Hat tip to an extended, longtime reader for sending in the following via electronic pony express: “131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest” —

• “More than 130 federal judges have violated U.S. law and judicial ethics by overseeing court cases involving companies in which they or their family owned stock. A Wall Street Journal investigation found that judges have improperly failed to disqualify themselves from 685 court cases around the nation since 2010. The jurists were appointed by nearly every president from Lyndon Johnson to Donald Trump.”
• “About two-thirds of federal district judges disclosed holdings of individual stocks, and nearly one of every five who did heard at least one case involving those stocks. Alerted to the violations by the Journal, 56 of the judges have directed court clerks to notify parties in 329 lawsuits that they should have recused themselves. That means new judges might be assigned, potentially upending rulings.”
• “The Journal reviewed financial disclosure forms filed annually for 2010 through 2018 by roughly 700 federal judges who reported holding individual stocks of large companies, and then compared those holdings to tens of thousands of court dockets in civil cases. The same conflict rules apply to criminal cases, but large companies are rarely charged, and the Journal found no instances of judges holding shares of corporate criminal defendants in their courts. It found that 129 federal district judges and two federal appellate judges had at least one case in which a stock they or their family owned was a plaintiff or defendant.”
• “In New York, Judge Edgardo Ramos handled a suit between an Exxon Mobil Corp. unit and TIG Insurance Co. over a pollution claim while owning between $15,001 and $50,000 of Exxon stock, according to his financial disclosure form. He accepted an arbitration panel’s opinion that TIG should pay Exxon $25 million and added $8 million of interest to the tab.”
• “In Colorado, Judge Lewis Babcock oversaw a case involving a Comcast Corp. subsidiary, ruling in its favor, while he or his family held between $15,001 and $50,000 of Comcast stock.”
• “At an Ohio-based appeals court, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons wrote an opinion that favored Ford Motor Co. in a trademark dispute while her husband held stock in the auto maker. After she and the others on the three-judge appellate panel heard arguments but before they ruled, her husband’s financial adviser bought two chunks of Ford stock, each valued at up to $15,000, for his retirement account, according to her disclosure form.”
• “Judge Ramos, who oversaw the Exxon case, was unaware of his violation, said an official of the New York federal court, because his ‘recusal list’—a tally judges keep of parties they shouldn’t have in their courtrooms—listed only parent Exxon Mobil Corp. and not the unit, whose name includes the additional word ‘oil.’ The official said the court conflict-screening software relied on exact matches.”
• “‘I dropped the ball,’ Judge Babcock said when asked about the recusal violation. He blamed flawed internal procedures. ‘Thank you for helping me stay on my toes the way I’m supposed to,’ he said. A Comcast spokeswoman declined to comment.”
• “Judge Gibbons from the Ford trademark case, appointed to the appeals court by former President George W. Bush, said she had mistakenly believed holdings in her husband’s retirement account didn’t require her recusal. She later directed the clerk of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to notify the parties of the violation and said that her husband has since told his financial adviser not to buy individual stocks. ‘I regret my misunderstanding, but I assure you it was an honest one,’ she said.”
• “In response to the Journal’s findings, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said: ‘The Wall Street Journal’s report on instances where conflicts inadvertently were not identified before a case was resolved or transferred is troubling, and the Administrative Office is carefully reviewing the matter.’
• “It said the federal judiciary ‘takes very seriously its obligations to preclude any financial conflicts of interest’ and has taken steps, such as conflict-screening software and ethics training, to prevent violations. ‘We have in place a number of safeguards and are looking for ways to improve,’ the office said.”
• “In response to the Journal’s findings, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said: ‘The Wall Street Journal’s report on instances where conflicts inadvertently were not identified before a case was resolved or transferred is troubling, and the Administrative Office is carefully reviewing the matter.’
• “It said the federal judiciary ‘takes very seriously its obligations to preclude any financial conflicts of interest’ and has taken steps, such as conflict-screening software and ethics training, to prevent violations. ‘We have in place a number of safeguards and are looking for ways to improve,’ the office said.”

“Judge Rodney Gilstrap Sets an Unwanted Record: Most Cases With Financial Conflicts” —

• “No federal judge in America has heard more patent-infringement lawsuits in the past decade than Rodney Gilstrap, who presides over a small courthouse in Marshall, Texas.”
• “He also holds another record: Judge Gilstrap has taken on 138 cases since 2011 that involved companies in which he or a family member had a financial interest, more than any other federal judge, a Wall Street Journal investigation shows.”
• “The companies included Microsoft Corp. (53 cases), Walmart Inc. (36 cases), Target Corp. (25 cases) and International Business Machines Corp. (9 cases).”
• “A 1974 federal law requires judges to disqualify themselves from cases if they, their spouse or minor children hold a financial interest in a plaintiff or defendant, including the interest of a beneficiary in assets held by a trust.”
• “Judge Gilstrap, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, also disclosed one of the largest holdings in a conflicted company. He oversaw a patent-infringement case against a Walt Disney Co. unit while he or his wife reported holding between $100,001 and $250,000 of Disney stock. The plaintiff later withdrew its claim.”
• “The 64-year-old Judge Gilstrap, one of America’s most prominent district judges, said he believed he didn’t need to recuse himself from some cases because they required little or no action on his part, and in other cases because the stocks were in a trust created for his wife without her stock-picking input. Legal-ethics experts disagree on both counts.”
• “‘Judge Gilstrap declined interview requests. ‘I take my obligations related to potential conflicts/recusals seriously,’ he said in one of seven emails to the Journal. ‘Throughout my judicial career, I have endeavored to comply with all such obligations, and I will continue to do so.'”
• “Beyond violating law and ethics, the judges’ handling of lawsuits filed by and against companies in which they have financial interests threatens the federal courts’ hard-earned and crucial reputation for fairness, impartiality and objectivity.”
• “An unusually large role in patent litigation has made the Eastern District of Texas a lightning rod for criticism from some academics, corporations and think tanks. These critics say its rules encourage patent holders to bring suits there because they are dispatched swiftly, often with quick settlement payouts to the plaintiffs. A 2016 article in the Southern California Law Review described how it said the court engaged in ‘forum selling,’ a pejorative twist on “forum shopping,” the practice of lawyers seeking out friendly legal venues.”