“A judge sided with Trump. Behind the scenes, he was lobbying for a nomination” —

• “A Florida state judge was lobbying for a seat on the federal bench. After he sided with the president in a defamation case, Donald Trump gave him one.”
• “Ed Artau, now a nominee to be a district court judge in Florida, met with staff in the office of Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott to angle for the nomination less than two weeks after Trump’s election last fall, according to a new Senate disclosure obtained by POLITICO. In the midst of his interviews, Artau was part of a panel of judges that ruled in Trump’s favor in the president’s case against members of the Pulitzer Prize Board.”
• “About two weeks after the court published his opinion — which called for the overturning of a landmark Supreme Court case that made it harder for public officials to sue journalists — he interviewed with the White House Counsel’s Office. In May, Trump announced his nomination to the federal judiciary.”
• “Critics raised concerns about Artau’s impartiality at the time of the announcement, in light of his ruling in the Pulitzer case. But the overlapping timeline of that decision with his meetings with Senate staff and the White House Counsel’s Office has not previously been reported.”
• “The president has wide latitude to nominate whomever he wishes to the federal bench. But Artau’s vehement defense of Trump — while seeking a nomination from his administration — ‘raises serious questions about his impartiality,’ Caroline Ciccone, president of watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement. The administration’s decision to nominate Artau after that opinion also reflects a pattern of elevating those who have sought to ingratiate themselves with Trump.”
• “‘Coming across as an archpartisan is now perceived as something that can help your cause with President Trump,’ Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said in an interview. ‘The idea that you would have a judge thinking you know, it’s a good idea to go on the warpath in support of the President, is really a new development.'”
• “According to his official Senate questionnaire, Artau met with Scott’s general counsel on Nov. 14 to discuss his interest in the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. After Sen. Ashley Moody (R-Fla.) was appointed to the Senate in January to succeed now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Artau contacted her office to indicate interest in the nomination. At some point after that, Artau said he was informed the senators would recommend him.”
• “On Feb. 12, the court published his opinion in Trump’s favor in the defamation case against the Pulitzer Board, and on Feb. 27, he interviewed with attorneys from the White House Counsel’s Office.”
• “Thereafter, he was informed that he was under consideration for the nomination, and on May 27, he met with Trump, according to Artau’s answers provided in the questionnaire. Trump announced he would nominate Artau to be a district judge in South Florida the next day, writing in a post on Truth Social that Artau has ‘a GREAT track record of restoring LAW AND ORDER and, most importantly, Common Sense.'”
• “In the Senate disclosure, Artau affirmed no one involved in the judicial nomination selection process ‘discussed with [him] any currently pending or specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning [his] position on such case, issue, or question.'”
• “Artau’s opinion in the defamation case was unusual, in part because the ruling concerned a largely procedural matter. Trump had sued the Pulitzer Board for defamation after he requested that it rescind the 2018 awards given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of Russian election interference and ties to Trump’s orbit. The three-judge panel in Florida, including Artau, allowed the case to proceed.”

“Court of Appeals Amends Rules Regarding Client Demands in Engagement Letters and Outside Counsel Guidelines” —

• “On May 14 the D.C. Court of Appeals adopted revisions to D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information), 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 5.6 (Restrictions on Right to Practice), as largely proposed by the D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Review Committee. “
• “The amendments limit certain practices that (1) restrict the ability of prospective clients to engage counsel of their choice; (2) impose restrictions on lawyers’ independence and right to practice; (3) restrict a lawyer’s right to retain a copy of a client’s file, including the lawyer’s work product; and (4) restrict a lawyer’s right to make use of general, nonconfidential information acquired in the course of a representation.”
• “Specifically, new language in Rule 1.6(b) clarifies that the defined term ‘secret’ generally does not refer ‘to legal knowledge or legal research, to knowledge the lawyer has obtained about the regulatory environment in which a client operates, or to information that is generally known in the local community or in the trade, field, or profession to which the information relates.’ A new comment to Rule 1.6 explains that agreements restricting a lawyer’s use of information obtained during a representation could raise concerns about the ability of clients to obtain lawyers as well as the ability of lawyers to represent other clients competently and zealously.”
• “Revised comment [25] to Rule 1.7 states that agreements precluding representation of other clients in circumstances that do not preclude representation under the Rules do not expand the scope of the Rules. “
• “Revised Rule 1.16(d) and a new comment indicate that lawyers can ethically retain copies of client documents, as long as the lawyers maintain confidentiality with respect to those documents.”
• “Finally, a new comment to Rule 5.6 states that ‘a lawyer should not agree to restrictions a client seeks to place on the lawyer’s ability to represent other individuals or entities whose representation is not otherwise precluded by these rules if those restrictions would unduly interfere with the general ability of clients to obtain lawyers or lawyers’ ability to engage in public service or would undermine the integrity of the profession.'”
  “The amendments take effect September 15, 2025.”