Dozens of Defense Lawyers Accuse Prosecutors of Judge Shopping in College Admissions Scandal
Massachusetts's top federal prosecutor fired back, accusing the defense of objecting because they think Judge Gorton imposes longer sentences than other judges.
April 09, 2019 at 05:52 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Clashing with the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston, dozens of defense attorneys for clients charged in the college admissions scandal accused prosecutors Tuesday of using improper judge-shopping tactics to steer their cases.
In a letter sent to U.S. District Judge Patti Saris, the chief judge for the Massachusetts federal court, 26 lawyers who represent parents charged in Operation Varsity Blues expressed concern that prosecutors would subvert the random judge-assignment process by adding defendants to a case where the judge was already assigned.
The prosecutors did exactly that shortly after the letter was sent, indicting 16 parents in an already-pending case before U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton.
The defense lawyers said they took no particular issue with Gorton, but said there was no basis in federal criminal case rules to link their cases to that of David Sidoo, a parent charged with paying over $200,000 to people who pretended to be his sons and got high scores on the SAT college admissions test. Sidoo's indictment in early March was announced the same day it was revealed that dozens of other parents were charged by complaint.
“We are gravely concerned that the United States Attorney's Office is seeking to evade the district's random assignment process … we think your honor has the ability to deter it from happening,” the defense lawyers wrote. They called on Saris to take “whatever available steps are necessary” to make sure their clients' indictments were randomly assigned.
Andrew Lelling, the U.S. Attorney in Boston, personally signed the government's response. He called the defense lawyers' letter “procedurally inappropriate and disingenuous,” saying the government's charging papers make clear that all the parents conspired with William Singer, a corrupt college admissions consultant who cooperated with prosecutors. Adding defendants using a superseding indictment in an already-pending case is “routine,” Lelling wrote.
The prosecutor's letter also accuses the defense lawyers of objecting because they think Gorton imposes longer sentences than other judges in Massachusetts federal court. Removing Gorton would be “unprecedented” and would undermine the very system that the defense lawyers claim they support, Lelling said.
“This morning's letter was inappropriate—a 'Hail Mary' by people who know better and who appear to have leaked the letter to the press right after sending it to you,” Lelling wrote. “I am a veteran federal prosecutor. I take seriously this office's ethical obligations.”
The letter was publicly docketed under its own case number. The defense attorneys who signed the letter include those from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo; Bienert Katzman; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Keller/Anderle; Ropes & Gray; Nixon Peabody; White & Case; Nutter McClennan & Fish; Todd & Weld; Miner Orkand Siddall; Boies Schiller Flexner; Duane Morris and the solo practitioner Martin Weinberg.
The exchange punctuated an already eventful day in the college admissions scandal cases. Prosecutors announced the indictments of 16 people Tuesday, including actress Lori Loughlin, the day after they revealed that 13 parents and one coach had agreed to plead guilty.
Among the parents pleading guilty are Gordon Caplan, the former co-chairman of Willkie Farr & Gallagher who was fired after he apologized for his conduct and announced his plans to come clean. Caplan is set to enter a guilty plea on May 21 at 2:30 p.m.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute read'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readLippman Study on Antisemitism at CUNY Weighs Free Speech, Unprotected Acts
'Illegal Conspiracy'?: EDNY Antitrust Class Action Challenges Publishers' 'Unpaid Peer Review Rule'
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250