And what's the point of putting in months of work hearing a case if there's a chance that it will all get nullified.
Not recusing oneself though…
He didn't only "work" in the firm; he was a partner in it. Maybe he talked to the partner who managed the SBF work; maybe he didn't. But as a partner he'd have some justification for asking, "Hey, how's that crypto case going?" at least.
"Your Honor, the Prosecution suggests this is not that big a thing!"
No. Don't want to go there.
That is a more interesting conflict than the Davis-Polk one to me, since he likely worked directly with the office handling the case.
Outside of that, he was at Davis since 1999.
There is simply no sane argument that, essentially anyone his quite-large firm worked for (without him even knowing about it), since 1999 should cause his wife to recuse.
It violates no ethical rules, opinions, cases, or what have you. Judges have stricter ones too, and it doesn't violate or even come close to appearing to violate any of them.
It would be laughed out of appeals.
i've not yet seen any convincing argument here.
As such, i maintain she probably did this because she didn't want the case.
I was going to agree with this but then I realized and made this comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34120906
Essentially I feel this is about business for the firm going forward, not anything that happened in the past.
Nope. “My husband has had no involvement in any of these representations.”