Potential conflict of interest arises with latest Ezekiel Elliott ruling

A federal judge ruled in favor of the NFL on Monday and decided to lift the temporary restraining order that was blocking Ezekiel Elliott’s six-game suspension, and some questions are being raised about whether or not that judge was impartial.

Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio noticed on Tuesday that Judge Katherine Polk Failla, who decided that Elliott’s six-game ban should be reinstated, works for the law firm that represented the NFL when the latest collective bargaining agreement was negotiated.

“My husband is a partner at the law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP,” Judge Failla wrote in a judicial questionnaire she signed in 2012. I would recuse myself from any cases in which Proskauer Rose is a party or is representing a party.”

As Florio notes, Proskauer Rose LLP attorney Bob Batterman, who became known as “Lockout Bob,” was a key figure leading up to the 2011 NFL work stoppage. The league has retained Batterman’s services as recently as 2016, so there is still a fairly strong link there.

Technically, Failla was not required to recuse herself from Elliott’s case. Proskauer Rose LLP, the firm her husband works for, is not actively representing the NFL in Elliott’s case. However, Florio pointed out that the Canon 2 Code of Conduct for United States Judges encourages judges to avoid taking cases when “reasonable minds” could conclude that there are circumstances which may prevent a judge from being completely impartial.

There are probably a lot of angry Cowboys fans who would not fall under the umbrella of “reasonable minds.” However, you can understand why Judge Failla’s connection to the NFL might be seen as a less-than-ideal look.