In a recent, notable development within the legal community, a group of attorneys could face sanctions following a judicial panel’s determination that they attempted to “judge shop” an Alabama lawsuit concerning transgender health care for minors in 2022. The findings came to light when a report was unsealed on March 19, 2022, directed by US District Judge Liles Burke of the Northern District of Alabama.
Judge Burke ordered the investigation due to the suspicion that the lawyers were trying to bypass two of the state’s federal courts’ case assignment rules. The legal team was looking to challenge an Alabama law against gender affirming health treatments for minors. Consequently, Judge Burke granted a preliminary injunction against a portion of the law.
The attorneys accused of this misconduct have been ordered to appear in Judge Burke’s courtroom on May 22 and 23 for a hearing to determine if they should face sanctions. The issue of judge shopping has stirred national and even international attention among the legal profession.
The United States federal judiciary recently adopted a policy urging chief judges to respond to this practice. The focus of such intervention has primarily been on conservative litigants challenging Biden administration policies in Texas. However, the current Alabama case involves progressive and LGBTQ+ groups opposing a law passed by the Republican state legislature.
The authoring judges for the now-unsealed report are Chief Judge R. David Proctor of the Northern District of Alabama, Chief Judge Jeffrey Beaverstock of the Southern District of Alabama, and W. Keith Watkins, a senior district judge of the Middle District of Alabama.
The lawsuit in question revolves around two suits filed against a law in Alabama’s Northern and Middle District federal courts. As per the report, the allegations suggest manipulation of case assignments with intent to favor certain outcomes, shedding light on the unscrupulous practice of judge shopping within the legal system.
The panel of judges emphasized in the report that while attorneys might ponder about judge assignments while filing a complaint, making plans and taking deliberate steps to manipulate these assignments is overstepping the line.
Investigations are ongoing, and the ruling on potential sanctions against the attorneys is highly anticipated among legal circles, both within and beyond Alabama. The outcomes of such cases are instrumental in setting a precedent for upholding procedural integrity and curbing malpractice within the legal profession.
For more information and to follow the developments in this case, refer to the full article at Bloomberg Law.