Britney Spears's New Attorney Clerked For Justice Souter on the NH Supreme Court

Yet, for reasons unknown, he scrubbed that line from his firm biography.

Over the weekend, there were several reports that Britney Spears had retained Mathew Rosengart, a partner at GreenbergTraurig. I checked his firm page, and noticed that he had clerked for Justice Souter on the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Today, it appears that Spears has in fact retained Rosengart. I checked Rosengart's firm page again--and the clerkship for Justice Souter is missing!

Here is the version of the page on the Internet Archive, circa yesterday, July 12:

And here is the version of the page today:

Rosengart also made other edits to his bio. I have no clue why he would scrub the reference to Justice Souter.

No, I never thought I would write a blog post with "Justice Souter" and "Britney Spears" in the headline.

Update: The Internet Archive does a side-by-side comparison:

 

Comments

[dwb68]

idk.
The new bio emphasizes different things.

People tailor their resume all the time. I read the original bio as targeting corporate clients, the 2nd seems more geared to celebrity clients. I imagine a corporate client might care about an attorney's "connectedness" to a Supreme Court justice, a celebrity client would be like "Souter who?"

I don't see anything sinister, unless changing marketing is sinister.

He represents other celebrity clients so his bio was probably focus group tested, lol.

The more interesting legal question is whether he'll get appointed.

https://www.tmz.com/2021/07/13/britney-spears-lawyer-represent-conservatorship-matthew-rosengart/

"We're told Rosengart will make the argument Britney has a Constitutional right to the lawyer of her choice. Defendants in criminal cases have a Constitutional right to an attorney, but a conservatorship is not a criminal case. Thing is ... it's not a civil case either. It's a hybrid ... somewhere in between.

We're told Rosengart's argument goes like this ... Britney is entitled to due process, which includes the right to a competent lawyer, and a judge would be hard-pressed to conclude Rosengart doesn't have the legal chops to rep her. What's more ... he'll argue it's absurd for Jamie Spears to have the power to disapprove Britney's choice, because the very purpose of the representation is to get him out of the conservatorship."

It's hard for me to see how Rosengart doesn't get appointed.

But then again... maybe he took his clerkship off the bio in hopes the opposition would misunderestimate him.

[ReaderY]

I don’t understand the case to begin with. Conservatorship is for people completely incapable of managing their own affairs, comatose, dementia, extreme schizophrenia, stuff like that.

The fact that her father disageees with some of the choices she made in life, the fact that the judge or we might think them bad choices, doesn’t come anywhere near the level of the state having the power to declare her incompetent.

In Nazi Germany, commitment to a concentration camp was a civil matter, supposedly for the prisoner’s own good.

A definition of incompetence broad enough to ensnare Britney Spears would make concentration camps completely legal in this country.

After all, it’s hard to imagine clearer evidence of incompetence from an authoritarian leader’s point of view than opposing the Leader. If authoritarian style leaders get to drudge up evidence of bad choices as evidence of incompetence, they could doubtless get guardians appointed for many of of their political opponents, who would then agree to “voluntarily” commit them, all nice and legal.

Without strict safeguards to ensure that only the genuinely incompetent get ensnared, these laws can be very dangerous.

[DaivdBehar]

This requirement for extreme inability to make judgment, not for mere poor judgment is what I thought too. I would like to know more about the facts in the original guardianship hearing.

[rsteinmetz]

I understand she was treated 13 years ago, exactly for what seems to be a mystery and that was when the Conservatorship started. She may well have needed it then.

Since then she has been under the complete control of the various conservators but getting out of it seems to be the problem. Most of this seems to be sealed or private and telling what has gone on is difficult.

Reading the various press accounts of recent events it seems odd that her staff appear to refer to Jamie Spears as "daddy". He apparently sometimes refers to himself that way as well. If accurate that seems pretty creepy, especially considering her famous "Baby One More Time" video where she dressed in a school girl outfit.

[Dilan Esper]

The basic conflict is that the court system goes to great lengths to keep mental health information private (for very good reasons) so we have no idea what the basis for the conservatorship is. Presumably, the judge (Brenda Penny, who I have appeared before and who is a very smart judge) is getting regular updates under seal. I'd actually be very surprised if there isn't some huge red flag that is the reason why the Court has kept the conservatorship going- this is not done lightly and the notion that the courts just look the other way while Britney's relatives steal her money and minutely control her life is quite difficult to believe. Especially in such a high profile case.

[rsteinmetz]

Judge Penny was not the original judge. I'm not sure how long she has been handling this. It also seems possible that reports the court is getting are not entirely accurate.

[Dilan Esper]

It's possible, but again, it's a high profile case. Judges are cautious.

[ReaderY]

Also, your reason for the bio change seems plausible. Celebrities today would likely have never heard of or care about a decades-ago Supreme Court Justice.

[CJColucci]

That may be true, but they probably know that being a Supreme Court clerk, no matter the particular Justice, is a big deal.

[TwelveInchPianist]

They probably think it means you did his filing and got his mail and stuff.

[ReaderY]

He didn’t clerk for Souter as a Supreme Court Justice. He clerked for him while on the New Hampshire Supreme Court. You’d have to know who Souter was to know that this person later became a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

It also makes sense that celebrity clients wouldn’t know what a “clerk” is or see why being one would be a big deal, and just wouldn’t be impressed at somebody who filed papers and got coffee for some New Hampshire local judge or other.

[Dilan Esper]

I suspect many law firms would just say "clerked for Justice David Souter". 🙂

[AmosArch]

She might still be crazy but she's old enough to be allowed to ruin her own life.

[DaivdBehar]

In 1976, the lawyer profession took over psychiatry for rent seeking purposes and no other reason. This is a technical subject about which the lawyer knows nothing. Before, 2 unrelated doctors attested the patient had an untreated mental illness. The patient could be forced into involuntary treatment based on medical necessity. Each had a fiduciary responsibility. The consequences of any form of abuse or of bad faith by doctors was Draconian, for example, criminal charges of false imprisonment, not to mention malpractice litigation.

After that year, the lawyer added a requirement of a dangerous act, and a mental illness. A trial was to be held with jobs for 3 lawyers, the prosecutor, the defense lawyer and the dipshit in the middle. In most jurisdiction the judges were safety minded and took the advice of the doctors, In some Democrat jurisdictions, such trials became the Trial of the Century with an all out defense of the constitution.

Result? Massive surges in homelessness, in deaths of despair, from suicide, homicide, and drug overdoses. Homeless encampments of untreated, agitated, untreated paranoids dropped real estate values by a $trillion. Even wealthy cities became unlivable. Thank you, Supreme Court of the US, for this unmitigated by needless catastrophe.

[DaivdBehar]

That being said, even in the most conservative and safety minded jurisdictions, giving guardianship of an adult to another is extreme rare, extremely difficult, and extremely justified. One usually has to prove to the judge, the patient will die very soon unless decision making is taken away. All alternatives must prove ineffective, Power of Attorney, trusts, ordinary family support and supervision . In Brittney's case, the care of young children had to be considered. Sometimes, the case gets dramatic, with the judge witnessing dangerous behavior right in court.

Has anyone seen the facts that justified this extreme and rate remedy? Has anyone seen the status of these symptoms today, and whether guardianship remains justified? If the patients is compliant with treatment, and close to normal, the guardianship can be lifted.

It is very burdensome to be a guardian. One must post a bond. One is being harassed and second guessed by the judge about self dealing. It is a great sacrifice under most circumstances. Most patients are not wealthy as she is. The situation may be different in her case. In the cases of scandal and exploitation, the court had not exercised proper supervision of the guardian.

[Doug Heffernan]

In this case, the conservatorship, although ostensibly a typical guardianship, is really about conserving money.

If Spears was a waitress with a negative net worth, she'd probably just have to fend for herself like everybody else, because these conserving people don't work for free.

Also, if Spears was a waitress with a negative net worth, and she shaved her head and made a few slightly cuckoo remarks, probably nobody around her would have been given even momentary pause to consider the need to protect her money, if she had any.

[Krayt]

She shaved her head, reportedly, because she was under threat of losing her kids, "and they can find marijuana use history in your hair."

Anyway, if that's true, it makes the hair shaving logical and protective, not a sign of insanity.

[ReaderY]

Why should the law give a shit why she shaved her hair? What makes it the law’s business?

And I’ve said this as someone who thinks it’s constitutional for the law to do some very non-libertarian things.

[DaivdBehar]

We need the facts of the original guardianship hearing.

[DaivdBehar]

Given the prevalence of marijuana use, it is not a valid reason to lose custody of one's kids. Heavy drinking should be, but is not.

[DaivdBehar]

It makes her a good tactician, thinking ahead.

[rsteinmetz]

Sinead O’Connor shaved her head and nobody took over her life.

[gormadoc]

You mean Shuhada' Sadaqat. And nobody really wants her life.

[dwb68]

also, the ACLU has filed an amicus brief.

https://www.thewrap.com/britney-spears-aclu-conservatorship-amicus-brief/

[Doug Heffernan]

In order to avoid politics, to the extent possible, sometimes I run...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2LqF0FO8O4

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Are his hobbies reading books by a quiet fire on a frigid New England winter night and stabbing Republicans in the back on a warm June day in Washington DC??

[santamonica811]

If one is to engage in wild conspiracies, one should at least do it with elan and humor. And you did, Sebastian. A genuinely funny comment. 🙂

[apedad]

"I have no clue why he would scrub the reference to Justice Souter."

It looks like there's a word limit for that section so Brittany > Souter.

[Kristian H.]

Sanitizing social media before high profile event isn't unheard of, especially if the event is 'scheduled'.

That said, but did he really clerk for Souter?

[DodgerBobH]

I was wondering the same thing.

[Currentsitguy]

Well, after Kelo I probably wouldn't want my name associated with him either. 😉

[Law Prof John Banzhaf]

ANOTHER POTENTIALLY IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT

The ACLU and more than two dozen other civil and disability rights organization have just filed a friend-of-the-court [amicus] brief in support of Britney Spears and her fundamental reproductive and other rights.

It’s what I predicted, supported, and called for - those who were so publicly proclaiming that her rights were being violated should do more than simply complain, and suggesting amicus briefs as an effective remedy.

Some two weeks ago, I called out those who opined about the violations of Spears' fundamental rights but did nothing more to help her. I especially suggested that such individuals and organizations file an amicus brief, which has how occurred.

[SKofNJ]

My goodness, John, aren't you wonderful! And so influential as well!!

[gormadoc]

Excuse me, I was the one who convinced everyone to file briefs. I just knew that a poor unknown like Brittany Spears was too powerless and too dumb to do this on her own.

[SKofNJ]

My apology gormadoc. I should have realized that you were the true power behind the throne.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Britney Spears seems somewhat . . . limited with respect to judgment, education, character, and other desirable attributes. Her conduct -- so far as it is known -- may have justified limitations on exposure to children, at least for some period.

But Keith Richards never experienced conservatorship. Keith Moon never experienced conservatorship. Eric Clapton never experienced conservatorship. Marlon Brando . . . Charlie Sheen . . . Mike Tyson . . . Dennis Rodman . . . Kanye West . . . Mel Gibson . . . Nicholas Cage . . . Gary Busey . . .no conservatorship, so far as I am aware.

Britney Spears appears to have experienced a rough confluence of consequence, sexism, exploitation, and bad luck. I wish her well.