'Arrogant,' 'Lazy,' 'Ideologue': Another Trump Nominee Gets 'Not Qualified' ABA Rating
The rating immediately sparked backlash from some observers who called the ABA itself biased.
October 30, 2019 at 10:08 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A former Nevada solicitor general nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was rated "not qualified" by the American Bar Association in a scathing letter released on the eve of his confirmation hearing.
A majority of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary called Lawrence VanDyke "highly educated" but said concerns were raised that he missed fundamental issues and analysis in the cases he handled, according to the letter, which sparked a backlash from some observers who called the ABA itself biased.
"Mr. VanDyke's accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules," wrote William C. Hubbard, the Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough partner who chairs the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. "There was a theme that the nominee lacks humility, has an 'entitlement' temperament, does not have an open mind and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful."
VanDyke, who served as Nevada's solicitor general from 2015 until earlier this year, currently serves as a deputy assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. A former associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, VanDyke clerked for Judge Janice Rogers Brown at the D.C. Circuit earlier in his career.
VanDyke is slated to appear Wednesday morning for his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judicial Committee, where he's sure to face questions about the letter. He will appear alongside fellow Ninth Circuit nominee Patrick Bumatay.
The Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative advocacy group, called the ABA's letter "one more drop in the bucket with respect to the ABA's long history of bias against conservative nominees to the judiciary." The group specifically criticized one of the evaluators for allegedly supporting a political opponent of VanDyke in a Montana election. Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network and a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, said the ABA "blessed that sham of a process by giving VanDyke a 'not qualified' rating."
A statement from the ABA's committee that issued the rating said its reviews of judicial nominees are based solely on integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. Evaluations are nonpartisan and structured to assure a fair and impartial process, the ABA said. Any nominee who gets a "Not Qualified" rating gets another review.
The committee has issued "Well Qualified" or "Qualified' ratings to 97% of the Trump administration's nominees, or 255 people, the ABA said.
Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, weighed on the extraordinary nature of the letter regarding VanDyke's nomination on Twitter.
"I don't think I've seen anything like this before, which I say realizing that some will say it shows how unqualified the nom is, while others will say it shows how biased the ABA is," Kerr said. "I don't know which is true. But either way, it's a remarkable letter."
VanDyke is the ninth judicial nominee from the Trump administration to be rated not qualified by the ABA. Nominees who were still confirmed include Charles Goodwin for the Western District of Oklahoma; Leonard Grasz, who was confirmed to the Eighth Circuit; Holly Lou Teeter for the District of Kansas; and Jonathan Kobes for the Eighth Circuit.
Some nominees did not make it to the bench after receiving the not qualified rating. Brett Talley's nomination for the Middle District of Alabama was withdrawn amid concerns he had never been in a trial, and John M. O'Connor ultimately withdrew his bid for a federal trial court seat in Oklahoma.
Sarah E. Pitlyk, whose nomination is pending for the Eastern District of Missouri, was also deemed not qualified.
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 AllFTC Reaches Settlements With Two Companies on Claims of Selling Sensitive Location Data
Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute read'That Decision was Wrong:' Federal Judge Rethinks Consumer Protection Class Certification
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
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