Welcome to a captivating week in the sphere of legal ethics, where the headlines have ranged from significant resignations to novel challenges posed by AI in legal practices. Let’s delve into the major stories that have shaped the discourse this week.

Firstly, the legal community was stirred by the dramatic resignation of Judge Mark Wolf, a stalwart of the judiciary appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Citing an intolerable silence on the misuse of the law for partisan purposes under President Donald Trump's administration, Wolf stepped down from his lifetime appointment, a move that underscores deep concerns about the state of judicial independence and integrity in the United States. His full thoughts were detailed in a poignant op-ed for *The Atlantic*.

In corporate legal news, McDermott Will & Schulte is pioneering a groundbreaking shift in Big Law’s business model by considering outside investment. Reportedly in talks with private equity groups, the firm aims to bifurcate its operations, separating client advisory services from administrative functions. This development could potentially revolutionize the affordability and innovation of legal services as discussed in a comprehensive report by *Bloomberg Law*.

On a different note, the ethical use of AI in legal filings has come under scrutiny. Cleveland defense attorney William Norman faced ethical questions after a paralegal used AI tool ChatGPT to draft a motion containing inaccuracies, highlighting the challenges and responsibilities lawyers face with emerging technologies. More details on this are available from Cleveland.com’s recent coverage.

Adding to the week’s legal ethics discourse, a new non-profit, Government Lawyers Oversight Watchdog (GLOW), launched a public database to monitor the conduct of executive branch attorneys. This initiative aims to enhance transparency and accountability, ensuring that government lawyers adhere to their duties to the public and the rule of law.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s ethics code marked its second anniversary, prompting calls for stronger enforcement mechanisms. Critics, including the advocacy group Fix the Court, argue that the current voluntary code lacks the teeth needed to ensure compliance and maintain public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality.

In more localized news, Massachusetts Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph was recommended for a public reprimand after being cleared of accusations that she helped an immigrant evade ICE. This decision comes after a thorough investigation by a hearing officer, who concluded that Joseph was unaware of the escape plan orchestrated in her courtroom.

These stories depict a week rich in developments that challenge, reshape, and occasionally affirm the ethical foundations of the legal profession. As the landscape of legal ethics continues to evolve, the community remains vigilant, ensuring that its standards adapt to both modern challenges and enduring principles.