Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Sidley Austin LLP

Fifth Circuit again takes Paxton off the hook for testifying in abortion funds’ lawsuit

It’s like deja vu all over again.

The only criminal involved

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will not have to testify in court as part of a lawsuit over whether abortion funds can help people access the procedure in states where it’s still legal.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday overruled an order from U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman for Paxton to appear, finding that he should have first ruled on Paxton’s motion to dismiss and that plaintiffs had not proven “exceptional circumstances” existed that would require his testimony. Paxton has argued the court should toss the suit because he has sovereign immunity, a legal principle that protects state officers and agencies from lawsuits.

[…]

Attorneys general rarely testify, as their office’s lawyers are typically able to explain the high-ranking official’s viewpoint and legal argument.

In its ruling Tuesday, the panel of Republican-appointed judges sided with Paxton, who had argued that it would be unduly burdensome for him to testify and that he did not have any unique knowledge of his office’s enforcement policies.

“The fact that a high-ranking official talks to his constituents does not ipso facto mean he also has ample free time for depositions,” the panel wrote in its ruling Tuesday, referencing Paxton’s public statements. “It is entirely unexceptional for a public official to comment publicly about a matter of public concern. If doing so imparts unique knowledge, high-level officials will routinely have to testify.”

If this sounds familiar, it’s because the Fifth Circuit made a basically identical ruling in September. I was puzzled about the reason why this was litigated again, but a link in this story tells me that the district court judge had ordered Paxton to testify a second time, a couple of weeks after the Fifth Circuit ruled initially. I had just missed that story.

My reaction this time is the same as last time, which is that this doesn’t sound unreasonable, but as there’s every reason to be deeply suspicious of the Fifth Circuit I’d like to see an actual lawyer tell me that it’s reasonable, so that I don’t feel like a chump. Anyway, I guess the bottom line is that nothing much new has happened with this lawsuit.

It’s legislative bullying time

Here we go again.

Republican lawmakers in Texas and Washington D.C. are threatening some of the nation’s largest corporate law firms if they provide what the lawmakers consider to be improper advice on issues such as climate change, diversity and abortion.

The Texas legislators have even threatened business lawyers with criminal prosecution and disbarment.

In letters sent Nov. 3, five GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee told 51 of the nation’s largest law firms, including 33 with offices and lawyers in Texas, that they have a “duty to inform clients of the risks they incur by participating in climate cartels and other ill-advised ESG schemes.”

The memo doesn’t describe what a “scheme” involving environmental, social and governance principles might look like. Nor does it say what is objectionable about efforts to defend the environment or democratize corporate capitalism.

In July, 11 members of the politically conservative Texas Freedom Caucus sent a letter to Sidley Austin Dallas partner and chair Yvette Ostalaza, threatening her and other corporate law firms operating in Texas with criminal prosecution, civil sanctions and a ban on practicing law if they help their employees in the state to get an abortion in another state.

The three-page letter to Sidley Austin, which has nearly 200 lawyers in Houston and Dallas, accused the firm of being “complicit in illegal abortions.” The Freedom Caucus members posted the letter on its website and sent a copy to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The letters, legal experts say, show that conservative Republican lawmakers believe they can score political favor with their base by attacking corporate lawyers, which they see as facilitating more liberal causes.

“Corporate law firms, especially in Texas because of the political environment, are taking these letters very serious,” said Kent Zimmermann, a consultant who works with several Texas law firms. “These are pure political hit jobs, but the law firms do not want to give any of these threats oxygen by responding.”

“It puts law firms in an unfair position in what amounts to a play to the (GOP) base,” Zimmerman said.

Zimmermann said law firm leaders need to respect the lawmakers even if the demands are not legally sound.

[…]

“It’s a stupid letter; a totally stupid letter,” Dallas legal ethics expert Randy Johnston said. “It’s kind of offensive in concept. “Some of the authors are also lawyers and are flirting with an ethical violation by this attempt to intimidate other lawyers in connection with those lawyers’ representation of advice to clients.”

Dru Stevenson, a professor at the South Texas School of Law in Houston, describes the letter as “mostly political theater,” but he cautions that it needs to be taken seriously.

Stevenson, who studies the legal issues associated with the ESG movement, says antitrust litigation may prove to be the only real weapon to curb increasingly popular trends toward climate change mitigation and, more specifically, energy transition and decreased use of carbon-based fuels like oil, natural gas and coal.

“The senators can’t sue, only threaten legislation,” Stevenson said. “For now, they are stuck (with the Biden administration), but the issue is worth keeping in mind. The political pendulum goes back and forth.”

We’ve seen this before, and as we get closer to the start of the legislative session we’ll see much more of it. Unfortunately, the voter backlash to Dobbs and the rejection of efforts to further limit abortion via referendum all happened outside of Texas. The fanatics have every reason to believe they’ve been vindicated, and they will act accordingly. The best part, as far as they’re concerned, is that the bluster is often enough to get what they want, because large firms are risk averse and would rather placate than fight. But if it comes down to it, or just because it’s what they want, they’ll still push forward with plenty of unhinged legislation aimed at criminalizing abortion and various forms of dissent. Some of this may wind up in court, and Lord help us if that happens. You know what I’m going to say about nothing changing until election results start to change. This is our motivation for next time. There’s no other choice.

Paxton taken off the hook for testifying in abortion funds’ lawsuit

By the Fifth Circuit, of course.

Best mugshot ever

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will not have to testify as nonprofits that help patients legally obtain abortions seek clarity on whether they can do their work in states like Texas where the procedure is outlawed, a federal appellate court ruled Monday.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that an Austin federal court judge should have granted Paxton’s motion to quash subpoenas he was served by the plaintiff abortion funds.

The subpoena made national headlines after Paxton evaded a legal messenger who had shown up at his house on the eve of a hearing in the case. Paxton later called the messenger “suspicious” and “erratic” and said he “justifiably feared for his personal safety.”

The abortion funds are suing the state for protection to resume their work amid the state’s newly enforced abortion bans. They have said Paxton’s testimony is necessary because he and his office have made conflicting statements about the legality of helping Texas residents legally obtain abortions in other states, and he is the only person who can clarify their meaning and intent.

“We are happy that Judge Pitman can move forward in the case now, and that the Fifth Circuit has acknowledged the real threats against our clients related to assisting people to access reproductive health care out of state,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys said in a joint statement.

[…]

At first, the district court granted Paxton’s motions to quash the subpoenas; however, after more information came to light — Paxton had claimed he was served “on the literal eve of trial,” yet emails submitted to the court by the abortion funds’ lawyers showed he had at least four days notice — the judge changed course and ordered Paxton to testify.

The appellate judges disagreed with the lower court’s finding that there were “exceptional circumstances” requiring Paxton to testify.

“Paxton’s personal ‘thoughts and statements’ have no bearing on his office’s legal authority to enforce Texas’s abortion laws or any other law,” the panel wrote in the ruling. “It is entirely unexceptional for a public official to comment publicly about a matter of public concern. If doing so imparts unique knowledge, high-level officials will routinely have to testify.”

The panel also disagreed with the lower court’s contention that testifying would not cause a significant burden for Paxton.

“‘High ranking government officials have greater duties and time constraints than other witnesses,'” they wrote, citing prior case law. “Those duties often involve communicating with the public on matters of public interest. The fact that a high-ranking official talks to his constituents does not ipso facto mean he also has ample free time for depositions.”

See here for the background. This is one of those times where I wish the story included a quote or two from an actual legal expert about the opinion. We all know how deeply in the tank for Paxton the Fifth Circuit is, but based on what is reported in the story, the ruling seems at least defensible. But the Fifth Circuit is so utterly corrupt that I can’t rely on my judgment here, and they deserve absolutely no benefit of the doubt. I don’t want to be a chump here, so I’d like to see someone who knows these things render an assessment. In the absence of that, all I have is my well-honed instinct to not trust that terrible court. And we’ll all have the Internet mockery of Ken Paxton for his pusillanimous efforts to evade the process server. Sometimes the snark is the most dependable thing out there.

Evade this, Kenny

Paxton gets ordered to testify, along with an old-fashioned bench slapping.

Best mugshot ever

A federal judge has ordered Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to testify in an abortion rights lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman had previously quashed the subpoena, which Paxton fled his home to avoid being served.

In a hearing last week, lawyers representing abortion rights nonprofits asked Pitman to reconsider and require Paxton to testify. Pitman granted their motion on Tuesday.

These nonprofits, called abortion funds, brought the lawsuit in August, seeking assurance that they will not be criminally or civilly penalized for helping Texans pay for abortions out of state. They have argued that Paxton’s statements on social media and in the press make it clear that the state’s top lawyer believes the abortion funds can and should be prosecuted for their work over state lines.

[…]

[I]n Tuesday’s order, [Judge Pitman] said he [originally quashed the subpoena] “on the assumption that counsel for Paxton had made candid representations to the Court … only to learn later that Paxton failed to disclose Plaintiffs’ repeated emails attempting to inquire as to whether Paxton could testify.”

Pitman also sided with the abortion funds’ argument that Paxton has unique, first-hand knowledge that requires him to testify.

“The Court will not sanction a scheme where Paxton repeatedly labels his threats of prosecution as real for the purposes of deterrence and as hypothetical for the purposes of judicial review,” Pitman wrote.

He also rejected the argument that requiring Paxton to testify would be too much to ask of the state’s top lawyer.

“It is challenging to square the idea that Paxton has time to give interviews threatening prosecutions but would be unduly burdened by explaining what he means to the very parties affected by his statements,” Pitman wrote. “The burden faced by Plaintiffs—the effective cessation of many core operations—outweighs the burden of testimony faced by Paxton.”

Pitman gave lawyers on both sides a week to determine how and when Paxton will testify.

See here, here, and here for the background. Judge Pitman’s order is practically perfect. I have no notes. I look forward to seeing how Paxton responds to questions from someone who isn’t a sycophant. The Chron has more.

The hearing that Paxton was trying to flee from

It’s about whether the First Amendment rights of abortion funds have been abridged by threats of prosecution from people like Ken Paxton. You know, no big deal.

Leaders of Texas’ most prominent abortion funds on Tuesday implored a federal judge to give them clearance to resume providing assistance to people seeking abortions in states where the procedure is legal.

The funds filed the class-action suit in August seeking to block state and local prosecutors from suing them if they get back to work offering Texans funding and support for travel, lodging, meals and child care, among other expenses incurred while they obtain abortions. On Tuesday, they sought to temporarily block any potential prosecutions until the case is decided.

The groups halted abortion support operations in June after the Supreme Court issued its decision this summer overturning federal protections for the procedure. The decision also led clinics throughout the state to stop providing abortion services.

The legal battle carries immense implications for thousands of Texans seeking abortions, who will inevitably incur higher costs as they depend on other states due to Texas’ near-total abortion ban. Studies show the vast majority of pregnant people pursue abortion for financial reasons, and most who obtain abortions are low-income people of color.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, is named as a defendant in the suit, as well as a number of county and district attorneys who are responsible for enforcing the state’s abortion bans. Some local prosecutors in liberal-leaning counties have pledged not to prosecute, while others in redder counties have said they will.

The plaintiffs point to “myriad threats” of prosecution by the attorney general “and his associates,” including social media posts, statements and cease-and-desist letters sent by members of the hard-line conservative Texas Freedom Caucus to corporations.

Caucus member and Deer Park Republican state Rep. Briscoe Cain has also sent similar letters to Texas abortion funds, including plaintiff organizations, saying their donors, employees and volunteers are subject to prosecution under the pre-Roe statutes, according to the suit.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled in July that the state’s pre-Roe statutes, which make it illegal to “(furnish) the means for procuring an abortion,” are enforceable.

The plaintiffs also cited an advisory issued by Paxton just hours after the Dobbs decision was announced that stated the pre-Roe statutes could be enforced by district and county attorneys immediately.

[…]

The abortion funds claim in their suit that charitable donations are a protected form of freedom of speech and association under the First Amendment, but the possibility of debilitating litigation has chilled their exercise of those rights. It has also, they argue, scared some donors out of giving freely to the group.

“Despite their strong desires and commitment to assisting their fellow Texans, Plaintiffs will be unable to safely return to their prior operations until it is made clear that Defendants have no authority to prosecute Plaintiffs or seek civil penalties from them for their constitutionally protected behavior,” they state in the suit.

See here for some background, and I’ll get back to this in a minute. The Trib adds some details.

They have asked U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman for a preliminary injunction that would stop Paxton from pursuing criminal charges or civil penalties against abortion funds. The state has countered that their fear of prosecution is “self-imposed,” as the attorney general cannot bring criminal charges and the law that allows him to bring civil penalties does not apply to abortion funds.

At the end of the seven-hour hearing Tuesday, Pitman noted that while attorneys for the state had repeatedly implied that the abortion funds had “nothing to worry about,” they had stopped short of saying so directly.

Pitman is expected to rule on the request for a preliminary injunction in the coming weeks but in the meantime is also considering a motion to require Paxton to testify himself. Before the hearing Tuesday, Pitman quashed a subpoena seeking the attorney general’s testimony, but lawyers for the plaintiffs have asked him to reconsider. Paxton fled his home Monday to avoid being served with the original subpoena.

The lawsuit also seeks clarity on whether a Texas-based abortion provider can perform abortions for Texans in other states where the procedure remains legal, or provide telehealth services from Texas to patients in other states.

On that question, the attorney for the state was even less definitive about whether the attorney general would try to enforce the civil penalties in the law, saying that situation was not amenable to a clear “up or down” answer but would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

[…]

But all of that changed when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in late June, allowing states to set their own laws on abortion. Immediately, Paxton issued guidance that said prosecutors could “immediately pursue criminal prosecutions based on violations of Texas abortion prohibitions predating Roe that were never repealed by the Texas Legislature.”

“Under these pre-Roe statutes, abortion providers could be criminally liable for providing abortions starting today,” Paxton wrote.

But those pre-Roe statutes don’t criminalize just abortion providers — they also criminalize anyone who “furnishes the means” for an abortion, punishable by up to five years in prison.

Immediately, abortion funds in Texas stopped their operations, citing confusion over whether paying for abortions out of state constituted furnishing the means for an illegal abortion. As the leaders of several abortion funds testified to on Tuesday, they were particularly alarmed by Paxton’s statement that his office would “assist any local prosecutor who pursues criminal charges.”

Their fears were exacerbated, according to testimony, when a group of conservative lawmakers in the Texas House, including Cain, issued a letter to Sidley Austin, a prestigious law firm that had offered to pay for its Texas-based employees to travel out of state to get abortions. In the letter, the lawmakers threatened the law firm with criminal prosecution for their actions.

Based on these indications from Paxton and lawmakers, “we believed we would be prosecuted, to be frank,” Anna Rupani, the executive director of Fund Texas Choice said Tuesday.

This freeze on their work came with other consequences, according to Tuesday’s testimony. Several of the funds said they had lost donors or had to spend more time reassuring donors who were confused and worried. Some said they had lost staff or board members over fear of criminal prosecution.

Lawyers for the state, though, argued that this chilling effect was “self-imposed” and “unreasonable.” None of the people the abortion funds cited threats from — Cain, the other legislators or Paxton himself — have the ability to bring criminal charges against anyone.

Only district and county attorneys can bring criminal charges in Texas; the prosecutors named on this lawsuit have agreed not to press charges against abortion funds for paying for out-of-state abortions until the case is fully resolved.

Paxton, though, still has the ability to pursue civil cases and, in the case of Texas’ more recent abortion laws, is actually required to by state statute.

To me, the most salient fact of this case is this, and here I quote from my earlier post: “[I]n their amicus brief to a writ of mandamus that blocked a lower court order that would have enjoined the 1925 state law criminalizing abortion, 70 Republican legislators argued that criminal penalties should apply to people who help others get an abortion.” I Am Not A Lawyer, but it seems to me that a very credible threat of being thrown in jail for your political advocacy is a First Amendment issue. That said, I think we all know what will happen here: Judge Pitman will grant the restraining order, and the Fifth Circuit will block it for no good reason. And so back to SCOTUS we go, and I sure hope they enjoy being constantly dragged into every abortion fight that they said should have been a state issue. What happens from there, I have no idea.

More on abortion travel benefits and the legislative threats to them

Taking a broader look at what’s out there right now, it’s understandable that some companies are just hoping to not become targets.

Republican Texas legislators who sent a threatening letter to Sidley Austin last week over the law firm’s policy to pay for out-of-state abortion travel also have other Texas employers offering that benefit in their sights.

The far-right Texas Freedom Caucus’ letter to Sidley threatened the law firm with civil penalties, felony charges and disbarment for its policy. It also said lawmakers plan to introduce legislation prohibiting “any employer in Texas from paying for elective abortions or reimbursing abortion-related expenses—regardless of where the abortion occurs.”

The ride-sharing service Lyft, which has been an outspoken advocate of abortion rights, already has been a target of Texas anti-abortion lawmakers’ fury. In early May, weeks before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, lawmakers sent a letter to CEO Logan Green chastising him for announcing that the company would pay travel costs for women who leave Texas or Oklahoma for abortions.

“Your decision to divert corporate resources to this end is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Your responsibility as a CEO is to maximize return to the shareholders, not to divert shareholder resources toward ideological causes in an effort placate the woke liberals in your C-suite,” said the letter, which was signed by 14 lawmakers, six of them Freedom Caucus members.

Legal experts say that while Texas likely would face hurdles building a legal case restricting access to health care outside state boundaries, they say the hard-line rhetoric is giving some companies pause about adopting abortion-related benefits or publicizing them.

Michelle Browning Coughlin, of counsel at the Kentucky office of ND Galli Law, said she considers legislators’ threats “empty.” Even so, she said, as in-house counsel, “You can’t just be cavalier about advising your company to do something that could be dancing them into potentially breaking the law.”

Texas employers that previously issued promises to defend employee access to abortion are laying low. Lyft, Apple, Bumble, Comcast NBCUniversal, Dick’s Sporting Goods, HP Enterprises, Kroger, Match Group, Nike, Uber and Warner Bros. Discovery did not respond to requests for comment.

One general counsel who declined an interview said there was little benefit to standing in the spotlight on the divisive topic. “I can understand why people don’t want to go on record on this particular issue.”

Rob Chesnut, a former Airbnb general counsel and chief ethics officer, agreed.

“If you poke your head up on an issue like this, you risk becoming an enforcement target,” he said.

[…]

Myers said the Freedom Caucus and other abortion opponents in state government “have been targeting folks who help people access abortion in Texas for years, and what they’re doing now is moving on to corporate entities rather than just focusing on nonprofit organizations who’ve been terrorized and harassed.”

Browning Coughlin said Texas authorities could face challenges building a case against companies with travel policies, in part because the evidence that an employee actually received an out-of-state abortion would be difficult to obtain.

Even so, Travis Gemoets, a Los Angeles-based partner with Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, said the fact that legislators’ threats touch on unsettled areas of the law might be enough to make companies nervous.

“To prohibit this interstate activity seems to be pushing the envelope for any state institution,” he said. “But they’re doing it, and they’re certainly going to threaten it until they’re told that they can’t do it. … We’re seeing the very, very beginning of these issues, but it’s going to take years for courts to weigh in.”

The uncertainty will create a chilling effort, he said.

“If my client received a letter like this, I would say, ‘Look, I can’t tell you you’re free and clear to do what you want. We just don’t know the landscape.’”

Walking back abortion benefits after receiving a threat, however, could result in even more threats, Gemoets said. “If Texas is finding that it’s getting headway with this approach, you’re going to see other jurisdictions, other states replicate that approach.”

We’ve discussed this before, even before the Dobbs ruling came down. The bullies and lowlifes in the deep red districts will never go away, but if Republicans underperform in the November election it will have an overall effect of cooling off the ardor for this kind of viciousness, as we saw in the 2019 legislative session. It’s a simple matter of rewards and incentives – if you engage in wild behavior and win you can keep on going nuts, but if you do so and lose you need to rein it in. I guarantee you, a lot of these affected companies are waiting to see how the wind is blowing, at least as far as speaking up is concerned. A profile in courage it ain’t, but it’s the reality we’re dealing with.

On a more specific matter, a bit of new information.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s demolition of reproductive freedom precedent, a number of employers (including a bunch of law firms) have decided to cover the travel costs of employees, should they seek an abortion or other banned procedures in jurisdictions where they’re no longer legal. But only one — Biglaw firm Sidley Austin — received a letter from the ironically named Texas Freedom Caucus threatening a number of repercussions over the policy.

Now, as reported by Bloomberg Law, the White House has weighed in on the threatening letter, with assistant press secretary Alexandra Lamanna saying, “These punitive actions and extreme proposals from elected Republicans are exactly what the President has been warning about.”

[…]

Although some media reports have posited that the letter from the Texas Freedom Caucus was a warning to all Texas firms, it is not, in fact addressed to all Texas firms. Just Sidley. And that’s despite numerous Biglaw firms with offices in Texas coming out and saying they’d also pay for travel costs if an employee wants abortion care. Indeed, according to the Caucus’s own website, the only threatening letter they’ve sent out — to any employer at all — has been to Sidley.

Inspired by an email from a tipster, this fact got me thinking about why Sidley was targeted. The most prestigious law firm in Texas, Vinson & Elkins, has also pledged to pay for employees’ travel expenses, but curiously, haven’t been threaten like Sidley. Kirkland & Ellis is the law firm that makes the most money and will also cover travel costs, and… no letter. Could it be, and this is speculation, that of the prestigious law firms in Texas, only a few have women leading them? Hence that letter, addressed to Sidley’s Yvette Ostolaza.

Maybe Dick’s Sporting Goods’ CEO Lauren Hobart should expect a similar letter soon.

And it turns out, the plot is still thickening.

As reported by Reuters, Cody Vasut is both of counsel at the Biglaw firm of BakerHostetler and also a Texas state representative… as well as a member of the Freedom Caucus. Now my curiosity as to why Sidley is the only employer targeted by the Freedom Caucus is REALLY piqued.

UPDATE: As noted by an eagle-eyed tipster, Vasut no longer appears on BakerHostetler’s website.

BakerHostetler Chair Paul Schmidt had this to say about Vasut’s caucus targeting a rival firm, “His affiliation with the Texas Freedom Caucus is in a personal capacity and solely related to his legislative role.”

BakerHostetler has not responded to requests to find out if the firm will, like many of its peers, offer similar coverage of travel costs. Law students, only a few weeks away from early interview week (and potential laterals), take note.

That Reuters story linked above notes that “Eleven women attorneys with BakerHostetler, including 10 partners, were signatories to an open letter first published in The American Lawyer last month decrying” the Dobbs ruling. We’re firmly in speculative territory here, but it is an interesting question: Why was this one firm, out of however many in Texas, seemingly singled out? Maybe the “Freedom Caucus” was planning to send a bunch of other letters as well but hadn’t gotten to them yet for some reason. If it all ends up with a jerk like Cody Vasut getting some unfriendly scrutiny of his own, that’s fine by me. I’ll keep an eye on this.

Big Law versus the Forced Birth Caucus

Place your bets.

The Texas Freedom Caucus may have kicked a hornet’s nest when it threatened Sidley Austin partners with civil and criminal penalties and disbarment in a letter last week, according to firm leaders in Texas and managing partners at firms with Texas offices.

Firm chair Yvette Ostolaza received the letter July 7 after Sidley signaled its intent to reimburse employees who sought abortions in other states. The letter, signed by Texas Rep. Mayes Middleton, a Republican, said litigation was already underway to determine whether Sidley had already participated in illegal abortions, including out-of-state drug-induced abortions in which employees took the second of two pills after returning to Texas.

The managing partners, who requested anonymity because they had not yet received similar demand letters from the Republican legislative caucus, said the threats were more likely to strengthen the conviction of lawyers and law firms that have already chosen to support the reproductive rights of their employees.

“I don’t know how smart it is to go after a bunch of lawyers,” said the managing partner of an Am Law 100 firm with offices in Texas. “We can all spend endless time and energy playing it through, and it might not play out as well for them as it would if they went after a less well-funded organization or people less involved with making legal decisions than law firms.”

Another Am Law 100 managing partner said they found the letter incredibly offensive, but didn’t believe it would scare law firms that already knew where they stood. “From my experience, it would only embolden them. And it’s not unlike getting threatening letters when you support civil rights—look at Jim Crow laws in the South,” the partner said. “It’s the same playbook, by my personal view, of a racist segment of society.”

[…]

While no one seems to worry about offending the Freedom Caucus, managing partners said they know that choosing to support abortion rights as a firm will alienate some lawyers and staff at all levels. Absent the cultural artifact of water cooler chatter, law firms in the hybrid work setting are being defined by the core values they display on polarizing issues, one managing partner said.

Kent Zimmermann, a consultant for Zeughauser Group, said law firms are in a tough spot on highly charged political issues that have seemingly become more salient in the workplace over the years. He said like other businesses, firms have people and clients with opinions across the spectrum, and that it’s “tough to play all sides of some of these bedrock issues.”

But he also noted opinion polls still show Americans are generally in favor of abortion access, and that firms and their leaders are compelled by multiple trends pushing them toward favoring access as well—they’re more competitive than ever with each other, and the talent they’re trying to draw is younger, more diverse and more consistently wants to work at an organization with values they agree with.

He added these dynamics could change the map of legal industry investment.

“I don’t think it’s a today, turn-on-a-dime type of change for most firms,” Zimmermann said. “But I think over time, if there’s a lot more human rights available in some places versus others, that will change where the talent is and where the industry goes.”

An Am Law 100 firm leader with several Texas offices said he’d grant employees’ wishes to leave Texas if the Caucus is able to pass its proposed legislation, which includes felony criminal penalties for employees who assist in abortions regardless of where they take place. The Caucus also stated its ambition to enact civil penalties that mirror the state’s Heartbeat Act, granting Texans the right to sue any person who provides payment or reimbursement for another Texan’s abortion, no matter where it occurred.

“Let’s take it two ways: Either everybody does it and we win and we’re allowed to do it, or we lose and they uphold it,” the managing partner said. “It would certainly put a damper on doing business in Texas. I’d probably say that whoever wants to move out of there, that’s great. I wouldn’t look at Texas as a growth area for us after that.”

See here for some background. I’ll be delighted to see these firms go into “pissed off lawyer” mode against whatever crap the fanatics throw at them, but as I said before they’re at a disadvantage in that their foes can change the rules on them. I don’t know how to handicap that fight, especially if nothing much changes in state government. I can certainly see the possibility of many firms taking Texas off of their “growth area” lists, but that’s a long term trend, and it will likely hurt the effort to make Texas a less toxic place politically.

Which brings up the point that what I don’t see in this story is any suggestion of engaging in this fight on the politics field and not just the legal field. That’s messy and carries a lot of risk (not that the legal fight wouldn’t be either of those things as well), but in the end it’s a surer path to getting some stability. It’s just that it may take a long time for that to happen, and in the short term you’d need to fight the legal battles anyway. All I’m saying is that if joining the political fight isn’t on the menu of options, these firms are limiting themselves. We need all the help we can get, y’all.

Here come the threats to businesses

The forced birth fanatics are just getting started. And it’s already ugly.

A group of Texas state House lawmakers called the Texas Freedom Caucus sent a letter to a law firm in Dallas last week threatening “consequences” over the firm’s decision to reimburse employees for the costs of out-of-state travel to obtain an abortion.

The lawmakers’ missive, sent and posted on its website on July 7, accused the firm, Sidley Austin LLP, of being “complicit in illegal abortions” in Texas that were allegedly performed before and after the Supreme Court issued its Dobbs ruling that struck down Roe v. Wade.

“It has come to our attention that Sidley Austin has decided to reimburse the travel costs of employees who leave Texas to murder their unborn children,” state Rep. Mayes Middleton (R), the chair of the Texas Freedom Caucus, wrote in the email to Sidley Austin, which is based in Chicago but has an office in Dallas. “We are writing to inform you of the consequences that you and your colleagues will face for these actions.”

Middleton claimed that the law firm was “exposing itself and each of its partners to felony criminal prosecution and disbarment,” citing Texas’ anti-abortion law from 1925 that the state can now enforce after the Supreme Court struck down Roe last month.

“We will also be introducing legislation next session that will impose additional civil and criminal sanctions on law firms that pay for abortions or abortion travel,” Middleton warned.

The new legislation, according to the letter, will criminalize any Texas company’s reimbursement of “elective abortions” or “abortion-related expenses — regardless of where the abortion occurs, and regardless of the law in the jurisdiction where the abortion occurs.”

It will also require the State Bar of Texas to disbar any lawyer who violates the states’ ban on abortion, Middleton warned.

The email included a CC to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), who has sworn to enforce the state’s abortion restrictions in the wake of the Supreme Court’s strikedown of Roe.

We’ve known this was coming – these guys are not subtle – and we’re already seeing some of it with other big national companies. As it happens, Monday’s CityCast Houston podcast featured an interview with Jane Robinson, 2020 Democratic candidate for Chief Justice of the 14th Court of Appeals and partner with litigation firm AZA, which is offering similar benefits to its employees. They will for sure be in the crosshairs as well. Hopefully, they’ll be good enough at litigating to hold back the mob, but there’s only so much they’ll be able to do if the laws get changed sufficiently. This is among the things we’re voting on this November.