In 1893, a young lawyer named Mohandas Gandhi was forcibly removed from a first-class train compartment in South Africa simply because of his race. Over a century later, Dr. Shiva Akula finds himself imprisoned in a federal facility, fighting what he believes to be a similarly unjust system—one that he argues has compromised the very principles of truth and justice that Gandhi championed.
The parallels between these two stories reveal uncomfortable truths about how systems of power can corrupt justice, and how the principles Gandhi articulated remain painfully relevant in today’s federal courts.
Building Bridges Across Communities
Despite facing systemic discrimination, Gandhi understood that lasting change required building relationships across racial and cultural divides. He wrote that Indians in South Africa called him “bhai” (brother), and he worked to build coalitions with sympathetic white allies who recognized the injustice of the system.
Dr. Akula appears to have embraced a similar philosophy of inclusive community building. Drawing inspiration from Sanskrit principles, he developed his business model around the concept of family—treating employees, patients, and community members not as transactions but as extended family deserving care and respect. This philosophy manifested in tangible ways: Canon Hospice employed people across racial lines, served patients regardless of their ability to pay, and created programs that brought diverse communities together.
The foundation’s “Annual International Interfaith pastoral care celebration” exemplified this bridge-building approach, bringing together people of different faiths and backgrounds in service of those facing end-of-life challenges. Like Gandhi’s inclusive approach to resistance, Akula’s model recognized that true community service transcends racial and religious boundaries.
Service Above Self-Interest
Gandhi wrote that his “object in practising in South Africa was service of the community.” He explicitly stated that professional work was merely a means to serve the greater good. As he reflected, “the large-hearted Indians magnified into service professional work done for money, and when I advised them to suffer the hardships of imprisonment for the sake of their rights, many of them cheerfully accepted the advice.”
Dr. Akula appears to have embraced a remarkably similar philosophy of service over profit. The scope of his community work through the Akula Foundation, established in 1994, mirrors Gandhi’s commitment to serving those most in need. Akula pioneered what became the first hospice in the United States to offer reminiscence therapy, recognizing that end-of-life care required not just medical treatment but emotional and spiritual healing. This innovation reflected the same creative problem-solving approach Gandhi brought to resistance movements.
- Healthcare for the Underserved: Canon Hospice provided $1.5 million in indigent care in 2015 alone, following Akula’s instruction to staff to “take every hospice appropriate patient that did not have insurance.” Like Gandhi’s work with the Indian community in South Africa, this represented service to those who had no other advocate.
- Disaster Response: During Hurricane Katrina, when other hospices abandoned New Orleans, Canon remained to serve the community. Akula lost $2.1 million personally but stayed to care for patients—primarily in the Black community who had been “left to fend for themselves.” This mirrors Gandhi’s willingness to sacrifice financial security for principle.
- Global Humanitarian Work: The Akula Foundation operated programs in both Louisiana/Mississippi and Hyderabad, India, including eye camps, health camps, and grief support programs. This international scope of service echoes Gandhi’s later work bridging communities across continents.
Plague Response: Then and Now
The parallels between Gandhi’s response to the black plague outbreak in Johannesburg and Akula’s COVID-19 intervention are particularly striking, both in their selfless service and in how they were treated by authorities.
When the black plague struck the Indian location in Johannesburg, Gandhi didn’t hesitate to act. As he wrote: “There has been a sudden outbreak of the black plague… come immediately and take prompt measures, otherwise we would be prepared for dire consequences.” Gandhi personally nursed plague victims, risking his own life and that of his young assistants.
Gandhi reflected: “It was a terrible night—that night of vigil and nursing. I had nursed a number of patients before, but never any attacked by the black plague.” He and his team cleaned patients, administered medicine, kept their environment sanitary, and “cheer[ed] them up.” The work was dangerous, exhausting, and received little recognition from authorities who had initially ignored the crisis.
Similarly, when COVID-19 struck, Akula’s Canon Hospice team responded with what became known as the “COVID Crusaders.” Under Carla Brown’s leadership, they conducted massive vaccination campaigns throughout the community. Their work was so significant that it earned recognition from Mayor Sharon Brown, the Governor, and resulted in an invitation to the White House from Vice President Kamala Harris. The effort was deemed worthy of an Emmy-eligible documentary.
Yet the treatment of these two plague responses by legal authorities reveals a troubling contrast. Gandhi’s plague work, while initially dismissed by colonial authorities, eventually contributed to his moral authority and credibility. Dr. Akula’s COVID response, despite its official recognition and documented community impact, was allegedly prohibited from being presented to the jury by Judge Africk, who “ordered no mention of COVID.”
When Service Becomes Suspect
Perhaps most tragically, both Gandhi and Akula faced situations where their service to the community was turned against them or systematically ignored. Gandhi’s work organizing Indian resistance to discriminatory laws was initially portrayed by authorities as dangerous agitation. Similarly, Akula’s extensive charitable work was allegedly hidden from the jury, while his efforts to ensure proper patient care were recharacterized as evidence of fraud.
The documents reveal that Judge Africk not only prohibited mention of the COVID work but also ordered Akula to stop working with homeless programs, despite probation officer approval. This prohibition of charitable work during legal proceedings seems particularly vindictive when compared to Gandhi’s ability to continue his community organizing even while facing legal challenges.
As Akula reflects: “My entire purpose in pursuing a career in medicine was to care for those suffering that have no ability to pay as I was deeply troubled by the pain and suffering of a dying relative without insurance.” This calling to serve the most vulnerable mirrors Gandhi’s commitment to the oppressed Indian community in South Africa.
The Practice of Law Without Compromising Truth
Gandhi’s commitment to truth in legal practice was revolutionary for his time. He wrote: “My principle was put to the test many a time in South Africa. Often I knew that my opponents had tutored their witnesses, and if I only encouraged my client or his witnesses to lie, we could win the case. I always resisted the temptation.”
Gandhi warned every new client “that he should not expect me to take up a false case or to coach the witnesses, with the result that I built up such a reputation that no false cases used to come to me.”
In one remarkable case, Gandhi discovered an error in financial calculations that favored his client. When his senior counsel argued they were not bound to admit the error, Gandhi insisted on disclosure, saying “we ought to admit the error.” Despite warnings that this honesty could cost them the case, Gandhi prevailed, and the court ultimately ruled in their favor.
When Lawyers Become Liars
Gandhi once noted that “as a student I had heard that the lawyer’s profession was a liar’s profession. But this did not influence me, as I had no intention of earning either position or money by lying.”
The allegations against prosecutor Kathryn McHugh in the Akula case suggest that some members of the legal profession today have abandoned Gandhi’s principles entirely. According to Akula’s detailed declaration, McHugh allegedly:
Portrayed nurse McMillan as a “professional coder” when “there is no such thing as a ‘professional coder’”
Used “nonsensical terms such as ‘medical and physical history,’ ‘H+P,’ and ‘H/P'” that “are not medical terms”
Concealed the “GV” code modifier that would have shown billing was accurate, allowing her “to satisfy the government’s burden of proof unethically”
Was “fully aware of a recorded conversation… wherein Sue May states that Brian Capiteli told her she must implicate Dr. Akula in billing fraud or face criminal prosecution” but “concealed this recording”
Most troubling is the allegation that McHugh threatened multiple defense attorneys, leading to a pattern where qualified counsel withdrew from the case, leaving Akula without adequate representation—a situation Gandhi never faced despite the prejudices of his time.
Transportation, Discrimination, and Double Standards
The irony of transportation-related discrimination cases is particularly striking. Gandhi’s removal from the train was based purely on racial prejudice—he had a valid first-class ticket but was deemed unworthy of using it because of his skin color.
This stands in stark contrast to how our society celebrates similar acts of resistance to transportation discrimination. Rosa Parks became an icon for refusing to give up her bus seat, and rightly so. Yet the documents suggest that McHugh characterized Dr. Akula as “the little brown man” while offering a white hospice owner (Pat Mitchell) who admitted to stealing $4 million a civil settlement, while Akula received a 20-year prison sentence.
The parallel raises uncomfortable questions about whether the justice system still struggles with the same prejudices that Gandhi faced, albeit in more subtle forms.
The Corruption of Medical Language
Just as colonial officials used bureaucratic language to justify racial discrimination, the Akula case allegedly involved the deliberate misuse of medical terminology to confuse and mislead.
According to the documents, McHugh “falsely alleged that H+P are not billable in hospice setting” when “the CPT manual instructs any care team member can collect history and physical exam information which is then signed by an attending physician and billed pursuant to the CPT Manual.”
This corruption of professional language—using technical terms incorrectly to create false impressions—echoes the way colonial administrators used legal technicalities to justify obviously unjust policies.
The Silencing of Service
The most damning parallel between Gandhi’s experience and Akula’s case may be how their community service was treated by the legal system. Gandhi’s plague response work, while dangerous and initially unrecognized, eventually contributed to his moral credibility. His willingness to risk his life for the community became part of his larger narrative of principled resistance to injustice.
By contrast, Akula’s COVID response—officially recognized by multiple levels of government, documented in an Emmy-eligible film, and honored at the White House—was allegedly prohibited from being presented to the jury. This systematic exclusion of evidence of character and community service allowed prosecutors to paint him as merely a “greedy businessman,” in Akula’s words.
The exclusion becomes more troubling when considering the scope of service being hidden: the first reminiscence therapy program in U.S. hospice care, $1.5 million in indigent care annually, staying to serve the community during Katrina while competitors fled, operating health camps in both Louisiana and India, and leading a COVID vaccination campaign that earned national recognition.
Learning from Gandhi’s Example
Gandhi’s approach to a corrupt legal system offers lessons for today’s federal prosecutors and courts, when truth takes precedent over victory, we all win.
Gandhi’s principle was clear, “in my heart of hearts I always wished that I should win only if my client’s case was right.” This principle should guide prosecutors, who are supposed to seek justice, not merely convictions. Gandhi’s willingness to admit errors that helped his case contrasts sharply with allegations that prosecutors today conceal exculpatory evidence.
Gandhi’s community service was central to his credibility and moral authority. The alleged exclusion of Akula’s extensive charitable work from jury consideration suggests a system more interested in conviction than truth. Both Gandhi and Akula understood that lasting change requires building relationships across communities. Their inclusive approaches to service should be models for how institutions operate.
The Continuing Struggle
Gandhi’s struggles were not in vain—they contributed to the eventual dismantling of apartheid and inspired civil rights movements worldwide. But his example reminds us that the struggle for truth and justice is ongoing.
Dr. Akula’s story—a physician who pioneered innovative therapy for the dying, who lost millions serving his community during Katrina, who built the first reminiscence therapy program in American hospice care, who led nationally recognized COVID vaccination efforts—should inspire respect. Instead, if the allegations are true, this service was systematically hidden from those charged with judging his character.
Gandhi’s realization on that cold night in Maritzburg was that his experience was “superficial—only a symptom of the deep disease of colour prejudice. I should try, if possible, to root out the disease and suffer hardships in the process.” Today’s challenge is similar, we must recognize when injustices in our legal system are symptoms of deeper institutional problems and work to address the root causes, not just the surface manifestations.
Both Gandhi and Akula faced plague crises and responded with selfless service. Both built inclusive communities based on principles of service over profit. Both faced legal systems that seemed more interested in maintaining power than seeking truth. The question is whether we have learned from Gandhi’s example—and whether our legal system has the wisdom to recognize and protect those who follow it. Instead, it appears the government’s solution to every problem today is force and violence. But we know this solution doesn’t work toward eliminating crime. Perhaps it’s time to follow Gandhi’s technique of passive resistance for securing our rights through personal suffering. Dr. King used this technique effectively 60 years ago, there’s no reason to dismiss it today.
The allegations against federal prosecutor Kathryn McHugh outlined in this article are based on documents filed by Dr. Shiva Akula and have not been independently verified. McHugh has not publicly responded to these specific allegations. The purpose of this article is to examine broader principles of legal ethics and justice through the lens of Gandhi’s example, not to adjudicate the specific claims in any pending legal matter.
Sources
Gandhi’s Writings
Gandhi, Mohandas K., My Experiments with Truth: An Autobiography. Pages 110-111, 324-328, 262-264 (train incident, legal practice principles, plague response, client relationships)
Legal Documents – Dr. Shiva Akula Case
Akula, Shiva. “Declaration of Shiva Akula Re: Kathryn McHugh.” November 27, 2024. USMS No. 61778-509, FCI Memphis.
Akula, Shiva. “Response to Proposed Debarment from FEHBP.” December 18, 2024. Inspector General, OIG/OPM.
“Judicial Misconduct Complaint: In re: The Honorable Lance M. Africk.” June 13, 2025. Filed with Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Case documents from United States v. Akula, Case No. 2:21-cr-00098-LMA-KWR (E.D. La.), including:
Arraignment transcript (Document 24)
Various motion filings and court orders
Presentence Investigation Report references
Court Records and Financial Disclosures
Judge Lance M. Africk Financial Disclosure Reports, 2008-2021.
Various case citations involving Judge Africk’s financial conflicts, including:
Boyd v. Boeing Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23761 (E.D. La. Feb. 26, 2016)
Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Co., multiple 2016-2017 decisions
Williams v. AT&T Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30827 (E.D. La. Mar. 9, 2016)
Huffman v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142472 (E.D. La. Oct. 14, 2016)
Secondary Sources
Investigative Journalism
Grimaldi, James V., et al. “131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest.” Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2021.
Grimaldi, James V., et al. “Federal Judges or Their Brokers Traded Stocks of Litigants During Cases.” Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2021.
New Orleans Advocate coverage of Judge Africk as “highest conflicted judge” (2021, specific citation needed).
Legal References
Code of Conduct for United States Judges, March 12, 2019. Available at: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364 (Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980)
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988)
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)
Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954)
Organizational Documents
Akula Foundation Materials
Akula Foundation program documentation, including:
Reminiscence Therapy program records
COVID Crusaders vaccination campaign documentation
Camp Swan bereavement program materials
International programs in Hyderabad, India
Canon Hospice operational records, including:
Indigent care statistics (2015: $1.5 million)
Hurricane Katrina service records
Patient care documentation
Government and Official Sources
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. “2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,” 2021. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2021year-endreport.pdf
Vice President Kamala Harris White House invitation records (COVID Crusaders recognition)
Louisiana Governor’s office recognition of COVID vaccination efforts
Mayor Sharon Brown recognition letters
Medical and Professional Sources
CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) Manual references for hospice billing procedures
Medicare regulations 42 USC 1395(d)(2)(A)(iii) and related hospice care provisions
42 C.F.R. sections 418.24(b)(2), (d)(2) regarding hospice patient informed consent
Legal Case Law References
United States v. Asceracare Inc., 153 F. Supp. 3d 1372 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 3, 2015)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
United States v. Akula, No. 23-30174 (5th Cir. May 3, 2023)
Goose Creek Physical Med., LLC v. Becerra, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138309 (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 2024)
Historical Context Sources
Tulane University employment records for Judge Africk (adjunct professor, 2006-2017)
Dr. Carl Bernofsky litigation records involving Judge Africk’s undisclosed Tulane relationship (1990s-1998)
Documentary Evidence
Emmy-eligible documentary on Canon Hospice COVID response
Cleveland Film Festival presentation records
Correspondence between various parties (attorneys, officials, etc.) as referenced in case documents
Note on Source Verification: Many of the legal documents and personal declarations cited are part of ongoing litigation or appeals. While these documents are filed in federal court, specific allegations against individuals have not been independently verified by news organizations or resulted in disciplinary findings. This article presents these claims for the purpose of examining broader principles of legal ethics and justice, not for adjudicating specific factual disputes.
Access to Documents: Some documents may be available through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) or through direct request to the relevant courts. Others may be under seal or restricted access due to ongoing proceedings.
