanian agreed. The prosecution opposed this decision, wanting to narrow down the pool of 43 to 12 jurors, six alternates and three extras on Friday. 'This doesn't necessarily signal a struggle to seat the jury; it's more about being cautious and setting the trial up for a smooth start with minimal disruptions,' criminal defense lawyer Jo-Anna Nieves told Fox News Digital. 'It's a thoughtful and fairly common precaution.' Criminal defense attorney Eric Faddis added, 'It's normal for different phases of the trial to take longer than expected, but apparently at least one of the 45 potential jurors remaining has recently asked to be removed from this controversial, high-profile case.' The jury pool will be finalized before opening statements. Diddy's trial will likely last eight weeks. Sean 'Diddy' Combs arrived at court in New York City on Monday, May 12, for opening statements. Before they begin, the defense and prosecution will finalize the jury panel of 12 jurors and six alternates. Diddy walked into the courtroom at 8:52 am wearing a khaki sweater over a white shirt with khaki pants. He hugged each of his attorneys before making a heart with his hands and blowing a kiss towards his family seated in the courtroom. The rapper's mom, Janice Combs, along with his six kids are supporting Diddy from the 2nd row. Diddy was charged with racketeering conspiracy; sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion; and transportation to engage in prostitution in a federal indictment unsealed Sept. 17. He has maintained his innocence. If found guilty, he faces a minimum of 15 years behind bars or a maximum sentence of life in prison. Authorities allege Diddy ran a criminal enterprise through his businesses, including Bad Boy Entertainment, Combs Enterprises and Combs Global, among others. He used "firearms, threats of violence, coercion and verbal, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse" to fulfill his sexual desires, according to prosecutors. The prosecution and defense have estimated the disgraced music mogul's trial to last eight weeks, ending around the 4th of July. Sean "Diddy" Combs' mother Janice Combs arrived at court to support the rapper amid his sex-trafficking trial. She was joined by his sons and daughters. The family has attended Diddy's court hearings leading up to trial. Janice previously defended Diddy in a statement shared with Fox News Digital. "It is heartbreaking to see my son judged not for the truth, but for a narrative created out of lies," Janice Combs wrote in October. "To bear witness what seems to be like a public lynching of my son before he has had the opportunity to prove his innocence is a pain too unbearable to put into words. Like every human being, my son deserves to have his day in court, to finally share his side, and to prove his innocence." She pleaded, "My son is not the monster they have painted him to be, and he deserves the chance to tell his side. I can only pray that I am alive to see him speak his truth and be vindicated." Jury selection is a completely private process, not available for the public to watch. The defense and prosecution are often looking for people who have little to no knowledge of what has gone on in the case so far, as to keep away biases. Combs appeared anxious on the opening day of jury selection. After requesting a bathroom break at one point, he told the judge, "I'm a little nervous today." While the public isn't allowed to watch the jury selection take place, court documents submitted ahead of trial shed light on what the defense and prosecution might be looking for in a potential juror. For Sean 'Diddy' Combs' case, his defense team submitted a proposed questionnaire ahead of his May 5 sex-trafficking trial. His lawyers want the potential jurors to be questioned on their views regarding sex, drugs and violence, according to a letter filed to Judge Arun Subramanian. The prosecution criticized Diddy's proposed 72-question survey, claiming it was too long and asked questions not relevant to the allegations. Prospective jurors received the questionnaire ahead of the May 5 start date so that jury selection could begin that day. Opening statements will begin on May 12. People interested in Sean 'Diddy' Combs' sex-trafficking trial and the day-to-day testimony will not be able to watch from home. Federal law prohibits cameras in the courtroom. "Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom,' Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 reads. Diddy has appeared in court a handful of times since his September arrest on federal sex-trafficking crimes. However, only court sketches have been made available to the public following his hearings. These typically depict Diddy, his legal team and often the judge presiding over his case. Cameras are allowed outside of the courthouse, but it's unclear if Combs will be spotted since he will remain behind bars throughout the trial. However, Diddy's mom and children have been seen arriving and leaving from court in photographs and video. Live Coverage begins here
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Big Focus on Federal Judges Is Not a Good Sign
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. One indicator about the health of the nation is how many lower federal judges a regular news consumer can name—and reel off biographical details about—without much hesitation. By now, many know James Boasberg, who is handling the matter of deportation flights to El Salvador. He is merely the highest-profile in a crew of newly famous judges: Paula Xinis is overseeing Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case. Fernando Rodriguez Jr. rejected the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act. J. Harvie Wilkinson scorched the White House over due process. Beryl Howell threw out Donald Trump's executive order targeting a liberal law firm. Tanya Chutkan was set to preside over Trump's trial on charges of 2020 election subversion, though the case was dismissed first. 'At any given time in our history, the public writ large doesn't know of a single lower-federal-court judge,' the legal scholar and retired federal judge Michael Luttig told me. (Luttig has also contributed to The Atlantic.) 'Fast-forward to today: Judge Boasberg is a federal district-court judge, and Donald Trump puts him on a marquee in front of the world and trashes him.' Luttig might be exaggerating the public's ignorance of federal judges slightly, but these jurists have suddenly become major figures in the news, many of them for nothing more than doing their job: hearing cases, trying to earnestly interpret the law, and then issuing an opinion. The desire of many media organizations to illuminate their personalities, and the desire of audiences to learn about them, is understandable, especially as Trump's attempts to test the rule of law have made the courts into more heated battlegrounds. Also understandable is the impulse among Trump critics to lift up as heroes judges who withstand pressure. Nor should any public official be beyond scrutiny. But watching the focus shift from law, precedent, and evidence and onto the judges themselves has been unnerving. The problem is not merely the celebrification of politics that has in recent years afflicted the executive and legislative branches, and to some extent the U.S. Supreme Court as well. In the context of the judiciary, the danger is especially acute. John Adams wrote in 1776 that 'the very definition of a Republic, is 'an Empire of Laws, and not of Men.'' Focusing on the judges as personalities is a step away from a government of laws and toward one of men and women. It also serves Trump's purposes. He would much rather focus on attacking the judges and claiming that they hate him or are anti-American than on the fairly clear findings in case after case that his administration has overstepped its power and the bounds of the Constitution. Perhaps it's no surprise that when Time asked Trump about that Adams quote recently, he was unfamiliar. 'The last thing that any federal judge wants to do, frankly with anyone, is seek out controversy,' Luttig told me. But 'of course this is the way the president wants it. The last thing he wants to talk about is the law, and he wants to demonize the individual judges.' By attacking nearly every judge who rules against his policies as biased—even those that come from judges he nominated to the bench—Trump delegitimizes the court system, allowing himself to overstep further next time and possibly laying the groundwork to disregard court rulings. The attacks also risk physical harm against judges, who have faced a growing number of threats in recent weeks. Trump may merely wish to bully judges, but his vilification of public figures has in the past resulted in some of his supporters taking up violence. Judges are not, and should not be treated as, purely objective and rational beings who are above politics. Starting in the mid-20th century, conservatives began complaining about 'activist judges' who they believed were driving a social agenda from the bench. More recently, liberals have embraced a similar critique. Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, argues in her forthcoming book, Lawless, that the Supreme Court has abandoned legal interpretation for conservative grievance. 'It's healthy and important for news coverage to capture the reality that judges are people too,' she told me. 'Their legal rulings are going to be influenced by their life experience and their worldview and the political parties that appointed them, and to not acknowledge that in some way feels misleading.' This means, for example, that noting who nominated a judge can be valuable—especially, as in the Rodriguez example, when a Trump-nominated jurist rules firmly against the president. It also means that when judges make repeated decisions that fly in the face of precedent—such as Aileen Cannon, the Trump-appointed judge who repeatedly ruled in his favor in the case over his hoarding of sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago—they deserve scrutiny. Another unfortunately prominent federal judge is Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointed district-court judge in Texas. Conservative activists have homed in on Kacsmaryk, because he reliably rules in their favor and because, thanks to the oddities of judicial districts, they can consistently get their cases before him specifically and then persuade him to issue nationwide injunctions. In his most notable case, he attempted to block mifepristone, an abortion drug, in a long-shot challenge to its FDA approval. The substance of Kaczmaryk's rulings deserves criticism—the Supreme Court had no patience for his mifepristone ruling—but even here, as Nicholas Bagley wrote in The Atlantic, the larger problem is the system that allows for such judge-shopping and national injunctions. (Now that judges are issuing nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration, some conservatives are starting to see the wisdom of this point.) If the newfound prominence of these judges were a sign of improved civic engagement, perhaps that would be reason for applause. But this is unlikely, given continued public ignorance about the Supreme Court. A poll last year found that a majority of the public had never heard of or knew little about any of the justices besides Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. Americans are hearing both too much about the courts, and far too little. Related: The supreme cult of personality (From 2015) Aileen Cannon is who critics feared she was. Here are four new stories from The Atlantic: Why this India-Pakistan conflict is different The actual math behind DOGE's cuts Trump's inevitable betrayal of his supporters Now is not the time to eat bagged lettuce. Today's News Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost was elected as the pope. He will be the first American to serve in the papacy. U.S. President Donald Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a trade deal between their countries, but some of the details still need to be finalized. Trump withdrew his nomination for surgeon general and picked the author and wellness influencer Dr. Casey Means as a replacement last night. Dispatches Time-Travel Thursdays: How will the new pope shape the Catholic Church and the world? Fitting popes into borrowed political labels such as left and right, liberal and conservative doesn't always age well, Luis Parrales writes. Work in Progress: Donald Trump seems to be ceding the future to China while emulating its past, Derek Thompson writes. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read We're All Living in a Carl Hiaasen Novel By Amy Weiss-Meyer Nothing about Carl Hiaasen's outward appearance suggests eccentricity. I've seen him described as having the air of 'an amiable dentist' or 'a pleasant jeweler' or 'a patrician country lawyer.' He is soft-spoken, courteous, and plainly dressed. The mischief is mostly detectable in his eyes, which he'll widen to express disbelief or judgment, or cast sideways to invite a companion to join him on his wavelength, raising his brows for effect. Every so often, he'll say something that serves as a reminder of why his name has become synonymous with Florida Weird. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic The MAHA takeover is complete. The bliss of a quieter ego Trump's weak position on trade How spying helped erode American trust Culture Break Dress up (or don't). School spirit days are a totally unnecessary way to stress parents out, Julie Beck writes. Watch. Taskmaster (streaming on YouTube and Pluto TV) is an oddball British comedy show that David Sims thought he'd hate (and has since come to love). Play our daily crossword. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
