Attorney conduct cases coming to a head in 2026

By David Thomas

January 5 (Reuters) -

The new year kicks off with the scheduled trial of a top U.S. Supreme Court lawyer, and pivotal rulings for one of the president's legal allies as well as for a law firm accused of profiting from a judicial conflict of interest. Here are three cases testing the boundaries of attorney conduct and professional ethics in 2026.

TOM GOLDSTEIN

Prominent Washington lawyer and Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstein is set to stand trial this month on criminal charges tied to his side career of wagering millions of dollars as a poker player .

Jury selection begins January 12 in Greenbelt, Maryland, federal court where Goldstein faces 22 counts of tax evasion and related financial crimes. Prosecutors allege he used his law firm to make improper payments to cover gambling debts and unpaid taxes. Goldstein, who has pleaded not guilty, argues the charges are flawed and were filed too late.

Prosecutors also claimed Goldstein arranged sham employment for women with whom he was romantically involved, paying salaries and benefits through his firm despite them performing no actual work.

U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby last month dismissed those allegations as they related to one tax count, calling them too vague.

JOHN EASTMAN

The California Supreme Court will likely decide this year whether to disbar John Eastman, an architect of President Donald Trump's efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, after a judicial panel recommended revoking Eastman's law license.

The State Bar Court’s Review Department said in June that Eastman violated ethics rules by misleading courts and making false statements. Eastman drafted legal memos suggesting then-Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to accept electoral votes from several swing states when Congress convened to certify the 2020 vote count. He also represented Trump in a failed, long-shot lawsuit that sought to invalidate votes in four states where Trump had falsely claimed evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Eastman has defended his legal arguments and statements about the election, saying they were made in good faith. He petitioned the state’s high court in September to reject the panel's findings, calling the bar’s prosecution partisan and urging the justices to “restore impartiality.”

The State Bar, in a December 12 filing, urged the court to affirm the disbarment recommendation, calling Eastman’s conduct “egregious” and a breach of “honesty, candor, and fidelity to the rule of law.” Eastman’s reply is due in February.

JACKSON WALKER

Texas law firm Jackson Walker faces a Justice Department push to claw back fees it earned in bankruptcy cases overseen by a federal judge who had a secret romantic relationship with one of the firm’s partners.

For more than two years, the U.S. Trustee – the Justice Department's bankruptcy watchdog – has pushed for Jackson Walker to give back the fees it was awarded by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David Jones in Houston. The since-retired judge's disclosure that he had a relationship with a Jackson Walker partner sparked an ethics scandal and cast uncertainty over the firm's fees in dozens of bankruptcy cases.

The relationship "created an unlevel 'playing field' for every party in interest in every case Jackson Walker had before Judge Jones," the trustee has argued.

Jackson Walker has asserted that the trustee lacks standing to seek disgorgement of the firm's fees, and it has pursued settlements with its former bankruptcy clients whose cases were overseen by Jones. The firm has also argued it acted responsibly in its handling of the partner's relationship with Jones.

A December 9 hearing before Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez in Houston underlined the minefield of legal issues that are still outstanding in the dispute. Rodriguez during the four-hour hearing said ke y questions — including whether the U.S. Trustee has standing — will be resolved at trial.

Meanwhile, Jackson Walker's settlements with former clients remain in limbo after another judge criticized them as an attempt to sidestep her authority.