Pinned Tweet
Thread of other similar "orders": x.com/dotdotslashsta…
That was almost 10 years ago. Collection of people willing still willing to take the risk, from perusing the last few months of orders in the Lumen database:
1
1
17
10,468
as for the "circumstances that materially differ from our understanding":
Chase and Hajdini both just filed SPICY oppositions to Chirayu Rana's attorney's withdrawal motion.
They claim that Rana's sister, and his friend Allan Flott have recanted their previous sworn statements, which formed the bulk of the evidence for Rana's claim.
And, his ere notified of this *prior* to filing Rana's latest amended complaint, which continues to use their statements.
----
Summarizing the call with the sister's attorney, JPMC attorney writes:
> [H]er brother, Chirayu Rana, came to her to ask her to present the statements in the affirmation as if they were facts within her own personal knowledge, but they were not. You stated that [she] was told by her brother the affirmation would not be used in court or disclosed publicly.
0
0
1
1,180
Judge Perry-Bond has ruled that Jane Doe will be allowed to proceed under a pseudonym in the Cornell 7 case.
She takes the opportunity to write that:
> [C]yberstalking and engaging in or encouraging threats across state lines, whether it be of Jane Doe, any of the named defneys, can be considered a federal crime and perpetrators of those acts may be subjecting themselves to prosecution.
Since I expect this to be misinterpreted, it's probably worth noting that this order does not bind anyone other than “parties, their counsel, the parties' agents, and the [clerk's] office”.
She takes the opportunity to write that:
> [C]yberstalking and engaging in or encouraging threats across state lines, whether it be of Jane Doe, any of the named defneys, can be considered a federal crime and perpetrators of those acts may be subjecting themselves to prosecution.
Since I expect this to be misinterpreted, it's probably worth noting that this order does not bind anyone other than “parties, their counsel, the parties' agents, and the [clerk's] office”.
3
1
20
4,206
Worth comparing today's order granting Jane Doe anonymity with a couple cases from this year:
In Doe v. Combs, the relevant appellate court found that "generic claims of physical and psychological harm" are not sufficient. IDK if the allegations in Jane Doe's affidavit would be considered sufficiently particularized under this standard. Judge Perry-Bond does not cite this case in her order. nycourts.gov/reporter/curre…
Also this summer, in Rana v. JPMC & Hajdini (same court, different judge), the fact that the plaintiff's identity was already widely known played a role in the decision to deny anonymity. (But the fact that Rana himself may have participated in this disclosure is a factor missing from the Cornell case). Judge Perry-Bond does not seem to weigh existing disclosure as a factor against Doe's request.
0
0
0
128
Worth comparing today's order granting Jane Doe anonymity with a couple cases from this year:
In Doe v. Combs, the relevant appellate court found that "generic claims of physical and psychological harm" are not sufficient. IDK if the allegations in Jane Doe's affidavit would be considered sufficiently particularized under this standard. Judge Perry-Bond does not cite this case in her order. nycourts.gov/reporter/curre…
Also this summer, in Rana v. JPMC & Hajdini (same court, different judge), the fact that the plaintiff's identity was already widely known played a role in the decision to deny anonymity. (But the fact that Rana himself may have participated in this disclosure is a factor missing from the Cornell case). Judge Perry-Bond does not seem to weigh existing disclosure as a factor against Doe's request.
In Doe v. Combs, the relevant appellate court found that "generic claims of physical and psychological harm" are not sufficient. IDK if the allegations in Jane Doe's affidavit would be considered sufficiently particularized under this standard. Judge Perry-Bond does not cite this case in her order. nycourts.gov/reporter/curre…
Also this summer, in Rana v. JPMC & Hajdini (same court, different judge), the fact that the plaintiff's identity was already widely known played a role in the decision to deny anonymity. (But the fact that Rana himself may have participated in this disclosure is a factor missing from the Cornell case). Judge Perry-Bond does not seem to weigh existing disclosure as a factor against Doe's request.
Judge Perry-Bond has ruled that Jane Doe will be allowed to proceed under a pseudonym in the Cornell 7 case.
She takes the opportunity to write that:
> [C]yberstalking and engaging in or encouraging threats across state lines, whether it be of Jane Doe, any of the named defneys, can be considered a federal crime and perpetrators of those acts may be subjecting themselves to prosecution.
Since I expect this to be misinterpreted, it's probably worth noting that this order does not bind anyone other than “parties, their counsel, the parties' agents, and the [clerk's] office”.
1
0
3
1,402
Brian Steel fans might like this week's Court of Appeals oral argument. This case is one where Steel himself was trial counsel.
Billy Greg Pruitt was convicted of aggravated assault for displaying a BB gun at an off-duty police officer. Most of the oral argument is about a e trial court allowed evidence of a prior incident where Pruitt fired an actual gun.
The justices seem to agree that it had little or no relevance: "Are you arguing harmless error? I'm trying to figure out why I care."
A26A2155. BILLY GREG PRUITT v. THE STATE
Full video: vimeo.com/1238468769
Appellant Brief: gaappeals.gov/wp-content/upl…
DA Brief: gaappeals.gov/wp-content/upl…
Billy Greg Pruitt was convicted of aggravated assault for displaying a BB gun at an off-duty police officer. Most of the oral argument is about a e trial court allowed evidence of a prior incident where Pruitt fired an actual gun.
The justices seem to agree that it had little or no relevance: "Are you arguing harmless error? I'm trying to figure out why I care."
A26A2155. BILLY GREG PRUITT v. THE STATE
Full video: vimeo.com/1238468769
Appellant Brief: gaappeals.gov/wp-content/upl…
DA Brief: gaappeals.gov/wp-content/upl…
1
10
56
5,022
JustAnswer provided what appears to be a transcript of Chirayu Rana's conversation with their "expert" about the claims he was contemplating against Morgan Stanley, prior to suing JPMC.
Chirayu Rana asked for help with his problem from a chatbot. In the process, we can see a major inconsistency in his story.
He originally said the abuser was a male! I guess he eventually thought it was better to pick the hottest woman he worked with to go after.
This is from ebsite Ask a Lawyer.
He claimed to have "AMPLE" evidence for his claim and left his name, phone number, and email.
Rana calls the boss who gave him drugs and assaulted him "he."
It looks like he was developing his story over time, and eventually decided to make his abusive boss into a woman, and also make himself a laughing stock in the process.
It's funny to see him talk about his mental health struggles as a result and the chatbot lend him a sympathetic ear.
0
0
5
1,069
Morgan Stanley HR investigation into Chirayu Rana's harassment complaints in 2022. (Attached as exhibit to tonight's motion)
> He told me he was going to say he was bisexual to make his sexual harassment claim stronger.
> He told me he was going to say he was bisexual to make his sexual harassment claim stronger.
Chase and Hajdini both just filed SPICY oppositions to Chirayu Rana's attorney's withdrawal motion.
They claim that Rana's sister, and his friend Allan Flott have recanted their previous sworn statements, which formed the bulk of the evidence for Rana's claim.
And, his ere notified of this *prior* to filing Rana's latest amended complaint, which continues to use their statements.
----
Summarizing the call with the sister's attorney, JPMC attorney writes:
> [H]er brother, Chirayu Rana, came to her to ask her to present the statements in the affirmation as if they were facts within her own personal knowledge, but they were not. You stated that [she] was told by her brother the affirmation would not be used in court or disclosed publicly.
1
0
11
5,796
> Chirayu was terminated with a separation agreement due to management's concerns regarding his inappropriate behavior.
1
0
1
294
Chase and Hajdini both just filed SPICY oppositions to Chirayu Rana's attorney's withdrawal motion.
They claim that Rana's sister, and his friend Allan Flott have recanted their previous sworn statements, which formed the bulk of the evidence for Rana's claim.
And, his ere notified of this *prior* to filing Rana's latest amended complaint, which continues to use their statements.
----
Summarizing the call with the sister's attorney, JPMC attorney writes:
> [H]er brother, Chirayu Rana, came to her to ask her to present the statements in the affirmation as if they were facts within her own personal knowledge, but they were not. You stated that [she] was told by her brother the affirmation would not be used in court or disclosed publicly.
They claim that Rana's sister, and his friend Allan Flott have recanted their previous sworn statements, which formed the bulk of the evidence for Rana's claim.
And, his ere notified of this *prior* to filing Rana's latest amended complaint, which continues to use their statements.
----
Summarizing the call with the sister's attorney, JPMC attorney writes:
> [H]er brother, Chirayu Rana, came to her to ask her to present the statements in the affirmation as if they were facts within her own personal knowledge, but they were not. You stated that [she] was told by her brother the affirmation would not be used in court or disclosed publicly.
Chirayu Rana's latest attorneys seek to withdraw from his case against JPMC and Lorna Hajdini.
Obviously, they don't provide specifics of their reasons but, from among the many possible rules permitting withdrawal, the ones they chose to cite are:
> the client insists upon takhe lawyer has a fundamental disagreement
> the client fails to cooperate in the representation or otherwise renders the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively
Rana's answer to counterclaims is due Monday. JPMC and Hajdini (calling it “a carousel of counsel”) both oppose the motion.
courtlistener.com/docket/7367315…
2
1
44
92,716
Many of the docs are filed under seal, with entirely redacted public versions. Docket is here: courtlistener.com/docket/7367315…
0
0
2
1,634
Chirayu Rana found a new firm (surprisingly quickly) to represent him against JPMC and Hajdini.
Chirayu Rana's latest attorneys seek to withdraw from his case against JPMC and Lorna Hajdini.
Obviously, they don't provide specifics of their reasons but, from among the many possible rules permitting withdrawal, the ones they chose to cite are:
> the client insists upon takhe lawyer has a fundamental disagreement
> the client fails to cooperate in the representation or otherwise renders the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively
Rana's answer to counterclaims is due Monday. JPMC and Hajdini (calling it “a carousel of counsel”) both oppose the motion.
courtlistener.com/docket/7367315…
1
0
14
47,726
Idk if I'm not reading this right, but she seems to be arguing that County Law § 701(6) makes it so only the AG can disqualify the AG? That doesn't sound right.
1
0
0
89
Also, what is this request in the answer? Seems like boilerplate from a different Article 78 response, why would there be a "rehearing" of the special prosecutor appointment?
iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDoc…
iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDoc…
1
0
0
41
Kathy Hochul and Letitia James filed their answer today in the Article 78 proceeding to remove James from the Cornell 7 case.
It raises a whole bunch of issues but probably the strongest argument is that the matter is not ripe as no charges have been filed yet.
iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDoc…
It raises a whole bunch of issues but probably the strongest argument is that the matter is not ripe as no charges have been filed yet.
iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDoc…
I spoke to Lauren Conlin about the Article 78 Petition to toss AG James. I don't expect it to work, but it should. AG James has no credibility as an independent investigator in this matter and Jane Doe, the so-called "Cornell 7" and the public deserve a fair and impartial investigation
1
0
2
530
>be New York attorney
>inherit over $1 million
>gamble it all away instead of paying taxes
>owe IRS and other creditors $217k
>creditors keep garnishing your bank accounts
>have genius idea
>creditors can't touch IOLA, right?
>deposit $752k in personal funds
>make 288 gambling transactions
>165 payments to online psychics
>223 meals and entertainment transactions
>680 PayPal withdrawals
>even link Amazon account to escrow account
>"stepson" rents a $5.99 movie
>meanwhile client gives you $8k for litigation expenses
>escrow balance somehow drops to $112.51
>fantasy sports transactions on IOLA start bouncing
>bar notified and starts investigating
>insist you only gambled your own money
>claim no clients were ever harmed
>court points out you literally misappropriated client funds
>also not impressed by hiding money from IRS
>disbarred
Matter of Wolf, 2026 NY Slip Op 06125 (2d Dept, Oct. 21, 2026). nycourts.gov/reporter/curre…
>inherit over $1 million
>gamble it all away instead of paying taxes
>owe IRS and other creditors $217k
>creditors keep garnishing your bank accounts
>have genius idea
>creditors can't touch IOLA, right?
>deposit $752k in personal funds
>make 288 gambling transactions
>165 payments to online psychics
>223 meals and entertainment transactions
>680 PayPal withdrawals
>even link Amazon account to escrow account
>"stepson" rents a $5.99 movie
>meanwhile client gives you $8k for litigation expenses
>escrow balance somehow drops to $112.51
>fantasy sports transactions on IOLA start bouncing
>bar notified and starts investigating
>insist you only gambled your own money
>claim no clients were ever harmed
>court points out you literally misappropriated client funds
>also not impressed by hiding money from IRS
>disbarred
Matter of Wolf, 2026 NY Slip Op 06125 (2d Dept, Oct. 21, 2026). nycourts.gov/reporter/curre…
3
2
50
12,809
Florida 4DCA decision today, referring to the bar lawyer previously ordered to defend her "AI slop" writing.
The OSC got a lot of pushback at the time, as she was not being accused of making the (previously) commonplace AI citation errors but of, more generally, filing what the berish".
If the "gibberish" characterization is correct, it's not even necessary to discuss AI to consider her filings sanctionable.
4D2026-2262 LISANDRILLO v. PALOZZI: acis.flcourts.gov/portal/court/c…
Sep 16 - Opinion and OSC: law.justia.com/cases/florida/…
Sep 28 - Lawyer's 84pg OSC response: fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/…
The OSC got a lot of pushback at the time, as she was not being accused of making the (previously) commonplace AI citation errors but of, more generally, filing what the berish".
If the "gibberish" characterization is correct, it's not even necessary to discuss AI to consider her filings sanctionable.
4D2026-2262 LISANDRILLO v. PALOZZI: acis.flcourts.gov/portal/court/c…
Sep 16 - Opinion and OSC: law.justia.com/cases/florida/…
Sep 28 - Lawyer's 84pg OSC response: fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/…
Remember the Florida lawyer who was ordered to explain... WITHOUT USING AI... why she shouldn’t be sanctioned after a Florida appellate court said her filings looked like “AI slop”?
She just responded... and she's pushing back HARD...
And her argument is basically:
> “AI slop” is She says the legal strategy, arguments and professional judgment were hers, that every authority was reviewed and verified, and that the court is effectively treating writing that looks AI-generated as evidence of sanctionable conduct.
She also did a full audit of the filings: roughly 237 citation instances.
Her concession?
Two errors... an outdated rule subsection and one quotation that wasn’t actually verbatim.
Her position: those are human mistakes, not fabricated law.
So this case just got MUCH more interesting.
The question is no longer merely whether lawyers can use AI.
It’s whether a court can infer that a lawyer failed to exercise independent professional judgment because the work product looks like AI... even where the cases are real, the citations exist, and the lawyer stands behind the arguments.
That is a much bigger fight for the profession.
My take: if she wrote all 84 pages of her response without using AI in 2026, free this women... she earned it! 😂
1
0
13
2,936
Another GPDC attorney's brief deemed "substantially deficient" today.
The brief argued lack of evidence to sustain convictions for two charges, one of which defendant was acquitted of, the other never indicted on.
This is one of the cases that the GPDC asked to remand after arilyn Tyler's deficient performance (see quoted tweet). But it turns out that Tyler did not author the brief in this case. Instead of denying remand, the court of appeals took a look at the brief and decided it warranted remand anyway.
A26A1329. JERIOD MATHIS v. THE STATE efast.gaappeals.gov/download?filin… gaappeals.gov/wp-content/the…
The brief argued lack of evidence to sustain convictions for two charges, one of which defendant was acquitted of, the other never indicted on.
This is one of the cases that the GPDC asked to remand after arilyn Tyler's deficient performance (see quoted tweet). But it turns out that Tyler did not author the brief in this case. Instead of denying remand, the court of appeals took a look at the brief and decided it warranted remand anyway.
A26A1329. JERIOD MATHIS v. THE STATE efast.gaappeals.gov/download?filin… gaappeals.gov/wp-content/the…
A huge problem in Georgia since Kemp took office is that the head of the GPDC fired the appellate division and started paying random contractors very little money to do serious appeals without oversight.
One person did such a bad job that SCOG is remanding all their cases.
@HappilyAngryEsq
1
2
19
17,479