Judge Earns Misconduct Complaint After Ordering Lawyers Take Training Classes From Anti-LGBTQ Group

// Judge Brantley Starr got the headlines he so dearly craved when he ordered a group of Southwest Airlines in-house attorneys to take training courses and pegged a recognized hate group for the job in a slap in the face to ethics CLE providers everywhere.

His slapdash reasoning has sparked an appeal that even the Fifth Circuit might take seriously, having saddled Southwest with this obligation based on bad analogies and a semantic dispute over verb tenses that would offend even the most pedantic of grammar fascists.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

But he’s also generated a misconduct complaint over his botched legal analysis.

Sponsored Is Your Firm’s Cybersecurity Strategy Keeping Clients Away? Tell us your worst fears in this brief, anonymous study and receive a chance at a $250 gift card. From Above the Law  

Yesterday, Gabe Roth of the judicial watchdog Fix the Court filed a complaint with the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit laying out the serious ethical problems with the Starr opinion.

Judge Starr’s opinion goes to some lengths to lay out the court’s power to issue “training” as an ethical sanction. He just never found any precedent for religious training as opposed to, you know, ethics training.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

Of course, “training” can at times be a fair sanction, especially in the realm of ethics, so it’s worth considering the various examples of court-mandated training Judge Starr cites in his order, largely in footnotes 66 and 67, at 20. As you can see, not one is religion-based, underscoring the unprecedented nature of the sanction. (Judge Starr could have assigned ethics training, given that in his view Southwest did not follow through on his earlier order, but he specifically chose not to.)

Southwest had fired a flight attendant for violating the company’s civility policies when she ranted on social media about the company and her union supporting sex trafficking cover-ups and organ harvesting. Since she cited her religious beliefs as the basis for these unhinged rants, she prevailed on a discrimination claim.

Sponsored Sponsored Documenting Secured Transactions: A New Guide For Practitioners A newly updated PLI treatise provides both the legal framework and practical guidance on documenting secured transactions, including important details about 2022 amendments to the UCC. From Practising Law Institute   Sponsored Survey Results: A Perspective On The Private Markets Ontra surveyed over 400 private markets professionals about what to expect this year and their legal process pain points. From Kerry G. Benn, Ontra   Sponsored Is Biglaw Asleep At The Cybersecurity Wheel? Help us benchmark the industry — and get a chance at a $250 gift card! From Above the Law   Sponsored Documenting Secured Transactions: A New Guide For Practitioners A newly updated PLI treatise provides both the legal framework and practical guidance on documenting secured transactions, including important details about 2022 amendments to the UCC. From Practising Law Institute  

Starr’s most recent order strained against logic and the English language to assert that Southwest failed to comply with his earlier order to inform employees that it can no longer discriminate on religious grounds by informing employees that, per the order, it would not discriminate on religious grounds. Starr found that this amounted to a legal ethics breach and with this flimsiest of ins, brought Alliance Defending Freedom into the mix to provide Southwest’s in-house team with the re-education camp experience.

Despite no basis in law for that result.

Trying desperately to find a similar example, Judge Starr notes, at 23, that ADF will conduct a “‘First Amendment training session’ for three professors who allegedly discriminated against a student three professors at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.” But that’s not apposite: that session was agreed to by both parties as part of a lawsuit settlement. That Southwest is appealing the training requirement here demonstrates the incongruity.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); });

Alas, there’s not a lot of reason to have faith in the judiciary’s ability to self-police these days.

They say there’s no such thing as bad publicity. I suppose that’s doubly true if you’ve already got a life-tenured federal judgeship and the judicial misconduct process amounts to an inconvenience at best.

Sponsored Sponsored LawPay Pro Offers Upgraded Time And Billing Essentials AffiniPay’s latest product for the legal community, introduced earlier this year, presents a simple web-based solution for attorneys seeking seamless firm cash flow. From Above the Law   Sponsored Is Your Firm’s Cybersecurity Strategy Keeping Clients Away? Tell us your worst fears in this brief, anonymous study and receive a chance at a $250 gift card. From Above the Law  

And Judge Starr wants publicity so bad.

Earlier: Trump Judge Orders In-House Lawyers To Take Classes From Anti-LGBTQ Group

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Topics

Alliance Defending Freedom, Brantley Starr, Courts, Discrimination, Fix the Court, In-House Counsel, Legal Ethics, Religion