Correction Appended.
A month after the original presiding judge in William McCormick's suit against the University and two alums recused himself from the case, McCormick's lawyer motioned Feb. 11 for the new presiding judge, Ronald Lagueux, to recuse himself as well.
According to the motion, Joseph Cavanagh, a lawyer for the two alums, represented Lagueux before the Judicial Council of the First Circuit, a body charged with disciplining federal judges.
According to the motion, when the original presiding judge, William Smith, recused himself last month, he informed McCormick's lawyer that the case would be transferred to New Hampshire.
The Rhode Island District Federal Court's chief judge, Mary Lisi, is married to the alums' other lawyer, Stephen Reid. The third seat on the court has been left vacant by Senate Republicans' opposition to President Obama's nominee.
The motion states that Cavanagh wrote a letter to Smith requesting that Lagueux, who is semi-retired, hear the case instead.
Smith assigned Lagueux, but McCormick's lawyer subsequently learned of Cavanagh's connection to the semi-retired judge.
Lagueux was called before the Judicial Council of the First Circuit in 1988 after he banned famed Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz from his courtroom. In a book, Dershowitz had alleged that the state's judicial system was corrupt.
In secret documents obtained by the New York Times in 1989, the council called the banning "glaringly injudicious."
The motion acknowledges that under normal circumstances, Cavanagh's representation would not be sufficient grounds for recusal because it occurred over 20 years ago. But it cites the circumstances by which Lagueux came to preside over the case, as well as the University's and the alums' influence in the state, as extenuating factors.
Smith recused himself without explanation Jan. 7 after hearing the case for over 15 months. Cavanagh has since said in court that Smith's daughter is applying to Brown. It is exceedingly rare for judges to recuse themselves while a case is in progress.
An earlier version of this article incorrectly indicated that the motion was filed Feb. 14. The Herald regrets the error.
Staff from The Brown Daily Herald
