I wanted to provide some context/color on what it means to use the wrong DC Bar number and whether thats a big deal. In short - the Bar Number itself is a minor issue. The bigger issue - that the story misses - is who will be in a position to file a corrected motion. 1/14 https://twitter.com/evanperez/status/1259218855563612170

Ordinarily when a lawyer files a motion with a court he or she needs to identify themselves. Motions filed by a US Attorney's office are always signed first by the US Attorney followed by the AUSAs (usually the ones that actually wrote the motion). 2/14

Here is an example from the Flynn case in January (before Jessie Liu left). You can see that Liu is the first name on the signature block followed by the /s/ electronic signature (more on that later), then AUSAs Van Grack and Ballantine. 3/14

After Tim Shea became US Attorney, he did this as well. Here is an example from February. Signed by Shea with his correct (I assume) Bar Number and electronic signature by Ballantine. 4/14

The issue identified in the article is that the Motion to Withdraw is signed by Shea, but uses Liu's Bar number 472845. That's a sloppy mistake probably from using an old motion as a model, but I don't think its a big deal (and ordinarily I doubt a court would catch it). 5/14

The article notes that Shea isn't admitted to the District Court of DC where the filing was made. But that's not actually a problem. The local rules (44.1(e)) say that lawyers for the government don't have to be admitted (or pro hac'ed to file. 6/14

So ordinarily, you'd just fix the motion (if anyone noticed) and go on your way. But there is potentially a bigger problem. The article mentioned, but didn't seem to get the implication, that the motion was submitted under the ECF credentials of Ballantine. 7/14

Here is the docket text showing Ballantine filed the document. But as you saw above, only Shea signed the motion itself. Under the local rules, you are only allowed to electronically sign documents if you file the document under your ECF credentials. 8/14

Believe it or not this is actually a big deal. The clerks' offices consider documents like this unsigned and deficient. Basically every young attorney I know has filed a document under his or her own ECF number, but didn't put their name in the signature block. 9/14

They are regularly kicked back by the Court. Usually it doesn't get to a judge, someone from the clerk's office rejects the filing and the young attorney spends a full day certain they are going to get fired for it. Then it gets corrected and everything is fine. 10/14

But here, Shea doesn't have an ECF account for the district court (because he's not admitted), so he can't just file under his own ECF account. The normal way to fix this would be to add an attorney with an appearance in the case to the signature block. But who to add? 11/14

Obviously it would be simplest to add Ballantine to the signature block and let her refile the document. But if she refused to sign the motion (like Van Grack apparently did) then thats not an option. The fact that its filed under her name doesn't mean she agreed with it. 12/14

In every office I've ever worked, attorneys don't file their own documents. Most don't know how to use ECF. Rather an assistant has everyones' passwords and just logs in and files using the last filer's credentials. It wouldn't surprise me if that happened here. 13/14

So if the clerk kicks the motion back and Ballantine refuses to sign, they'll need to find another attorney to sign and file. That attorney will first have to file a notice of appearance and then they can file the document. Again doable, but a mess. 14/14