"I Will Not Stand for Being Jerked Around … by Any Lawyer Who Practices Before Me"

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Volokh, E. (2026, September 25). "I Will Not Stand for Being Jerked Around … by Any Lawyer Who Practices Before Me". Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/25/i-will-not-stand-for-being-jerked-around-by-any-lawyer-who-practices-before-me/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Reason · collected 2026-09-25 · by Eugene Volokh

Quick Summary

No summary of this article yet; the story summary below covers the event.

AI analysis

Story summary

In a recent court proceeding, Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) issued a stern warning to lawyers representing Ms. Freeman in the case *Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney*. The judge's order mandates that Ms. Freeman must answer every question posed during her testimony without regard for whether they have been previously asked. If counsel repeatedly asserts frivolous attorney-client privilege objections, Judge McMahon has made it clear there will be serious consequences, including sanctions and potential referral to the court’s Grievance Committee. Such actions could lead to the revocation of a lawyer's pro hac vice admission or full admission to practice before the S.D.N.Y., as well as civil contempt charges. The judge emphasized that this warning is not an idle threat, expressing frustration with counsel's perceived lack of good faith and inappropriate behavior in setting courtroom rules.

Written for “Judge Criticizes Lawyers” on 2026-11-01, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Judge Criticizes Lawyers
Crime & Law · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

This article reads unscored and hedges 0% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Lightning Strikes Thrice Different event
Reason
⚖️ Leans right Hedges 3 of 13 claims Outlet record 67/100
“The articles refer to different judicial comments and rulings by Judge Colleen McMahon and a per curiam from the Supreme Court, respectively.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
12
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
0%
0 of 12 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
not political
takes no side on a contested political question
Publisher signals
67/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Crime & Law
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-09-26 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 1051 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
183 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 Some excerpts from the long First Superseding Indictment in U.S. v. Hakim (E.D. Mich.), filed Oct. 21, alleging conspiracy to transmit threats in interstate commerce as well as, for two defendants, witness intimidation and destruction of property to prevent seizure (8 of the 12 defendants had originally been indicted in May); the targets included UM officials and businesses connected with them, as well as the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit:
🔮 Because "[t]he costs and efforts required to defend a lawsuit through [discovery] could chill free speech nearly as effectively as the absence of the actual malice standard altogether[,]" a public figure plaintiff must plausibly allege actual malice at the outset of the litigation.
🔮 The First Amendment forbids a State from using its investigative power that way, and I will not allow it while this case is pending.
🔮 The same logic could apply to nuns who had felt religious pressure to do the educational or nursing work that their order was known for, or to monks who had felt religious pressure to do agricultural work that supports the monastery.
2026-10-30 · assertive framing · Amicus Brief in OneTaste Criminal Prosecution
🔮 Before doing so, "he entered the coffee shop to purchase a cookie, which he hoped would be seen as a sign of goodwill."
🔮 While individuals who are the subjects of unwanted speech may be able to limit some speech directed to them, they cannot limit offensive speech about them directed to others.
🔮 Because "the conduct regulated depend[ed] on—and [could not] be separated from—the ideas communicated," Florida's law was "functionally a regulation of speech" implicating the First Amendment.
🔮 You might assume that some judge is "woke" or "Trumpy" or what have you, but there's a pretty good chance that the judge's legal analysis is still correct.
🔮 The hope would be to siphon votes away from Sullivan.
🔮 Alas, like other formerly unique human skills, I expect this one too will fall victim to competition from AI.
Also by Eugene Volokh
Open Thread
2026-11-01 · Reason
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 183 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

Grievance Committee S.D.N.Y. the Bar of this Court

Subjects

Freeman PERSON · 7× Colleen McMahon PERSON · 1× Deebs PERSON · 1× Grievance Committee ORG · 1× James Creigh PERSON · 1× S.D.N.Y. GPE · 1× Seamus Hughes PERSON · 1× Volokh PERSON · 1× the Bar of this Court ORG · 1×

Narrative

If I have to rule on more than one frivolous attorney client privilege objection, there will be consequences, in the form of sanctions, adverse inferences, referrals to the court's Grievance Committee with the possible revocation of pro hac vice admission to practice or admission to the Bar of this Court, and the possibility of a civil contempt holding.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-26
🔮 Ms. Freeman will answer EVERY question that is put to her—whether or not the question was asked previously.

Claims (12 extracted, 0 hedged)

My order requires no clarification. asserted
order → require → clarification
Counsel for Ms. Freeman do not get to set the rules. asserted
Counsel → get → rules
Ms. Freeman will answer EVERY question that is put to her—whether or not the question was asked previously. asserted
question → answer → her
If Ms. Freeman asserts attorney client privilege with respect to a question that was not previously asked, you are to call my chambers immediately to obtain a ruling. asserted
you → assert → ruling
If I have to rule on more than one frivolous attorney client privilege objection, there will be consequences, in the form of sanctions, adverse inferences, referrals to the court's Grievance Committee with the possible revocation of pro hac vice admission to practice or admission to the Bar of this Court, and the possibility of a civil contempt holding. asserted
I → have → holding
Please understand—this is not an idle threat. asserted
this → understand → ?
I do not believe that Ms. Freeman's counsel is acting in good faith and I will not stand for being jerked around—and I am indeed being jerked around—in this manner by any lawyer who practices before me. asserted
who → believe → me
If there are privilege objections asserted after that hour, you will have to come back on Thursday morning at noon (9 AM PDT) so that I can rule on them. asserted
I → be → them
At that point the deposition will be completed in my (telephonic) presence. asserted
deposition → complete → presence
I do not care if this does not accord with your schedule. asserted
this → care → schedule
My schedule has not been of any particular interest to Ms. Freeman and her attorney up to now; my schedule controls now. asserted
schedule → control → Freeman
A related filing from Ms. Freeman's lawyer defending his position is here. asserted
filing → relate → position
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support