Dec 09, 2011

In 1985, Erskine Johnson (who later changed his name to Ndume Olatushani), was convicted of a murder stemming from a grocery store robbery in Memphis, Tennessee and was sentenced to death. When Cleary Gottlieb began representing Erskine in 1995, he was on death row. Shortly after Erskine’s trial, exculpatory evidence withheld by the prosecution was discovered. In 2001, Cleary Gottlieb succeeded in having his death sentence set aside (on Brady grounds), and in 2004 the firm persuaded the prosecution not to seek the death penalty again and instead to agree to a life sentence. Since then, Cleary Gottlieb has been litigating in the Tennessee state courts to have Mr. Johnson's conviction reversed.

Most recently, the Cleary Gottlieb team filed a “writ of error coram nobis” requesting that the court consider facts not on the trial record that might have changed the outcome of the jury’s decision. The firm argued that newly discovered evidence entitled Erskine to a new trial, especially in light of substantial exculpatory evidence that the State wrongfully withheld from the defense when the case was first tried. The lower court disagreed and dismissed the writ. However, on December 9, the Tennessee appellate court, in a 3-0 decision, reversed that judgment, vacated Erskine's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

More than 25 Cleary Gottlieb lawyers have advocated on behalf of Erskine Johnson for more than 15 years.

Apr 27, 2012

On April 27, 2012, Cleary Gottlieb secured a favorable settlement for its pro bono client Ms. Scott, a transgender woman who had been denied coverage for a mammogram because of an exclusion in her employer's insurance policy related to “changing sex or sexual characteristics.”

Cleary Gottlieb challenged the application of this exclusion to Ms. Scott's mammogram on the grounds that the mammogram was not intended to change a sex characteristic, but instead constituted medically necessary care for a transgendered patient. As part of the settlement, Ms. Scott’s employer not only clarified its reading of the existing health plan language to ensure benefits to Ms. Scott for mammograms and similar procedures, but also committed to amend the health plan to be trans-inclusive. The insurance company that processes claims for Ms. Scott’s employer has reimbursed Ms. Scott for the mammogram and has agreed to assign a liaison who will be informed about Ms. Scott’s rights under the amended policy to ensure that she will not be denied the coverage to which she is entitled.

Cleary Gottlieb represented Ms. Scott in partnership with the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund.

Mar 29, 2012

On March 29, 2012 Cleary Gottlieb, together with the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Law Clinic at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, and police misconduct attorney Andrea J. Ritchie, obtained an important victory invalidating Louisiana’s Crime Against Nature by Solicitation statute (“CANS”) as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Nine anonymous plaintiffs brought the suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana to challenge the requirement that they register as sex offenders under Louisiana’s sex offender registry law based on their convictions under CANS for solicitation of oral or anal sex for compensation because individuals convicted for identical conduct under Louisiana’s prostitution statute were not required to register as sex offenders. In August 2011, CANS was amended to no longer require sex offender registration, but the amendment was not retroactive.

“The defendants fail to credibly serve up even one unique legitimating governmental interest that can rationally explain the registration requirement imposed on those convicted of Crime Against Nature by Solicitation,” wrote Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. “The Court is left with no other conclusion but that the relationship between the classification is so shallow as to render the distinction wholly arbitrary.”

Many of the plaintiffs in the case had been unable to secure work or housing as a result of their registration as sex offenders. Several had been barred from homeless shelters. One had been physically threatened by a neighbor and another had been refused residential substance abuse treatment.

“Today’s ruling is a testament to the power and importance of speaking out for justice. Individuals marginalized by the CANS law told their stories, spearheading a campaign to change the law,” said Deon Haywood, executive director of Women With A Vision, a community-based organization in New Orleans that has led advocacy efforts around this issue. “The people heard, the legislature heard, and now the courts have heard. Now we can move on to healing and renewal.”

Feb 14, 2012

Cleary Gottlieb, together with the Worker & Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School, represented eleven plaintiffs in a pro bono civil rights action filed in the District Court of Connecticut alleging violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and Federal Tort Claims Act.

Early in the morning of June 6, 2007, approximately 20 U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents, together with other federal, state, and local officers, entered homes without warrants or consent in Fair Haven, a predominantly Latino neighborhood in New Haven, Connecticut. Agents illegally seized and arrested over 30 residents. The raids occurred just two days after the approval of a new municipal program designed to offer identification cards to all New Haven residents without regard to immigration status. Plaintiffs allege the raids were carried out in retaliation for the city’s identification program and residents were targeted solely on the basis of their Latino appearance.

After defeating several motions to dismiss the lawsuit by the United States and the individual defendants in 2010, the plaintiffs announced on February 14, 2012 an unprecedented settlement of their civil rights lawsuit. The federal government will pay $350,000 and has offered plaintiffs the choice of either immigration relief known as deferred action coupled with work authorization or termination of pending deportation proceedings. The agreement appears to be the largest monetary settlement ever paid by the United States in a suit over residential immigration raids, and the first to include both financial compensation and immigration relief. The immigration relief will enable the plaintiffs to work legally in the United States. The settlement has been the subject of wide coverage by the local and international press, with an interview of one of the plaintiffs airing on CNN En Español.

Feb 28, 2012

Cleary Gottlieb, together with counsel from The Legal Aid Society, succeeded in reversing the lower court’s denial of Mr. L’s application for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009.

The Drug Law Reform Act permits certain inmates serving sentences under the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws to apply to be resentenced in accordance with the new and generally shorter sentencing scheme. In connection with a $20 drug sale in 2001, Mr. L was permitted to plead guilty to a lesser charge of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree provided he successfully completed a drug diversion program. After over two years of successful participation in this rehabilitation program, Mr. L relapsed and was sentenced to five to ten years of imprisonment for the underlying charge. In May 2010, the trial court denied Mr. L’s application for resentencing. In February 2012, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department unanimously reversed the denial of Mr. L’s application, finding that Mr. L’s positive prison record and rehabilitation were not outweighed by his criminal history.

Feb 01, 2012

In 2010, more than 50,000 people were arrested for low-level marijuana possession in New York City. These arrests are typically the result of "stop and frisk" encounters with police. In many cases, the police lack the reasonable suspicion required to make the stops. The police often effectively create the crime by requiring stopped persons to remove small amounts of marijuana from their pockets or bags--which takes marijuana possession from a non-criminal violation to an arrestable misdemeanor. These unlawful arrests may have serious collateral consequences for the persons arrested, affecting their employment, immigration status, and eligibility for housing and student financial aid. Moreover, the arrests show a disparate racial pattern: nearly 90 percent of those arrested are African-American or Latino. In the fall of 2011, Cleary Gottlieb began a partnership with The Bronx Defenders to represent persons arrested for low-level marijuana possession in an effort to challenge the policing conduct that generates these needless, costly and often harmful contacts with the criminal-justice system.

Jan 30, 2012

On January 30, 2012, Cleary Gottlieb, in partnership with New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, successfully settled a claim brought against the New York City Department of Education ("DOE") on behalf of M.H., a student with autism, and his parents. In their request for an impartial hearing, M.H.'s parents alleged that the DOE failed to provide M.H. with a free and appropriate public education (a "FAPE") as required by state and federal law by violating their due process rights and creating an Individualized Education Plan that did not adequately address M.H.'s needs. As a result of this failure, M.H.'s parents unilaterally placed M.H. in a private school appropriate to his needs and sought reimbursement for the cost of tuition from the DOE. Rather than proceed to a hearing, the DOE agreed to settle the matter, offering M.H.'s parents full tuition reimbursement for the cost of sending M.H. to the school of their choice for the 2011-2012 school year.

Sep 27, 2011

On September 27, 2011, Cleary Gottlieb won a grant of asylum in the United States Immigration Court at Baltimore, Maryland, for pro bono client Ms. H. Ms. H’s petition for asylum presented a complicated procedural posture when it arrived at Cleary Gottlieb – pending since 2003, Ms. H was granted asylum by an Immigration Judge in 2004. Her case was subsequently appealed by the Department of Homeland Security to the Board of Immigration Appeals, where it was stayed pending adoption of proposed regulations concerning asylum applications by domestic violence victims. Although these regulations were never adopted, Ms. H’s case was remanded to the Immigration Court earlier this year for further factual and legal development, resulting in asylum being granted following a full merits hearing on September 27.

Ms. H is a native of Pakistan who was brutally treated, physically abused, and raped by her ex-husband. Any attempts by Ms. H to resist his domination were met with further violence and threats. Following their divorce, which Ms. H’s ex-husband’s family viewed as a source of deep shame on their familial honor, the family continuously threatened and harassed Ms. H and her family both in the United States and Pakistan. In granting her petition, Immigration Judge Phillip T. Williams concluded that Ms. H was persecuted on account of her membership in the particular social group of oppressed and abused Pakistani women who resist male domination in conflict with social mores, and that the Pakistani government has failed to provide adequate protection to women in Ms. H’s position. DHS has reserved the right to appeal the IJ’s decision. Cleary Gottlieb will continue to represent Ms. H in the event of a DHS appeal.

Ms. H was referred to Cleary Gottlieb by Tahirih Justice Center.

Jan 11, 2012

Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery. Many victims are forced to work in the sex trade and then are arrested and prosecuted for prostitution. In 2010, New York State passed a law that enables survivors of human trafficking to vacate their convictions for prostitution related offenses. Cleary Gottlieb has joined with Legal Aid to represent these survivors in their quests to clear their records.

Jan 09, 2012

In late 2011, Cleary Gottlieb launched a partnership with the Queens Economic Development Corporation (QEDC) to provide pro bono legal services to QEDC's micro entrepreneur clients. Cleary Gottlieb represents business owners referred by QEDC with the broad spectrum of corporate legal issues faced by small business owners. Since the inception of our partnership with QEDC, Cleary Gottlieb has helped close to a dozen micro entrepreneurs.

Jun 08, 2011

Cleary Gottlieb represented longtime pro bono client Wildcat Service Corporation, an acclaimed social services agency that has provided job training to more than 250,000 ex-offender, ex-addict and other New Yorkers, in its merger with Fedcap, a 75-year-old nonprofit specializing in vocational training for the disabled. Cleary Gottlieb has represented Wildcat since 2005, providing more than $1.7 million of pro bono services. The merger was announced June 8 and is expected to close in July.

The merger reflects a nascent nonprofit consolidation trend, strongly encouraged by funders and academics. The combined entity will have annual revenues of $90 million and serve more than 9,000 jobless and underemployed clients annually.

Apr 04, 2011

Cleary Gottlieb successfully represented Mr. R in his petition for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009. In 1996, Mr. R was sentenced on two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree to twelve and a half to twenty five years each, to run concurrently. Cleary filed a petition for resentencing in June 2010. The parties appeared for a hearing on the petition in November 2010 in New York Supreme Court before Judge Edward J. McLaughlin. Judge McLaughlin granted the petition and resentenced Mr. R to twelve years for each count, to run concurrently, plus two years of post-release supervision. As a result, Mr. R was eligible for release immediately, and he returned home to his family at the end of November 2010.

Mar 10, 2010

Cleary Gottlieb, working with Brick Court Chambers and acting on behalf of James Preston, applied on March 10 for judicial review of the British law that strips British citizens living overseas for more than 15 years of the right to vote in Parliamentary elections. Mr. Preston’s lawyers argue that the law penalizes British citizens as a result of their exercise of free movement and establishment rights guaranteed by the European Union, in violation of European Law.

The Government says that restricting the right of British citizens to vote in Parliamentary elections is justified, but Mr. Preston disagrees. “I’m a British citizen and only a British citizen, married to a British wife and both of us work for British firms. I read British papers, my children attend a British school and my estate taxes are owed to the British government when I die. This law penalizes me for taking advantage of the opportunities that the British government promised to all citizens when Britain joined the EU. The spirit of this law is entirely inconsistent with British democratic traditions as well as our foreign policy, where we work to bring democracy to far off corners of the world.” Mr. Preston, born in Leicester, now lives and works in Madrid, Spain after posting by his British employer 15 years ago.

Unlike the United States or other major countries in the European Union, such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, the United Kingdom strips citizens of the right to vote in Parliamentary elections for the mere fact of having resided abroad for more than 15 years. Though exceptions exist for the military, civil servants and British Council employees, all other citizens, including Church of England missionaries and English teachers at British schools around the corner from the British Council, lose the right to vote after 15 years abroad. In addition to British citizens like Mr. Preston, the only other citizens who do not enjoy the right to vote are children, individuals who suffer from mental illness, and criminals.

Mr. Preston’s counsel, Romano Subiotto QC, noted that, “The British voting law penalizes British citizens who exercise their fundamental rights to move freely between European Union countries. It prevents British citizens from enjoying the same free movement rights guaranteed to the citizens of other EU countries. This law is an anachronism in this day and age of easy, quick, and reliable communications.”

Mr. Preston is represented Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP and Brick Court Chambers, both of whom are acting on a pro bono basis in view of the important constitutional issue raised by this case.

Apr 23, 2009

Cleary Gottlieb was amicus counsel to a group of social science academics and organizations in the recent victory before the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien, which struck down the state statute precluding same-sex couples from marrying under the equal protection clause of the Iowa constitution.

Amici included the American Sociological Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the Center for Inquiry, along with over fifty leading academics in social science. Amici argued in support of the trial court's evidentiary rulings, which excluded testimony from several proffered "experts" who offered opinions regarding the effects that same-sex marriage could have on children, families and society. In affirming the trial court, the Supreme Court recognized that plaintiff's evidence showed that "most scientific research has repudiated the commonly assumed notion that children need opposite-sex parents to grow into well-adjusted adults." The decision also agreed with amici's arguments that opinions suggesting a need for dual-gender parenting "were largely unsupportable by reliable scientific studies." The case was referred to Cleary Gottlieb by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., which was lead counsel for plaintiffs.

Aug 06, 2008

Cleary Gottlieb provided advice on a pro bono basis to the Republic of Liberia Ministry of State for Finance, Economic and Legal Affairs (MOS-FELA) in the Office of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf regarding Liberia's potential ratification of the Protocol of the Court of Justice of the African Union and the Convention of the African Energy Commission. Cleary Gottlieb received the request for pro bono assistance through the International Senior Lawyers Project (ISLP).

Feb 05, 2010

Cleary Gottlieb won disability benefits for a Vietnam veteran pro bono client following a successful appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. During his tour in Vietnam as a light weapons infantryman, the veteran was exposed repeatedly to loud noises, including a mortar blast on one occasion that went off inches from his head. Although he sought medical treatment for his injury at the time, neither the treatment nor his injury was documented. Beginning in 1974, the veteran sought disability benefits for hearing loss but was denied because his separation physical included a partial hearing test that did not indicate a hearing disability.

Working with The American Legion and the National Veterans Legal Services Program, Cleary Gottlieb began assisting the veteran in 2008 in an appeal of a 2005 Department of Veterans Affairs decision that again denied benefits for the veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus. A significant challenge in the appeal was addressing the veteran's 1969 separation physical, which indicated no hearing disability when the veteran left the service. Cleary Gottlieb's brief to the Board of Veterans' Appeals cited lay evidence from family members and soldiers who served with the veteran, an expert medical opinion, medical evidence and recent case law that supported linking the veteran’s hearing disability to service. The Board held that the weight of the evidence supported the veteran's claim for service connection for his hearing loss and tinnitus. In January, the veteran was notified that he would receive increased VA disability compensation benefits as a result of his successful appeal.

Aug 04, 2008

Cleary Gottlieb filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the right of individual employees to pursue federal statutory anti-discrimination claims in court even if the individuals are subject to a collective bargaining agreement that provides for grievance and arbitration of discrimination complaints. The brief was filed in conjunction with The Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law on behalf of a consortium of civil rights groups in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett (No. 07-581). The employees filed a federal age discrimination lawsuit against their employer after the union declined to pursue their claims. The lower courts, relying on prior Supreme Court decisions, denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration. Cleary Gottlieb's brief argued in support of that precedent that allowing a collective bargaining agreement to waive an individual's access to federal court would undermine the anti-discrimination statutes.