From the website swineweb.com, comes: “Pork Industry Defendants Seek Judge’s Recusal Amid Allegations of Law Clerk Conflict” —

• “Several of the largest players in the U.S. pork industry—including Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, Seaboard Foods, and Agri Stats—have filed a motion to vacate recent court rulings and called for the recusal of U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim. The motion, submitted April 28, 2025, cites a conflict of interest involving a judicial law clerk as grounds for both the recusal and the reversal of the Court’s March 31 summary judgment decisions.”
• “The defendants argue that the law clerk, who allegedly performed substantive work on critical motions in the case, has both prior and pending ties to entities suing protein producers in similar antitrust cases. According to the motion, the clerk previously worked for multiple firms involved in parallel litigation targeting Agri Stats and currently holds a job offer from Robins Kaplan LLP—a lead plaintiffs’ firm in the ongoing suit. Additionally, the clerk reportedly interacted with plaintiffs’ attorneys on social media and in the courtroom, which defendants argue creates at least an appearance of impropriety.”
• “At the center of this high-stakes litigation is the accusation that Agri Stats facilitated the exchange of sensitive competitive data between major meat producers, contributing to inflated pork prices through coordinated production strategies. Judge Tunheim’s March 31 rulings leaned heavily on the plaintiffs’ expert testimony, characterizing Agri Stats as ‘the most suspicious and suggestive element in this case,’ while allowing the core antitrust claims to proceed and dismissing Hormel Foods due to its limited involvement in the Agri Stats system.”
• “The defendants insist that the structural fairness of the proceedings has been compromised and are urging the court to set aside its recent decisions, regardless of whether actual bias can be proven.”

Cynthia Godsoe, professor at Brooklyn Law School and Evan Davis senior counsel with Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton write: “Ethical Issues Raised by Agreements Between Certain Law Firms and Donald Trump” —

• “Do the legal services provided under the agreements qualify as pro bono?”
• “No. These services are being provided for significant consideration and therefore can’t qualify as pro bono work. The consideration includes withdrawal of sanctions imposed or threatened pursuant to executive orders as well as termination of EEOC investigation into activities related to DEI and in all cases confirmation of the firm’s good standing with Trump and his administration.”
• “This consideration is of substantial value to the firms. The sanctions imposed or threatened to be imposed were severe and called into question the firms’ ability effectively to represent their clients. For example, the directive to limit access to federal buildings and federal employees had a severe threatened adverse effect on the firms’ regulatory practice. Also the imposed or threatened Executive Orders branded the firms as persona non grata with the Trump administration, a classification which would likely influence some clients not to choose the firms to represent them in matters involving the federal government.”
• “Do the agreements raise conflict of interest issues?”
• “Yes. These issues arise both with respect to the free legal services to be provided under the agreements as well as services provided to the firm’s paying and pro bono clients while the agreements are in effect.”
• “The first conflict of interest rule is that a law firm may not take on a representation that would cause the firm to be representing differing interests. Differing interest are interests that will ‘adversely affect the independent judgment’ of the lawyer in considering, recommending or carrying out an appropriate course of action for a client. Through required imputation, the entire law firm owes a duty of independent judgment to all of its current clients.”
• “The second conflict of interest rule is that a lawyer may not represent a client where there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s independent judgment will be impaired by a lawyer’s personal interest. Personal interest includes animosity to the client or personal hostility to the nature of the work being undertaken unless the lawyer reasonably believes that there is no significant risk that these views will adversely affect their professional judgment.”
• “Under the agreements the firms will provide free legal services to clients approved by both Trump and the firms. Any proposed representation must be declined if there is a conflict with a current client unless both Trump and the current client provide informed consent. If there is a significant risk that independent judgment on behalf of a Trump approved client will be impaired by work for a new paying or pro bono client, that work must be declined unless the Trump approved client consents. If the Trump-approved client is the federal government or a private entity that would seek Trump’s approval before consenting to a conflict, then Trump could decline consent for any reason or no reason. To avoid this risk the firms should not commence any work under the agreements without a written advance conflict waiver from both the Trump-approved client and Trump himself.”
• “Lawyers at the firms may be reluctant to work on Trump-approved matters either because of concerns about the circumstances under which the agreements arose, strong disagreement with aiding Trump in advancing his policy agenda or the specific substance of the Trump-approved matter. Because very strong feelings about these matters are ubiquitous and within the range of reasonable opinion, the firms should take special steps to make clear that a partner or associate with such reservations should not work on the Trump-approved matter unless they reasonably believe that their independent judgment will not be impaired by their personal views. The firms should also make clear that a lawyer’s conclusion that they cannot ethically work on a Trump-approved matter will not have any adverse impact on their treatment by the firm.”
• “Are the agreements unethical because they are the result of illegal extortion under color of official authority?”
• “Yes. Bribery and extortion are separate but closely related crimes. Bribery is giving a benefit to receive favorable treatment. Extortion is giving a demanded benefit to avoid threatened unfavorable treatment. An example of extortion is what is commonly called a protection racket where payments or other benefits are paid to those demanding them in return for protection against the carrying out of threats of harm.”
• “Here, the Trump administration obtained property—the free legal services—under color of official authority. Coercion need not be shown. Instead, the coercion flows from the government power, from the holding of public office itself. Nor is it relevant that the services may be provided to the Trump administration or to third parties—any quid pro quo understanding for any recipient satisfies the statutory elements.”
• “The best outcome here is obvious. The agreements are not enforceable and therefore can be repudiated. The nine firms that have made these agreements should all agree to effectuate their termination. If all the targets of a protection scheme refuse to comply for ethical reasons, the scheme losses much of its force.”
• “Failing that, the New York Rules of Professional Conduct should be enforced. Hearings need to be held to provide due process and establish the facts and circumstances more fully. Mitigating factors need to be considered in determining the appropriate sanction. As noted above, victimhood is one such factor. It may well be that public censure is the appropriate sanction. This sanction is by no means a slap on the wrist because the Firms would be required to transmit the order of public censure to all of their clients and personnel.”

“Judge strikes down Trump executive order punishing prominent law firm” —

• “President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to punish the law firm Perkins Coie for working with Hillary Clinton and other Democrats is unconstitutional, ‘motivated by retaliation’ and cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled late Friday.”
• “The ruling marks the biggest setback so far for Trump’s campaign against law firms that have represented his political enemies — though key provisions of the orders have been blocked as four firms challenged them in court.”
• “‘Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and publish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with ‘tolerance, not coercion,’’ Judge Beryl Howell wrote in the 102-page decision.”
• “‘In purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,’’ Howell wrote. ‘Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.'”
• “Perkins Coie issued a statement welcoming the decision. ‘This ruling affirms core constitutional freedoms all Americans hold dear, including free speech, due process, and the right to select counsel without the fear of retribution,’ it said. ‘We are pleased with this decision and are immensely grateful to those who spoke up in support of our positions.'”
• “In a lengthy footnote, Howell took aim at other law firms that decided to make deals with the White House to avoid being targeted by the president — including nine that have agreed to contribute nearly $1 billion in free legal services to causes favored by the administration.”
• “‘Only when lawyers make the choice to challenge rather than back down when confronted with government action raising non-trivial constitutional issues can a case be brought to court for judicial review of the legal merits,’ Howell wrote. ‘If the founding history of his country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written.'”