Mrs. John Roberts (Supreme) gets a new job.

[Joanne98]

:grr: The NERVE!

May 11, 2007
More on Jane Roberts' New Job
Earlier today, we reported that Jane Sullivan Roberts, the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., has a job change in her near future. She'll be moving from the D.C. law office of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman to a lawyer recruiting firm, Major, Lindsey & Africa, to head the In-House Practice Group for its D.C. office.

We tried to catch up with Jane Roberts on the phone to discuss the job change, but she politely begged off, saying she had to "pick up my children." Others at Pillsbury have not returned calls. But at Major, Lindsey & Africa, the managing partner of the D.C. office, Jeffrey Lowe, was eager to talk about the new hire. He says he and Jane Roberts began to talk about her coming to the firm last month. "It seemed like a natural fit," Lowe said, given her experience in professional development at Pillsbury. She'll be in charge of the DC office's growing business finding in-house counsel for corporate clients. She starts in June.

Lowe was asked if her new position would pose any conflicts if, for example, a company with a case before the Supreme Court brings its legal recruiting business to her. "We've certainly thought about" such issues, said Lowe, and they will be handled case by case. "We are fully committed to avoiding conflicts or the appearance of conflict," he said, adding that his firm has a longstanding reputation for ethical behavior.

One judicial ethics expert, Steve Lubet of Northwestern, says Roberts' job change probably "reduces potential conflicts rather than raise them," because "as a headhunter, she is further removed from the courts."

Posted by Tony Mauro on May 11, 2007 at 02:30 PM in Supreme Court | Permalink
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2007/05/more_on_jane_ro.html

[acmavm]

1. I wouldn't give a whiney crybaby a position of such responsibility. She

might bust out in tears at the drop of a hat.

[MADem]

4. No, no, no--that was ALITO's wife. Roberts' wife is the blonde with the two

adopted (from South America, courtesy of an Irish woman) and unrelated (?) children.....remember, the one with the kid in the Fauntleroy outfit who pitched a fit at being dragged out and paraded....?

I always suspected that was a paid surrogacy, and they stashed the woman in South America because of strict Irish laws about children and adoption. But who knows?

[Divernan]

9. The Roberts blithely violated Irish law in adopting these 2 kids.

I documented it at the time - didn't save the links. Basically, Ireland does not want its children adopted by anyone who will take them from their native land. One of the legal requirements is that all prospective adoptive parents must have resided in Ireland for one year prior to adopting.

Mrs. Roberts comes from a rabid Irish-American clan -girlhood stepdancing lessons and all. She and Roberts didn't marry until she was in her 40's, and she was unable to conceive. She is the strictest possible Catholic, and the Catholic church forbids in vitro fertilization as a form of abortion (cause some fertilized eggs are unused/discarded). Well, God forbid (literally) that this couple have their own kids with such medical help. That would be wrong! The answer was adoption, but she insisted that the kids be lilly white Irish. There are very few kids up for adoption in Ireland. However, violating Irish law to latch on to two gorgeous blond kids - no problem ethically with that.

The children were born 4 1/2 months apart to two Irish women. The babies were brought to Latin America where they were privately adopted, a clever way to circumvent Irish law. Meanwhile, Mrs. Justice Roberts continued with her high powered legal career. If she was so damned determined to adopt kids, and with the money these two have, she could have easily afforded to take off a few years until the kids were in kindergarten, and then returned to work part time. I don't know the nationality of the kids' nannies/nursemaids - whether they also had to be fair-skinned Irish. But I think these kids would have been better off being adopted by a more normal set of parents in their native land, who would actually and personally parent these kids - instead of becoming trophy kids for the wealthy Roberts pair.

(Nothing against the Irish - I'm half that myself, and my own kids are as blonde and blue-eyed as the 2 lovely Roberts kids.) I find it offensive that the Chief Justice of the US & his lawyer wife would play fast and loose with the law of another sovereign country

[MADem]

11. Yep...bought 'n paid for, those kids were.. NT

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

16. Oh yes, Divernan, I remember that well.

At the time of his nomination, when the circumstances of those kids adoption came out, I was highly suspicious of it too.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Mr. Chief Justice and his wife somehow managed to circumvent the Irish adoption laws. The two women that are the natural mothers of Josie and Jack I'm sure were very well provided for, as well some members of the Irish government...

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

5. She wasn't the wife that cried at her husband's confirmation hearing.

That prize belongs to Mrs. Alito, not Mrs. Roberts.

[acmavm]

13. Oh yeah, you're right. All these people are starting to bleed into one

corrupt glob of flesh anymore.

[eyesroll]

2. And the problem is...?

Her new job reduces the potential for conflicts, and I imagine she's qualified for it...is she not allowed to work?

[iverglas]

7. not allowed to work

or to have even part of a name of her own ... "Mrs. John Roberts"

Cripey.

I'll be waiting for "Mr. Hillary Clinton".

[Joanne98]

8. The problem IS a conflict of interest!

[eyesroll]

10. Can you spell it out for me?

She's a Georgetown J.D., former appellate clerk and a longtime litigator. Her most recent position was as a professional development partner. She is, from what I can tell, qualified for this position
, in which she will presumably be recruiting other lawyers to work in corporations. Some of these people could theoretically end up arguing before the Supreme Court, but not too many -- most in-house lawyers (most lawyers in general) don't. Sure, her husband could end up ruling on something that would affect her or her clients, but the same can be said for just about any job she'd have.

Where is the conflict?

(I ask this not because I particularly care for John Roberts or his wife, but because, as a future lawyer -- I should add, I haven't taken Ethics yet, so maybe I'm missing something -- who is interested in possibly being a judge someday, I'd like to know where my SO can and can't work.)

[hughee99]

12. I agree on this...

Though I'm no John Roberts fan, but I struggle to see how this is a conflict-of-interest issue just because she's taking the job. She's a recruiter for other lawyers who in most cases, will probably not argue before the SC anyway. Is the fact that her spouse could possibly end up being in a position to benefit a company that hired her company enough to prevent someone from taking a job that they would seem qualified for? I just don't see it.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Some of her questions:

"Are you a Republican?"

"Are you a member of The Federalist Society?"

[MADem]

6. "Do you think George Bush is great, or the greatest???" nt

[kskiska]

14. WP: An Image a Little Too Carefully Coordinated

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes.

MORE…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102347.html

[Canuckistanian]

15. What? No long gloves or a pillbox hat for Jane?

At least she's wearing the obligatory pearls.

Jackie O would NOT approve.

[rusty charly]

17. i thought repukes needed women at home raising and nurturing...