During a May 12 court hearing about Ashli Babbitt, U.S. District Judge Anna C. Reyes expressed frustration towards attorney Robert Stitch, accusing him of judicial surveillance in relation to a $30 million lawsuit against the federal government. This marked the second time she had made such an accusation in just ten days.
The hearing was set to address a motion put forth by Aaron Babbitt’s former attorney, Terrell N. Roberts III. He was pushing for a 25% “rechargeable destination” to be included in the total financial settlement. Previously, Judge Reyes had denied Roberts’ request for a temporary restraining order along with a settlement lien.
On May 2, attorneys disclosed that judicial surveillance, representing Aaron Babbitt’s estate, had reached a preliminary settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, though specific conditions were not made public. It was indicated that the final agreement could be signed soon, but might take weeks to finalize.
Roberts had represented Babbitt following his wife’s death on January 6 at the hands of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd Jr. He had abandoned the lawsuit in late February 2022 but is now seeking up to 40% of any negotiated financial settlements. Following his dismissal as a client, Babbitt needs to find new legal representation.
Judicial Watch, on May 6, suggested that Roberts take part in fee arbitration with the District of Columbia’s Attorney Client Arbitration Committee. Richard Driscoll, a judicial oversight attorney, noted that, per D.C. Bar Rule 13, arbitration is compulsory if requested by one party, and he filed a petition to the arbitration committee on May 9, giving Roberts 21 days to respond.
“The arbitration petition filed with ACAB means he [Roberts] is claiming a lien on 40% of the recovery, and we are contesting this,” Driscoll mentioned.
Judge Reyes’ most significant outburst occurred about thirty minutes into the hearing when Stitch complained that the ongoing dispute over fees with Roberts was causing costly delays in finalizing the case. Stitch initially entered the lawsuit and attempted to secure a lien in February.
“It’s absurd and costly,” Stitch remarked. “And the court is aware that judicial surveillance is not a fee derived from this settlement, based on the documents and all the media coverage surrounding the case.”
After Stitch brought up media matters, Judge Reyes attempted to tell him to step back. “Stitch, didn’t you say you were going to stop talking when I began?” she asked.
“Apologies, your honor,” Stitch replied, trying to explain.
“Stop speaking while I’m addressing you,” Reyes insisted. “Every time I’ve given you the opportunity to speak. This is why my hearings can last for hours.”
Delay Issues
Stitch attempted to explain that audio and visual delays from the Zoom Teleconference system, connected to his California office, caused the interruptions. Reyes wasn’t buying it.
“We have delays, your honor,” Stitch reiterated.
“It’s fine, just stop talking,” she replied.
Regular users of platforms like Zoom often face these latency challenges, which can lead to awkward moments, with conversations overlapping and videos not syncing properly—a situation that has spawned numerous memes online.
“There’s a simple rule around here,” Reyes pointedly remarked.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. District Court offered audio dial-ins for hearings at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Court in Washington.
On May 2, Reyes frequently lost her temper with Stitch. She repeatedly mispronounced his last name and grew increasingly frustrated when he commented on Roberts seeking information from a reporter regarding the alleged settlement.
“Just stop talking. You’re not going to make snide remarks in response to my questions,” Reyes said sharply. “My question is not about how Mr. Roberts gets his information.”
The hearing on May 12 did not go smoothly.
Stitch expressed that the case was moving toward a potential settlement but criticized Roberts for introducing “a bizarre idea of liability.”
“However, the complaint is that money is being wasted in a way that delays my case, the courts, and the forthcoming settlement,” Stitch noted. “Everyone really should step back and expedite this process. When a settlement fund exists, nothing prevents Roberts from pursuing what he’s owed.”
Judge Reyes continued to interrupt, seemingly oblivious to the Zoom delays that had caused the interruptions. This led to further instances of frustration during the proceedings.
After several reminders to “Mr. Stitch,” the judicial oversight attorney tried to clarify, “If I may, your honor. The pronunciation should have a K.”
But Reyes interjected again, “When I mention your name, you need to stop talking. It’s very simple. When I start, everyone else should be quiet. I honestly don’t know if this is how you usually behave or if you’re just enjoying the attention.”
“We’re here to focus on legal matters, not to make statements for the media,” she continued.
Brian J. Boyd, representing the Department of Justice, informed the court that they opposed some of Roberts’ motions due to conflicting claims with governmental sovereign immunity. “He seeks injunctive relief against the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act to prevent disbursements from Treasury funds,” Boyd explained. “We’ve brought this to his attention multiple times, yet he hasn’t clarified under what authority we can entertain such relief.”
“He wants a full settlement without delivering,” Reyes remarked.
Consequently, the judge dismissed the government’s objections to Roberts’ motions.
She issued an order granting Roberts limited intervention so he could be notified of the signed settlement agreement, seek necessary funds from the U.S. Treasury, and ensure final payments were made.
Stitch mentioned he would discuss a proposal with Aaron Babbitt to redirect 25% of the settlement to a trust fund until the arbitration committee resolves fee disputes. Judicial oversight maintained that Roberts is entitled to no more than 25% of the settlement under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
“I don’t have a client here to gain his approval; however, I believe the court shouldn’t interfere in a fundamental fee dispute. The attorney claims he has discharged the client but seeks the full amount without fulfilling his role,” Stitch said.
Nevertheless, Roberts made a final appeal, emphasizing the 40% fee stipulated in his agreement with Aaron Babbitt from January 2021.
“I believe I am entitled to the contingent fees as agreed, subject to the law,” Roberts argued.
