Bill Overview
Title: Leak and Lose Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes federal criminal offenses for acts involving the concealment, removal, or destruction of an opinion or draft opinion of the Supreme Court before it is published. Specifically, the bill prohibits the willful and unlawful (1) concealment, removal, mutilation, obliteration, or destruction of an opinion or draft opinion; (2) attempt to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate, or destroy an opinion or draft opinion; and (3) taking or carrying away of an opinion or draft opinion with the intent to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate, or destroy. An individual who violates the prohibition is subject to a $5,000 fine and, if applicable, the permanent forfeiture of his or her admission to federal courts for the practice of law.
Sponsors: Rep. Timmons, William R. IV [R-SC-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals with access to Supreme Court draft opinions or opinions
Estimated Size: 250
- The Leak and Lose Act of 2022 primarily affects individuals with direct access to Supreme Court documents, such as clerks, justices, secretaries, and potentially others working within the Supreme Court or involved in the process of handling draft opinions.
- The actual direct population impacted is very small as it primarily includes a limited number of Supreme Court staff and justices, who are the ones handling opinions and draft opinions.
- The potential loss of admission to federal courts for practicing law indicates that this law would impact legal professionals, which might indirectly influence how law firms and their employees handle information.
Reasoning
- The policy is tailored to address a highly niche audience within the legal system: those who handle Supreme Court documents. In the larger population, there will be minimal, if any, direct impact on individuals who do not deal with such documents.
- Due to the stringent requirements of handling such sensitive documents, the estimated number of individuals directly affected is around 250, based on the niche job roles within the Supreme Court.
- The penalties of this policy focus on legal professionals, so its impact is primarily within the judicial sector, particularly affecting those handling legal documents.
- Legal professionals possibly affected by this policy might have varying reactions based on their proximity to working with Supreme Court documents. Those indirectly working in legal services may experience secondary concerns like changes in standard operating procedures.
Simulated Interviews
Supreme Court Clerk (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy adds pressure, as any mistake could result in severe penalties.
- I understand the need for confidentiality, but the fear of harsh penalties could affect our work environment negatively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Law Firm Partner (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't directly impact me unless the firm is handling Supreme Court cases.
- However, we will need to tighten our internal protocols to ensure no risks are involved in handling any kind of federal case documents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Federal Court Reporter (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy won't directly affect my reporting job, but it may reduce leaks and access to draft information.
- It could make my job a bit harder in terms of getting insider information for stories.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Legal Consultant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's an indirect effect as I will need to ensure my clients are aware of this law when handling legal documents to avoid liability risks.
- Peoples' fear of legal penalties might increase business as clients will seek consultancy more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Judge (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the necessity of this policy in protecting judicial integrity, but I am unaffected personally as I'm retired.
- It's important to preserve confidentiality within the highest court, and this policy enforces that effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Law School Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a critical case study for students to learn about legal mandates and their implications.
- It won't impact my work directly, but enriches my teaching material significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Paralegal (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our firm doesn't handle Supreme Court documents, so the law won't directly affect my job.
- Still, it's essential to stay informed about these changes because policies can affect legal practices generally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Law Student (Missoula, MT)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law creates a clear boundary on what's legal regarding handling court documents, something I'll need to consider post-graduation.
- It gives a real-world example of the consequences of mishandling legal materials which is educational.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
IT Security Specialist (Houston, TX)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There may be increased demand for IT security services in legal firms to prevent any unintended leaks.
- Indirectly, my job will feel positive impacts as more clients tighten their security on document handling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Supreme Court Justice Aide (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's increased stress in handling documents, ensuring no mistakes with this policy in place.
- While it strengthens confidentiality, the risk of penalties is quite stressful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The federal criminalization of these acts creates deterrence but does not involve significant ongoing expenditures.
- The risk of fines being imposed is limited by the expected low incidence rate of violations due to the small affected population.