Job Posting for Law Clerk for St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Courts

Announcement here.


The Law Clerk for the SRMT Court is responsible for researching and analyzing uniquely intricate, complex and sensitive legal issues and questions for SRMT Judges, assist SRMT Judges in evaluating cases filed with the Court, drafting and preparing proposed orders, decisions and opinions for SRMT Judges, and discussion of pending cases with the SRMT Judges.The Law Clerk will also provide other personal and confidential assistance to the Courts’ Judges.


  • Juris Doctorate degree (JD) from an accredited law school.
  • Experience with Tribal governments.
  • Work experience in federal Indian Law is preferred.

Federal Court Dismisses Effort to Enforce Billion-Dollar Judgment Against Harrah’s

But not on Indian law grounds — because the case was settled orally in 2003.

Vacco v Harrah’s DCT Order

An excerpt:

A balancing of the Winston factors tips decidedly in favor of the conclusion that a binding oral settlement agreement was reached on March 31, 2003 ending the litigation in this Court over the Tribal Court Judgment. “[T]o protect the parties appearing before it, to preserve the integrity of an action, to maintain its ability to render a final judgment and to ensure the administration of justice,” Haitian Ctrs., 817 F. Supp. at 337, the Court finds that the prior actions were finally dismissed by virtue of the oral settlement agreement entered on March 31, 2003. See Mone, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19445, 2001 WL 1518263, at *1 (finding that the action had been settled even though the formal stipulation was never submitted where defense counsel wrote the court confirming a conversation with the judge’s law clerk that the matter had been settled and stating that a formal stipulation would be drafted and forwarded to the court within three weeks); Van Ness, 129 A.D.2d at 932, 514 N.Y.S.2d at 571 (finding that an out-of-court oral agreement to settle as case was binding even though defendant never executed the general release and stipulation discontinuing the action forwarded by defendant counsel). Accordingly, because the subject matter of this action has been asserted in a prior action and settled by an oral agreement to end that matter with prejudice, Defendants’ motion must be granted and this action dismissed. The Court need not, and does not, reach the alternative arguments for dismissal.