Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
This year, to illustrate the variety of pro bono activities undertaken by local firms, the editors of Legal Times asked the 41 firms participating in the D.C. Bar’s “pro bono challenge” to describe one interesting project their attorneys have handled in the past year. The following items were written by the firms and edited for space and style by the editors. Due to space limitations, the items omit the names of individuals who worked on behalf of these clients. AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD Three years ago, an Akin Gump partner was asked to help a longtime permanent resident alien and honorably discharged member of the U.S. Navy. Ricardo Welch Jr. had been detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service since October 1998 without a bail hearing. After entering negotiations, the INS still refused to release Welch, claiming it was required by law to detain him without the right to a bail hearing pending final resolution of his deportation proceedings. The INS also attempted to apply an old immigration law to the deportation proceedings. In September 1999, the firm filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for Maryland in Baltimore, arguing that Welch’s mandatory and indefinite detention with no right to a bail hearing and the INS’s reliance on outdated law were unconstitutional. In June 2000, the court ordered the INS to give the client a bail hearing, and he was later released on bond after being illegally held for 14 months. Three months later the court granted the remainder of the relief sought. Under the language of the applicable statute, the INS had to apply the current law to Welch in any subsequent deportation proceeding. Consequently, he was allowed to apply for cancellation of the proceedings in their entirety. The INS disagreed with these rulings, and filed a notice of appeal on both issues. At the firm’s urging, however, the government agreed to drop its appeal of the district court’s decision allowing Welch to apply for cancellation. Accordingly, the immigration court held a hearing last December on Welch’s request to cancel the removal proceeding against him, and on July 15 his request was granted. Last month, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, on alternative grounds, and further recognized that “Welch’s detention constitute[d] punishment without trial.” (The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Kim v. Ziglar, a case that challenges the 9th Circuit’s finding that the same detention statute is unconstitutional.) Since the beginning of the representation, several firm lawyers, legal assistants, and secretaries have contributed hundreds of hours to Welch’s case. ARENT FOX KINTNER PLOTKIN & KAHN Arent Fox and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs have assumed the role as lead counsel for plaintiffs — women farmers from across the United States — in Love v. Veneman, a case that challenges the discriminatory nature of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s farm loan programs. The plaintiffs contend that the discrimination arose out of the structure, policies, and practices of the federal farm loan program, which has been administered at the local level almost exclusively by white male local county committees, which have been vested with nearly unfettered discretion in applying excessively subjective standards for determining farmer participation in the USDA’s farm loan programs. The plaintiffs allege that vague, subjective criteria for receiving farm loans, such as the applicant’s “character” and “managerial skills,” have permitted the local officials to engage in a pattern and practice of deterring and excluding women from receiving farm loans. Furthermore, the alleged discrimination occurred at a time when the USDA essentially dismantled its own civil rights office charged with investigating and remedying discrimination complaints. In declarations submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs and putative class members have painted a picture of a USDA loan process that has systematically discriminated against them, from the local USDA offices’ refusal to provide them with loan application forms to the agency’s denial of remedial loan processing when they have difficulty making monthly loan payments. The declarants also reported comments made by local officials responsible for granting loans that women should not be farming, to discourage them from seeking loans from USDA. Comments such as this did, of course, discourage women from seeking loans. Love was initially filed on Oct. 19, 2001, by Conlon, Frantz, Phelan & Pires. Arent Fox and the Lawyers’ Committee became involved in the case just prior to the class certification hearing that was held on Feb. 11, 2002. After hearing oral argument on the motion for class certification, Judge James Robertson postponed ruling on the motion until the parties could obtain discovery on the class certification issue. The parties are currently conducting this discovery, which should be completed early next year. ARNOLD & PORTER In the 1963 landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright, Arnold & Porter convinced the Supreme Court that criminal defendants facing incarceration should be entitled to the assistance of counsel. But nearly 40 years later, indigent defendants around the country still face juries with grossly inadequate defense counsel, and with no means of challenging that adequacy prior to trial. Moreover, once convicted, few defendants have the financial or legal resources to challenge trial counsel’s performance on appeal. Several years ago, Arnold & Porter, in collaboration with civil rights attorney Robert McDuff and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, developed a novel legal theory to permit poor counties, acting on behalf of their taxpayers, to seek structural reform of constitutionally deficient public defender systems. Two of Arnold & Porter’s pro bono clients, Quitman and Noxubee counties in Mississippi, were the first to sue under this legal theory. That state provides no funding for indigent defense in noncapital cases; it delegates the entire defense obligation to the counties. In 1999, both counties filed separate actions against Mississippi and its officers, alleging that the state’s failure to adequately fund indigent defense had resulted in a systematic inability of the counties to provide effective assistance of counsel. Citing the judiciary’s inherent right to protect the integrity of its court system, the counties requested an injunction directing the state to establish a constitutionally adequate, state-funded public defender system. The counties also asked the court to enjoin the state from funding the prosecutorial function if it failed to act within a reasonable time. Last year, Quitman County obtained a major victory in the Mississippi Supreme Court. In a 5-3 decision, the court held that where the state’s chronic underfunding of indigent defense had resulted in systemic, constitutional deficiencies, the counties would be entitled to relief. This ruling marked the first time that a state high court sustained a cause of action involving a prospective challenge to the quality of defense services provided to the poor. Trials in these matters are expected to be held this fall. Thus, almost 40 years later, Arnold & Porter is bringing Gideon full circle. BAKER BOTTS Baker Botts has been an important supporter of the Innocence Project of the National Capital Region for several years. Last year, the firm represented Marvin Anderson, the first individual exonerated under Virginia’s new law giving inmates access to DNA testing that can prove their innocence. In 1982, a rape victim in Hanover, Va., told police that her attacker was a black man who said he had a white girlfriend. Since Anderson fit that “description,” the police focused on him. After a highly suggestive lineup and a trial that lasted half a day, Anderson was convicted of rape and sentenced to more than 200 years in prison. Last year, Baker Botts lawyers filed a petition under Virginia’s newly enacted DNA statute, and the tests proved that Anderson was, in fact, innocent. He is now out of prison on parole, and Baker Botts lawyers have filed a pardon application with Gov. Mark Warner. Baker Botts lawyers also represent Centurion Ministries Inc. in its effort to obtain DNA testing that could prove that Virginia executed an innocent man in 1992. In 1982, Roger Coleman was convicted of raping and murdering his sister-in-law, and was sentenced to death. The evidence against him was thin, and his case has spawned considerable debate. Shortly before his death, crude DNA tests were done on certain samples, and when they failed to show conclusively whether or not he was guilty, the courts ordered the samples retained by the DNA laboratory. Last year, the laboratory wrote to the court, saying that DNA technology had reached the point that new tests are likely to prove whether Coleman was guilty. Baker Botts filed a petition with the trial court in Grundy, Va., and that court refused the request. However, the Virginia Supreme Court has agreed to hear Centurion’s appeal, and argument in the case is expected this fall. These matters involved approximately 1,000 lawyer hours and 300 staff hours. COLLIER SHANNON SCOTT Collier Shannon began working last fall with the Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. In representing applicants for political asylum, the firm’s first client was a former high school teacher from Liberia, where a long-standing climate of general lawlessness and political repression has been exacerbated by armed insurrection and ethnic reprisals. The client fled the country after being falsely accused of dissident activities in a government radio broadcast, and the firm assisted in preparing the application for asylum and accompanied the applicant to his interview with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The INS granted the application in April. The firm is now assisting the client with securing visas for his wife and children, who remain in Liberia. To date, Collier Shannon has devoted approximately 40 hours to the client. And the firm has taken on two additional Liberian asylum cases: a former member of the Liberian legislature whose criticisms of government corruption led to death threats, and a former refugee aid worker who was twice jailed and threatened with execution for suspected dissident activities. INS interviews have been scheduled for those candidates. COVINGTON & BURLING Last summer, a series of investigative reports by The Washington Post raised public consciousness about rampant police misconduct directed at African-Americans and other minority groups by members of the Prince George’s County Police Department. In response to those articles and a perceived need for prompt action by the Washington legal community, Covington & Burling joined with the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs to form a Police Misconduct Task Force in July 2001. The initial phase for the task force was the factual investigation and legal review of numerous case intakes for individuals referred to the Lawyers’ Committee by the Department of Justice and other channels. The second phase was to select a number of the most meritorious individual cases to file as civil lawsuits. Early this year, Covington lawyers and the Lawyers’ Committee filed two civil cases in Maryland state court on behalf of Prince George’s County residents who have been subjected to federal and state civil rights violations. One of these cases has since been removed to the U.S. District Court for Maryland in Greenbelt. Both suits arise from the traffic stops and subsequent arrests of black motorists. The suits, which are both in the discovery stage, seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as equitable relief from the Prince George’s County police department and individual officers. More than 20 Covington & Burling attorneys and eight paralegals have spent over 1,800 hours on the two phases of this important pro bono project. CROWELL & MORING On Super Bowl Sunday three years ago, two men who use wheelchairs tried to do what many other sports fans across the country were doing that day. They went to get food for the game from a local Popeyes restaurant, only to find that they were unable to enter the building in their wheelchairs. This was not the first time they had encountered problems at a Popeyes restaurant. On a visit to a different Popeyes, one man was able to enter the restaurant, but was forced to crawl on the floor to enter the narrow restroom doorway. This time, the two men contacted the Disability Rights Council to complain. The DRC investigated and found that individuals in wheelchairs were unable to enter many of the Popeyes in the District. The DRC contacted the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, which in turn asked us to represent the two men and the DRC in bringing litigation against several Popeyes restaurants to compel compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The ADA requires public accommodations to remove barriers to access by disabled individuals in existing facilities where removal is “readily achievable.” The firm agreed to work with the Lawyers’ Committee, with the goals of making the Popeyes restaurants accessible and obtaining compensation for the humiliation suffered by the clients. Another goal was to have an impact on other restaurants in the area through the educational value of the suit. After nearly a year of gathering facts, measurements, and legal research, we sent a draft complaint to Popeyes’ parent corporation, AFC Enterprises Inc., along with a demand letter. Popeyes took a proactive approach and agreed to participate in settlement negotiations. After extensive negotiations, the parties reached a ground-breaking settlement that not only required removal of substantial barriers in company-owned and D.C. restaurants, but also contained terms under which the corporation will enforce ADA compliance in all its franchised restaurants across the country. The settlement included a considerable monetary component for both the DRC and the two men. Though the firm’s attorneys spent more than 500 hours preparing the case and negotiating the settlement, this was far less time than a trial would have required and yielded a better result. DECHERT Dechert attorneys were appointed as guardian ad litem after undergoing an intensive, three-day training program with Lawyers for Children America (LFCA), a nonprofit organization that recruits and trains attorneys to provide pro bono representation to abused and neglected children in court proceedings. An associate at the firm was appointed as the guardian for three siblings: Sam, 10; Tanya, 9; and Laura, 15. The children entered the court system when Sam’s teacher noticed a large, circular scab on his left forearm and called the police. Sam told the school nurse that, after fighting with his mother, she burned him to punish him. When the police spoke with the mother, she confirmed that she had become frustrated with her son’s constant behavior problems and, as punishment, had burned him with a hot spoon. The police immediately took Sam to the hospital, where doctors diagnosed a second-degree burn and put him into protective custody. Although there was no evidence or reports of abuse from his sisters, they too were removed from the home and placed into foster care, as siblings are considered to be in imminent danger of abuse once one child in the family has been abused. The mother was a high school dropout and a single parent. She held a variety of jobs and worked hard to provide for her family, with absolutely no financial assistance from any of her children’s fathers. Everyone the attorneys interviewed believed that she was a good and loving mother, but that she was having great difficulty dealing with Sam’s behavior problems. Indeed, so was Sam’s school, which had suspended him 12 times in a year. A dilemma was faced when the prosecutor insisted on having Sam testify against his mother. He and his mother were the sole witnesses, and the mother’s statements would be inadmissible. Sam cried and pleaded not to make him testify. He was already struggling with feelings of guilt because he believed that he was responsible for his family’s troubles. It was not in Sam’s best emotional interest to testify; with a child abuse conviction, his mother could lose her job as an elementary school bus driver. But without court intervention, another incident of abuse could occur. Ultimately, the mother chose to stipulate to the abuse, avoiding the necessity of a trial. The mother was ordered to take parenting and anger management classes. She was also given career counseling and enrolled in family therapy and a single-parent support group. The children were also given support services, including counseling and tutoring. A few months ago, the girls were successfully reunited with their mother. Sam is still in a residential foster program, but now has unsupervised weekend visits. While the goal is to reunite Sam with his mother, the consensus is that he will benefit from some additional time in the structured environment of the foster program. DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY While opportunities for pro bono litigation are plentiful, Dickstein Shapiro has made a special effort to provide pro bono representation in transactional matters as well. Several Dickstein Shapiro attorneys regularly lend their legal expertise to organizations interested in obtaining nonprofit status. Recently, the firm assisted with the establishment of a nonprofit organization originating through its ties with Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts (WALA). Founded in 1979, Gallery West Ltd. is a cooperative art gallery located in Old Town Alexandria. It is the oldest artist-owned and -operated fine arts gallery in Northern Virginia. Gallery West applied to WALA to obtain pro bono assistance in changing its corporate status from a for-profit corporation to a nonprofit, � 501(c)(3) organization. Dickstein Shapiro provided advice to Gallery West on how the organization could obtain � 501(c)(3) status as it was currently organized and, if it could not, what changes needed to be made to the organization. The firm also advised Gallery West on how to form a nonprofit corporation in Virginia. Gallery West has recently decided to seek nonprofit status and, with our assistance, is preparing the necessary corporate and tax filings. In another matter, Dickstein Shapiro assisted the GW Community School, a private school that is organized as a for-profit corporation in Virginia, in establishing a separate, nonprofit corporation. The school caters to students who are divergent learners, and need a smaller classroom and a more focused learning environment. This newly formed nonprofit corporation will be able to support the educational activities of these students by identifying funding opportunities such as grants and scholarships, seeking donations of money and materials, and soliciting the assistance of volunteers to provide support for field trips and educational excursions. DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON Earlier this year, Dow Lohnes represented an Egyptian national who sought political asylum in the United States based on persecution he faced in Egypt due to his sexual orientation. The matter was referred by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, which has referred a number of pro bono asylum clients to the firm in recent years. This client had previously retained an immigration attorney and submitted an asylum application to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which had been denied. After a review of the client’s prior application, Dow Lohnes discovered that his first INS interviewer failed to credit certain aspects of our client’s sworn testimony. With the assistance of the Lawyers’ Committee and the office of Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., which sent a letter to the INS requesting that the agency closely review the record, the firm requested a re-interview. The INS granted a re-interview. To prepare, the attorneys worked with the client to focus his statement, conducting a practice interview and briefing the client on some of the key issues in his case. The firm then represented the client at his re-interview, conducted before a different INS representative, and supplied the INS with a comprehensive packet of objective, factual materials supporting our client’s case. Included among these materials were a detailed memorandum outlining the appropriate legal standards to apply to our client’s asylum application and excerpts from country condition reports and newspaper articles. Dow Lohnes also presented expert testimony in support of the client’s case from a representative of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission detailing the deplorable human rights violations suffered by homosexuals in Egypt. In April, the INS granted our client’s application for political asylum. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRET & DUNNER During the past year, Finnegan Henderson launched an ambitious program in conjunction with D.C. Superior Court for younger patent and trademark lawyers to acquire trial experience by representing criminal defendants who need court-appointed counsel. The firm hired a criminal defense attorney, Mary Kennedy, to supervise and mentor the program participants. Her background includes 11 years at the D.C. Public Defender Service, the last four years as training director. She also served as director of the Federal Defender Training Group, now part of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Kennedy begins each session of the program with instruction on D.C. criminal law, rules, and practice. Upon satisfactory completion of that training, the lawyers appear in superior court to be assigned cases, which can range from minor misdemeanors to murder. Kennedy serves as co-counsel on each case so that any scheduling problems the lawyer may face handling a particular case will not cause delays. The lawyers have had excellent results in the cases they have handled so far, including a hung jury in a first-degree murder case with eyewitness testimony against the defendant. That case is scheduled to be retried this month. FOLEY & LARDNER The largest pending pro bono case in Foley & Lardner’s Washington office, in terms of time and expense, is our representation of Alabama death row inmate Jimmy Davis Jr. in a post-conviction review case pending in state court. The firm took on this representation in 1999. The case is going to trial in August before the judge who initially issued the death sentence in 1993 for the murder of a gas station attendant. In a massive effort, shared with Pillsbury Winthrop and Chadbourne & Parke, our team marshaled evidence to support claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial that included failure to advance an alibi defense and failure to put on an effective case of psychosocial mitigation evidence demonstrating why the death penalty should not have been imposed. The team retained a retired FBI agent as our investigator, and has expert witnesses in social work and psychology ready to testify. The ABA Death Penalty Representation Project, based in the District, recruited Foley & Lardner to help fill a legal void in Alabama and other southern states where the poor frequently receive token representation. In these states, there has been a failure to ensure effective criminal defense representation via a well-financed public defender system. This problem is coupled with a systemic failure of the legal and political community to monitor the level of criminal defense representation by court-appointed criminal defense lawyers. FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON In January, Fried Frank undertook representation of the 1327 Kenyon Street Cooperative Association, a D.C. nonprofit association, in connection with obtaining financing for the renovation of its 17-unit apartment building in Columbia Heights. The cooperative was initially formed by five longtime residents of the building to provide low-income housing to residents. The cooperative purchased the property in August 1996 and retained a developer, architect, and contractor to assist in property renovation. In December 2001 it received a combination loan and grant from the D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development. Commitments for two sizeable construction loans were received from the Institute for Community Economics Inc. and the Structured Employment Economic Development Corp. (Seedco). The cooperative received an additional recoverable grant through the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta’s Affordable Housing Program. The representation involved structuring and documenting complex construction and permanent loan financing and related security arrangements. The cooperative closed on the two construction loans on June 18. Property renovation has begun and is scheduled for completion in approximately one year. At that time, the construction loans from ICE and Seedco will convert into permanent loans, and the cooperative will sell the land to its developer, New Columbia Community Land Trust Inc., a D.C. nonprofit corporation. NCCLT will then lease it back to the cooperative for an initial term of 99 years, automatically renewable for another 99 years. Fried Frank anticipates ongoing involvement in the matter. The firm initially became involved in this transaction pursuant to a request from one of the other parties involved in the deal. Several hundred hours were devoted to this matter earlier this year. HOGAN & HARTSON In a case that gained international media attention, Hogan & Hartson successfully represented several victims of a widespread campaign of brutal violence orchestrated by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and his ruling ZANU-PF party in the six months preceding the June 2000 parliamentary elections. In a lawsuit brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act, a U.S. district judge in the Southern District of New York held that the ZANU-PF is liable for human rights abuses that included beatings, torture, intimidation, and murder. None of the defendants, who originally included Mugabe and several top officials, answered the charges against them. On July 1, the magistrate judge in this case issued a Report and Recommendation to the trial judge that the eight plaintiffs be awarded over $73 million in compensatory and punitive damages for the human rights abuses they suffered. The plaintiffs, several of whom are still living in Zimbabwe while two have fled to the United Kingdom, are currently considering all available enforcement options. In February 2001, when the U.S. government filed a suggestion of immunity on behalf of Mugabe and the ZANU-PF, Hogan & Hartson became involved, at the suggestion of Hamish Hume of D.C.’s Cooper & Kirk, who has worked on the case since its inception. This case offers a unique and potentially precedent-setting finding of liability against a foreign political party for human rights violations. HOLLAND & KNIGHT For the past three months, 29 associates and summer associates at Holland & Knight have been participating in a pro bono project aimed at achieving necessary reforms in administration of the death penalty nationwide. The project is being orchestrated by the Constitution Project and assisted by the Justice Project. In June 2001, a bipartisan committee assembled by the Constitution Project issued a report, after a year-long study, titled “Mandatory Justice: Eighteen Reforms to the Death Penalty.” The report provides decision-makers with clear recommendations for improving the fairness of this country’s capital punishment system. In April, the Constitution Project sought the assistance of Holland & Knight to take the “Mandatory Justice” recommendations to the next step — implementation. Holland & Knight was asked to help prepare a set of state benchmark surveys designed to clearly identify how each state’s laws and procedures conform to the recommendations or fail to provide this essential fairness. These surveys will help to educate decision-makers, the media, and the general public about the state of the death penalty in America, and will be used to identify states that need critical reforms. This tremendous task involved researching the laws and procedures that govern each state’s capital punishment system, and evaluating how those laws and procedures compare to the recommendations set forth in “Mandatory Justice.” After months of research and interviews with public defenders, prosecutors, and other stakeholders in each of the 38 death penalty states, an initial draft of the comprehensive report was submitted July 12 to the Constitution Project. Holland & Knight will continue to work with the Constitution Project and the Justice Project to finalize the report, which will identify how the nation’s capital punishment system is failing or succeeding. HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE In November, Howrey attorneys filed a federal lawsuit that served as a catalyst for the Florida Legislature to pass a bill requiring all Florida counties to purchase ADA-accessible voting equipment. The suit, on behalf of the American Association of People With Disabilities (AAPD) against Duval County and Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was filed in the Middle District of Florida. The bill, recently signed into law by Gov. Jeb Bush, includes expansive mandatory standards for disabled voters, declaring for the first time in U.S. history that a difficult voting process is as reprehensible under the law as a process that absolutely excludes disabled voters from the process altogether. It became apparent to the nation in the last election that the Florida process was replete with problems, which resulted in the exclusion of eligible voters from the electoral process. Although Florida pursued reforms for other voters, those with visual and manual disabilities were forgotten. Less than a week after the AAPD filed briefs in support of class certification and in opposition to Florida’s motion to dismiss, Democratic state Sen. Richard Mitchell introduced a bill that required all Florida counties to purchase ADA-accessible voting equipment. On the eve of oral argument on the issues, the bill was passed. The matter was referred to Howrey by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. In 2001, Howrey donated about 1,200 hours to this case. HUNTON & WILLIAMS Just west of the shimmer and bustle of Miami is a tiny community of rutted dirt roads, small farms, and modest homes known as the 8.5 Square Mile Area. Residents of the largely low-income community, many of whom are from Cuba, enjoy the quiet, natural serenity of their surroundings. The 8.5 SMA neighbors the Everglades, whose present state is largely attributable to a system of levees and canals the Army Corps of Engineers built in the mid-20th century to control the flow of water in South Florida. Congress enacted legislation in 1989 requiring the corps to modify this system to better emulate the natural flow of water into Everglades National Park. Aware that these modifications could have adverse impacts on the 8.5 SMA, Congress “directed” the corps to “construct a flood protection system” for its residents. Contrary to this statutory directive and despite the government’s acknowledgement that acquiring land in the 8.5 SMA is not required for Everglades restoration, the corps recently decided to split the 8.5 SMA with berms, levees, and canals, forcing residents out by taking and flooding their land. Residents of the 8.5 SMA approached Hunton & Williams for help because of the firm’s experience in natural resources litigation. Hunton & Williams is representing several individual residents, as well as the 8.5 Square Mile Area Legal Defense Foundation, in their struggle to require the corps to comply with the law, including by filing suit against the federal government and by filing amicus briefs in a separate case involving the 8.5 SMA. On July 5, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida set aside the corps’ 8.5 SMA plan. The court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that repeatedly cited the Hunton & Williams amicus brief in concluding that the corps’ plan is illegal. The struggle to protect residents of this unique community is not over, however. In fact, an appropriations rider was recently introduced to override the court’s decision. Hunton & Williams will continue working with these pro bono clients to enforce the current law. So far, the firm has devoted well over 1,000 attorney hours to this matter.

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 Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.