Jane Roberts, married to Chief Justice John Roberts, made $10.3m in commissions from elite law firms
Source: Business Insider
And life was indeed good for the Robertses, at least for the years 2007 to 2014. During that eight-year stretch, according to internal records from her employer, Jane Roberts generated a whopping $10.3 million in commissions, paid out by corporations and law firms for placing high-dollar lawyers with them.
That eye-popping figure comes from records in a whistleblower complaint filed by a disgruntled former colleague of Roberts, who says that as the spouse of the most powerful judge in the United States, the income she earns from law firms who practice before the Court should be subject to public scrutiny.
"When I found out that the spouse of the chief justice was soliciting business from law firms, I knew immediately that it was wrong," the whistleblower, Kendal B. Price, who worked alongside Jane Roberts at the legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, told Insider in an interview. "During the time I was there, I was discouraged from ever raising the issue. And I realized that even the law firms who were Jane's clients had nowhere to go. They were being asked by the spouse of the chief justice for business worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there was no one to complain to. Most of these firms were likely appearing or seeking to appear before the Supreme Court. It's natural that they'd do anything they felt was necessary to be competitive."
Roberts' apparent $10.3 million in compensation puts her toward the top of the payscale for legal headhunters. Price's disclosures, which were filed under federal whistleblower-protection laws and are now in the hands of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, add to the mounting questions about how Supreme Court justices and their families financially benefit from their special status, an area that Senate Democrats are vowing to investigate after a series of disclosure lapses by the justices themselves.
Read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/jane-roberts-chief-justice-wife-10-million-commissions-2023-4?r=US&IR=T
Full article "Jane Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John Roberts, made $10.3 million in commissions from elite law firms, whistleblower documents show" edited for space
dchill
(42,660 posts)TomSlick
(13,013 posts)CJ Roberts is profiting from a grift being operated by his spouse.
If CJ Roberts had a scintilla of ethical standards, he would recuse from every case involving firms that hired lawyers recruited by his spouse.
We now know why CJ Roberts did not want to talk to Congress. Forget about the separation of powers stuff. He was worried that he would be asked embarrassing questions about his own finances.
Jarqui
(10,908 posts)... he would recuse from every case involving firms that hired lawyers recruited by his spouse."
Absolutely.
You don't need a law degree to comprehend those ethics. Most high school kids could grasp the problem with his conduct.
Years ago, he would be expected to resign in shame. He could not survive an impeachment. And a review of the cases where the conflicts occurred would be done.
Unfortunately, the government is too corrupt for that kind of thing to occur. Impeachments won't happen when roughly half of the folks voting on the impeachment are in on the general corruption - party before country.
Irish_Dem
(81,261 posts)I don't know if you can answer this question or not in public.
If my profession acted this way at the highest level I would be blowing a gasket.
TomSlick
(13,013 posts)Lawyers are like the rest of the society - very polarized.
Irish_Dem
(81,261 posts)And of course give everyone a gun.
Makes us more afraid to speak out.
It seems that the law has now become separated from basic right and wrong.
Basic morality is no longer part of the legal profession for many attorneys.
The GOP pretends to be moral but it is a lie and fake.
They don't really care about the issues.
The law is used to control and punish others.
But to enrich and protect the wealthy and power elite.
All of America's institutions lie in tatters.
Who benefits?
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)It is worse than you know!
Irish_Dem
(81,261 posts)How is it worse than I know?
Worse reaction on the part of attorneys?
Or the nefarious goings on at the Supreme Ct?
Response to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)
TomSlick This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jarqui
(10,908 posts)taking money. It is probably the tip of the iceberg of corruption in SCOTUS.
Freethinker65
(11,203 posts)Was she always a top recruiter?
Perhaps she was just always excellent at her job and earned those commissions, or perhaps her connections paid off handsomely.
peppertree
(23,342 posts)Johnny boy was her lottery ticket - and Jane's become his bribe drop box.
Irish_Dem
(81,261 posts)peppertree
(23,342 posts)Irish_Dem
(81,261 posts)I was going to say something else, along vulgar lines.
peppertree
(23,342 posts)But do tell!
Irish_Dem
(81,261 posts)What are men called who send out women to earn money illegally.
peppertree
(23,342 posts)So Roberts is both a pimp and a wimp.
What a character.
Irish_Dem
(81,261 posts)Clever with words and quick.
Yes exactly Roberts is a pimp and a wimp.
Well Thomas does the same thing.
BTW
When you have a really good, clever line make it your subject line.
Don't bury it in the body of your response.
See how that works.
peppertree
(23,342 posts)They make it so easy.
That said - thanks for the suggestion. You're very good yourself.
And you know who else was good with quips and one-liners? JFK!
I understand that among Washington insiders, his description if the town (at least politically) is still the official, unofficial one:
"It's got southern efficiency, and northern charm."
Irish_Dem
(81,261 posts)Yes perfect example of JFK's Irish witty sarcasm.
Delivered dry and deadpan, then maybe a chuckle.
Ironic and sardonic. All derived with just a few words.
Robbers Court, you are cracking me up.
peppertree
(23,342 posts)And the culprits? Died scot-free - as so many do.

Irish_Dem
(81,261 posts)I am not so sure about J Edgar Hoover, but it makes sense.
FBaggins
(28,706 posts)Her resume' is legit.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)Would she have made that much money if not married to a SCJ?
melm00se
(5,161 posts)met by snark because the answer might get in the way of righteous outrage.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,207 posts)rather than slagging off DUers with accusations of "righteous outrage". She was not a recruiter before he became Chief Justice in 2005 - she only started in 2007.
Amazingly, she claims that being paid by many law firms that appear before the Supreme Court is less of a conflict of interest than being paid by one firm that might appear before the Supreme Court: https://www.lawdragon.com/legal-consultant-limelights/2021-11-22-legal-consultant-limelights-jane-sullivan-roberts
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)She sells a service, recruiting top talent, to various firms. She has no vested interest in the firm or their cases. Legally, she is no different than the accountant a firm uses or the janitorial service they use.
If she was a partner, she would have a direct interest in the firm and its cases before the court.
dalton99a
(94,115 posts)FakeNoose
(41,631 posts)This is why John Roberts is just as corrupt as Clarence Thomas, but in another way.
Don't look for John Roberts to suddenly come to Jesus and sanction the other SCOTUS members - I mean the ones who deserve to be sanctioned. He'll never do it.
republianmushroom
(22,324 posts)GB_RN
(3,560 posts)I remember reading about this several months ago. Then it quickly and quietly disappeared from the front pages. Its only making a comeback because of the huge steaming, stinking pile of shit that Clarence Uncle Slappy Thomas has left at Roberts feet
and the slightly smaller pile that Gorsuck just dropped there, too.
I guess the media felt like Roberts ethical issues couldnt be left alone in light of Uncle Slappy and Gorsuck. Wondering if theres yet another shoe to drop
elleng
(141,926 posts)'
GB_RN
(3,560 posts)I just know that this isn't a new revelation about our corrupt Chief (in)Justice and his wife.
Note to all: Not disparaging the OP. This is a news media issue.
BigmanPigman
(55,137 posts)when they assumed SCOTUS positions would be "a fair and balanced" part of our democracy. 2nd Amend issues and life long SCOTUS appointments with no checks is not what they anticipated in the 1780s.
bluestarone
(22,177 posts)How HUGE and corrupt RICH FUCKERS can get.
sanatanadharma
(4,089 posts)Today still, "good behavior" obviously means more than defined or legal behavior.
The legislature has power but lacks clarity, ethics, and spine.
Irish_Dem
(81,261 posts)RocRizzo55
(980 posts)Its just called contributions now.
Irish_Dem
(81,261 posts)2naSalit
(102,789 posts)Journeyman
(15,448 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,697 posts)Alexander Of Assyria
(7,839 posts)ashredux
(2,928 posts)It stinks to high heaven, along with the rest of the damn republican assholes on the court
xocetaceans
(4,442 posts)jmowreader
(53,193 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Mon May 1, 2023, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)
beerboy/hundreds of thousands of debts paid off/non-investigation by FBI of sexual assaults , Alito/my God, referencing 17th Cen. witch burner precedent in the Dobbs Abortion decison, Coney Barrett/the nature of her rushed confirmation by Moscow Mitch itself is corrupt.
So that's six out of six of the SCOTUS Taliban six IMO.
xocetaceans
(4,442 posts)My initial thought was six out of six, but it's good to have notes...
(to look back on.);
(upon which to look back.); or
(back upon which to look.).
Prescriptive grammar can make for some weird alterations in word order.
Sorry, if this last bit is flippant.
The majority of the court is corrupt and serving for life. Citizens United continues on as does the daily cost of Scalia's intentional misreading of "...well-regulated militia..." etc. as will the cost of the court's Dobbs decision (in spite of their confirmation-hearing lies regarding stare decisis). Not only all that is the problem, but they are relatively young.
brush
(61,033 posts)Thanks, McConnell, you SOB POS.
OMGWTF
(5,131 posts)Everyone repeat after me: IOKIYAR
Thunderbeast
(3,819 posts)Us plain folks don't understand the expected lifesyle for the folks like them who GOD clearly annointed with the beauty and wisdom to lead. We should not begrudge a little comfort...
Should we?
Where's my pitchfork? Can I buy a guillotine on Amazon?
yaesu
(9,327 posts)I thought we lived in a democracy
Aussie105
(7,920 posts)Or more like . . . here, have some money, and there is a topic we would like you to discuss with your husband?
How much corruption does $10.3 M buy you in the USA these days?
The Founding Fathers were too trusting. The Supreme Court isn't supreme, and it isn't a court.
in2herbs
(4,389 posts)located. Remember when TFG moved at least one govt agency in an effort to get rid of employees? Do it with the SC. Move it to Alaska where the winters are frigid cold and the justices would have to endure the inconvenience of long hours of travel to get to "civilization."
Otherwise, establish one or more branches of the Supreme Court elsewhere with these branches reducing the power of the collective nine. Locate these branches on both coasts. and the interior. This is how Biden could expand the court. And if the USSC says its unconsitutional -- F'em.
SomedayKindaLove
(1,180 posts)Dang, 10.3 million? I was only getting 100k a month off my grandma and a few vacation perks.
Grins
(9,459 posts)Old line about the Congregationalist missionaries that came to Hawaii to save the savages. They wound up with HUGE parts of the islands!
And now conservative Republicans doing the same.
Bullies! With perks from plunder.
Novara
(6,115 posts)ashredux
(2,928 posts)I can see the scene with the partners of a firm sitting around the table
Sure, why not
Well, is he qualified?
Who gives a damn!
How much is the fee to her firm?
Lead partner says, The cost is irrelevant. Long-term, we will make a ton of money.
msfiddlestix
(8,178 posts)perpetrated by people in the highest positions of power to be reported out. Silly question I know.
Shouldn't ask a question I know the answer to but regardless, I think the media should be confronted with this question as a matter of routine. Hard working investigating reporters who do the very risky ground work but their publishers refuse to publish it out until years after the fact meanwhile eff good governance and transparency.
.
ColinC
(11,098 posts)and outlaws further unethical conduct by all federal employees including SC judges. This bill should also involve setting the number of judges to the supreme court to the number of federal appeal courts.
malthaussen
(18,567 posts)There is no way a red-blooded ambitious American would turn away opportunities to make a buck. A little favor-trading greases the wheels. The people involved would be puzzled and outraged if it were called "corruption," for them it is just the facts of life.
-- Mal
Quanto Magnus
(1,347 posts)doesn't want to investigate Thomas or Gorsuch.... More scrutiny would be put on his graft too.
The regressive side of the court is showing just how corrupt they really are.
samsingh
(18,426 posts)Initech
(108,778 posts)Fuck the Fox News MAGA GQP Fundamentalist Christians Taliban. This is like genocide level evil. And it's not about kids, either. Kids are being used as a scapegoat. They have something far more sinister being planned. Fuck them all.
Hermit-The-Prog
(36,631 posts)Nice law firm ya got there. Be a shame if it never won another Supreme Court decision.
Mz Pip
(28,454 posts)My daughter in law is a federal prosecutor. She cannot even hold stock in any individual company. Mutual funds are okay but thats it.
When my son was an assistant district attorney he couldnt play music in a bar for money because of his position.
But 10.3 million is A OK for the wife of a SCOTUS judge.
RocRizzo55
(980 posts)Corrupt?
They really need to be kicked down a few notches.
Why doesnt Biden just pack the court?
Mysterian
(6,482 posts)and you're not a member.