Skip to content Skip to footer

Chief Justice John Roberts’s Wife Made $10M Recruiting Lawyers for Top Firms

The revelation comes as John Roberts has rejected a request to testify in front of Congress on Supreme Court ethics.

Jane Sullivan Roberts (L), wife of Supreme Court Chief Justice Nominee John Roberts (R), wipes lipstick from Roberts's cheek after giving him a kiss at the end of the judge's testimony during confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee September 15, 2005 in Washington, D.C.

Just two years after John Roberts was confirmed as Supreme Court chief justice, his wife Jane Roberts began a career as a law recruiter — a move which netted the couple millions of dollars, a new report has revealed.

Records from Jane Roberts’s employer Major, Lindsey & Africa show that the lawyer-turned-recruiter made $10.3 million in commissions between 2007 and 2014. During that time, Roberts placed lawyers at top firms; though Insider, which first published the documents, found no evidence that the recruits had personally argued cases in front of her husband, it is likely that she placed clients in firms that have had business at the High Court.

This amount of compensation is at the higher end for legal recruiters, and experts say that Jane Roberts’s ability to perform as a recruiter — a job in which connections across the industry are invaluable — was likely boosted by her marriage to the highest-ranking judge in the U.S.

The details of Jane Roberts’s compensation were included in a complaint filed in December, with documents sent to congressional committees. The complaint was filed by Kendal B. Price, a colleague of Jane Roberts at Major, Lindsey & Africa.

“When I found out that the spouse of the chief justice was soliciting business from law firms, I knew immediately that it was wrong,” Price said in an interview with Insider. “During the time I was there, I was discouraged from ever raising the issue.”

“And I realized that even the law firms who were Jane’s clients had nowhere to go. They were being asked by the spouse of the chief justice for business worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there was no one to complain to,” Price continued. “Most of these firms were likely appearing or seeking to appear before the Supreme Court. It’s natural that they’d do anything they felt was necessary to be competitive.”

In financial disclosures, John Roberts characterized his wife’s compensation as salary rather than commission, which Price described in the affidavit as “misleading.” Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman went further and said that the alleged mischaracterization of the income is against disclosure laws.

“Characterizing Mrs. Roberts’ commissions as ‘salary’ is not merely factually incorrect; it is incorrect as a matter of law,” Gershman wrote in a memo supporting the complaint. “The legal distinction between these terms is clear, undisputed, and legally material. If the Chief Justice’s inaccurate financial disclosures were inadvertent, presumably he should file corrected and amended disclosures.”

Revelations over Jane Roberts’s commission add to a growing mountain of scandals and seeming improprieties about Supreme Court justices that have been reported in the past month, beginning with a bombshell investigation which revealed that Clarence Thomas has been secretly accepting hundreds of dollars’ worth of gifts and trips from billionaire GOP megadonor Harlan Crow and rubbing shoulders with influential conservative activists.

A report from Politico found that right-wing justice Neil Gorsuch received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the sale of a large piece of property to the CEO of a prominent law firm that has argued in front of the Supreme Court several times just days after Gorsuch was confirmed in 2017; seemingly in violation of reporting requirements, Gorsuch never disclosed the transaction, raising questions about conflicts of interest.

As these scandals have played out, John Roberts has refused a request to appear before the Senate in a hearing on the ethics of Supreme Court justices and even led all nine justices in a letter stating their opposition to being bound to a code of ethics. The judges’ response has contributed to a crisis of legitimacy for the Supreme Court in a time when it is bucking norms and lurching to the right.

Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn

Dear Truthout Community,

If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.

We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.

Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.

There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.

After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?

It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.

We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.

We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.

Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.

We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.

With love, rage, and solidarity,

Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy