Justices OK 'For This Turn' Argument From the Solicitor General's Office
One item on an otherwise routine U.S. Supreme Court orders list on Monday caught the eye of high court devotees and triggered questions across the Twitter-verse: “The motion of the solicitor general to argue pro hac vice is granted.” A pro hac vice request from the Office of Solicitor General? How could it be that a member of the government's top appellate team was not a member of the Supreme Court bar? Meet Christopher Michel, who recently joined the SG's Office.
November 06, 2017 at 02:59 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Solicitor General's Office at the U.S. Justice Department in Washington. Credit: Mike Scarcella/ National Law Journal
One item on an otherwise routine U.S. Supreme Court orders list on Monday caught the eye of high court devotees and triggered questions across the Twitter-verse: “The motion of the solicitor general to argue pro hac vice is granted.”
A pro hac vice request from the Office of Solicitor General? How could it be that a member of the government's top appellate team was not a member of the Supreme Court bar?
The government's request in the case, Digital Realty Trust v. Somers, was unusual but not unprecedented. U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco filed it on behalf of Christopher Michel, an assistant to the solicitor general who “because of his knowledge of the case and his legal ability would be especially qualified to present oral argument for the government.” Michel, a former Kirkland & Ellis associate, joined the Solicitor General's Office in September.
Supreme Court Rule 5 states that to qualify for admission to the bar of the court, “an applicant must have been admitted to practice in the highest court of a state, commonwealth, territory or possession, or the District of Columbia for a period of at least three years immediately before the date of application; must not have been the subject of any adverse disciplinary action pronounced or in effect during that three-year period; and must appear to the court to be of good moral and professional character.”
The justices will hear arguments in Digital Realty on Nov. 28—before Michel will be eligible for admission to the Supreme Court bar, according to Francisco's motion. Michel is just shy of the Rule 5 requirement: He was admitted to the bar of the Virginia Supreme Court in December 2015.
The United States has filed an amicus brief supporting Paul Somers in the Digital Realty case. The justices will decide whether employees are protected under Dodd-Frank's whistleblower provisions for either reporting alleged misconduct internally to management or through the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Justice Department believes the law protects employees “regardless of whether those whistleblowers report to the commission.”
Because of the high court's filing deadlines, Francisco was forced to file the pro hac vice motion and a motion for divided argument on or before Oct. 10 and before the government had filed its own amicus brief. The justices on Monday granted both motions.
Michel graduated from Yale Law School in 2013 and then served one-year clerkships first for Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then for Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. After his clerkships, he was an associate at Kirkland & Ellis and taught as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
The law, however, was not his first profession. Michel served more than five years as a speechwriter and White House director of speechwriting for President George W. Bush. He then assisted Bush with his presidential memoir, “Decision Points.”
As the solicitor general's motion noted in a footnote, the high court has authorized pro hac vice arguments by the Solicitor General's Office “on a number of previous occasions.” One of those arguments was in the 2009 case, United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York. And who was the pro hac vice lawyer? Jeffrey Wall, then an assistant to the solicitor general. Wall is now the principal deputy solicitor general, serving under Francisco.
The U.S. Justice Department's amicus brief in Digital Realty is posted below.
Read more:
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 AllSupreme Court Justices Have 'Variety of Views' on Ethics, Kagan Says
Can Congress Tax Unrealized Gains as Income? Supreme Court May Decide
This Judge, Who Grew up in Miami-Dade, Just Had a Street Named After Her
Court Overturns $185M Fee Award for Quinn Emanuel in ACA Litigation
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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