Grand Courtroom of Justice

Judging the Judges

Judging the Judges

October 2, 2026

Judging the Judges

By: Lauren Scribner

Judges are in the business of holding people accountable for crimes and misconduct—but how do we hold judges accountable for their own ethical lapses? Recently, in a moment of frustration, Florida Second Circuit Judge J. Layne Smith told three attorneys practicing in his courtroom that he “would like to tell the deputy to pull his gun and shoot all three of [them] as far as [his] level of frustration right now.”[1] Yes—you read that correctly. A presiding judge vocalized his thought to have attorneys practicing in his courtroom shot by courtroom security. What should the consequence be for using such threatening language? A mere public reprimand and recusal from that case?[2] Or, should there be some sort of tangible punishment?…

Read More about Judging the Judges

Dismissive of Dismissal

September 25, 2026

Dismissive of Dismissal

By: James Trusty

During the two Trump administrations, a trend has begun to emerge of federal judges challenging the once-unrestricted authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to dismiss indictments. The longstanding framework of separation of powers suggests this judicial pushback is unsupported activism, but the judges claim the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rules”) do not relegate their role to rubber stamping. Ultimately, this trajectory may lead…

Read More about Dismissive of Dismissal

In the age of AI, litigators must read between the lines—literally.

August 18, 2026

In the age of AI, litigators must read between the lines—literally.

By: Robert Ward

In the age of AI, litigators must read between the lines—literally. Any attorney who has litigated a case against a party proceeding pro se is familiar with the common refrain that courts liberally construe pro se filings.[1] This leniency was not enough for one Connecticut litigant. In a scheme that gives new meaning to the phrase “reading between the lines,” pro se plaintiff Matthew Elliot…

Read More about In the age of AI, litigators must read between the lines—literally.

Five Years Later, Skilling’s Sentence Is Still Up in the Air

October 17, 2011

Five Years Later, Skilling’s Sentence Is Still Up in the Air

By: Ifrah Law

On Sunday, October 16, 2011, an op-ed article by founding partner Jeff Ifrah and associate Jeff Hamlin appeared in the Houston Chronicle. The article discusses the upcoming resentencing of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling and the fact that it is now close to the fifth anniversary of his conviction. The following is the full text of the article:   Five years later, Skilling’s sentence is…

Read More about Five Years Later, Skilling’s Sentence Is Still Up in the Air

Judge Awards $1.7 Million to Defendant in EPA Malicious Prosecution Case

October 12, 2011

Judge Awards $1.7 Million to Defendant in EPA Malicious Prosecution Case

By: Ifrah Law

On September 30, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ordered the United States to pay $1.7 million in a malicious prosecution lawsuit to Hubert Vidrine, based on findings that the U.S. government had maliciously prosecuted Vidrine for alleged environmental crimes. This is a rare ruling by a federal court requiring the government to pay money damages for the overzealous actions…

Read More about Judge Awards $1.7 Million to Defendant in EPA Malicious Prosecution Case

District Judge Orders Much-Reduced Sentence in Fraud Case

October 10, 2011

District Judge Orders Much-Reduced Sentence in Fraud Case

By: Ifrah Law

A federal judge has made a major reversal in the case of Steve Warshak, the Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals founder who was sentenced to 25 years for defrauding customers who bought his “male enhancement” pills, which were advertised in the notorious “Smiling Bob” ad campaign. We have discussed Warshak’s case in a previous blog post. Warshak had been accused of defrauding customers out of $400 million,…

Read More about District Judge Orders Much-Reduced Sentence in Fraud Case

Judge Imposes Draconian Sentences in Medicare Fraud Scheme

October 7, 2011

Judge Imposes Draconian Sentences in Medicare Fraud Scheme

By: Ifrah Law

On Sept. 16, 2011, a federal judge in Miami sentenced Lawrence Duran to 50 years in prison, the longest sentence ever imposed in a Medicare fraud case, for his role in a massive fraud scheme that resulted in more than $205 million in losses. Duran was also ordered to pay $87 million in restitution. Duran was co-owner of American Therapeutic Corporation with Marianella Valera, his…

Read More about Judge Imposes Draconian Sentences in Medicare Fraud Scheme

Appeals Court Limits Scope of ‘Intended Loss’ in Sentencing Guidelines

September 27, 2011

Appeals Court Limits Scope of ‘Intended Loss’ in Sentencing Guidelines

By: Ifrah Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit recently considered what type of proof is required for a sentence enhancement based on “intended loss” under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that a loss enhancement applies only to losses the defendant purposely sought to inflict, not losses the defendant merely knew would occur or possible losses the defendant may have contemplated. To most…

Read More about Appeals Court Limits Scope of ‘Intended Loss’ in Sentencing Guidelines

Articles and Presentations by Our Firm Attorneys

Judging the Judges

Judging the Judges
By: Lauren Scribner

Dismissive of Dismissal

Dismissive of Dismissal
By: James Trusty

In the age of AI, litigators must read between the lines—literally.

In the age of AI, litigators must read between the lines—literally.
By: Robert Ward

Subscribe to Ifrah Law’s Insights