Expert Analysis

• Forecasting The Impact Of High Court Debit Card Rule Case

  

  John Delionado and Aidan Gross at Hunton consider how the U.S. Supreme Court's forthcoming ruling in a retailer's suit challenging a Federal Reserve rule on debit card swipe fees could affect agency regulations both new and old, as well as the businesses that might seek to challenge them.

• The Case For Post-Bar Clerk Training Programs At Law Firms

  

  In today's competitive legal hiring market, an intentionally designed training program for law school graduates awaiting bar admission can be an effective way of creating a pipeline of qualified candidates, says Brent Daub at Gilson Daub.

• What SEC Retreat In Ripple Case Means For Crypto Regulation

  

  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has chosen a regulation-by-enforcement approach to cryptocurrency policy rather than through rulemaking, but the agency's recently aborted enforcement action against two Ripple Labs executives for alleged securities law violations demonstrates the limits of this piecemeal tactic, says Keith Blackman at Bracewell.

• Why Employers Should Refrain From 'Quiet Firing'

  

  While quiet firing — when an employer deliberately makes working conditions intolerable with the goal of forcing an employee to quit — has recently been identified in the news as a new trend, such constructive discharge tactics have been around for ages, and employers would do well to remember that, comparatively, direct firings may provide more legal protection, says Robin Shea at Constangy.

• Opinion

  A Telecom Attorney's Defense Of The Chevron Doctrine

  

  The Chevron doctrine, which requires judicial deference to federal regulators, is under attack in two U.S. Supreme Court cases — and while most telecom attorneys likely agree that the Federal Communications Commission is guilty of overrelying on it, the problem is not the doctrine itself, says Carl Northrop at Telecommunications Law Professionals.

• Attorneys Have An Ethical Duty To Protect The Judiciary

  

  The tenor of public disagreement and debate has become increasingly hostile against judges, and though the legislative branch is trying to ameliorate this safety gap, lawyers have a moral imperative and professional requirement to stand with judges in defusing attacks against them and their rulings, says Deborah Winokur at Cozen O'Connor.

• Ga. Appeal Shows Benefits Of Questioning Jury Instructions

  

  A Georgia Court of Appeals’ October decision, holding a trial court erred in using pattern jury instructions that refer to a long-repealed standard of evidence, underscores the importance of scrutinizing language in established jury instructions and seizing the opportunity to push back against outdated patterns, say attorneys at Troutman Pepper.

• Perspectives

  In Culley, Justices Unlikely To Set New Forfeiture Standards

  

  As the U.S. Supreme Court considers Culley v. Marshall — a case with the potential to reshape civil asset forfeiture practices — the justices' recent comments at oral argument suggest that, while some of them may be concerned about civil forfeiture abuse, they are unlikely to significantly change the status quo, say attorneys at Jackson Walker.

• 'Trump Too Small' Args Show Justices Inclined To Reverse

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the "Trump Too Small" trademark case Vidal v. Elster — and the tenor of the justices' feedback makes it clear that the refusal to register a mark under the Lanham Act most likely does not violate free speech rights, as opposed to the Federal Circuit's decision last year, says Brian Brookey at Tucker Ellis.

• When Courts Engage In Fact-Finding At The Pleading Stage

  

  It remains to be seen whether the Ninth Circuit's pleading-stage factual determination in a securities class action against Nvidia was sui generis or part of a trend, but the court has created a template for district courts to follow, says Jared Kopel at Alto Litigation.

• 9th Circ. ERISA Ruling Informs DOL's New Fiduciary Proposal

  

  The Ninth Circuit's reasoning in its recent Bugielski v. AT&T decision illustrates the importance of the U.S. Department of Labor's proposals to expand the reach of Employee Retirement Income Security Act third-party compensation disclosure rules and their effect on investment adviser fiduciaries, says Jeff Mamorsky at Cohen & Buckmann.

• AI Can Help Lawyers Overcome The Programming Barrier

  

  Legal professionals without programming expertise can use generative artificial intelligence to harness the power of automation and other technology solutions to streamline their work, without the steep learning curve traditionally associated with coding, says George Zalepa at Greenberg Traurig.

• Total Stay Of CFPB Small Biz Data Rule Is Boon To Lenders

  

  The Southern District of Texas’ nationwide halt of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Small Business Lending Rule would end if the CFPB wins a pending U.S. Supreme Court case, but the interim pause allows valuable extra time for financial institutions to plan their compliance strategies, say attorneys at Greenberg Traurig.

• What To Expect After Colo. Nixes Special Standing Rules

  

  Two recent Colorado Supreme Court decisions have abandoned a test to preclude standing in lawsuits challenging government decisions brought by subordinate government entities, which will likely lead to an admixture of results, including opening the door to additional legal challenges between government entities, says John Crisham at Crisham & Holman.

• Harvard's Broker Fight Shows Active Risk Management Is Key

  

  Harvard University’s recently filed suit against its insurance broker for alleged malpractice in handling the Students for Fair Admissions claim illustrates that risk management requires the concerted effort of policyholders, brokers and insurers to protect against disastrous losses, say William McMichael and David Klein at Pillsbury.