Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  4 Former Justices Would Likely Frown On Litigation Funding

  

  As courts increasingly confront cases involving hidden litigation finance contracts, the jurisprudence of four former U.S. Supreme Court justices establishes a constitutional framework that risks erosion by undisclosed financial interests, says Roland Eisenhuth at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association.

• Quantifying Trading-Based Damages Using Price Impact

  

  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will likely increasingly rely on price impact analyses to demonstrate pecuniary harm from trading-related misconduct, meaning measuring price impact will be helpful in challenging SEC disgorgement, determining appropriate remedies, and assessing loss causation and damages in private litigation, says Vyacheslav Fos at Boston College and Erin Smith at Compass Lexecon.

• How Attys Can Use AI To Surface Narratives In E-Discovery

  

  E-discovery has reached a turning point where document review is no longer just about procedural tasks like identifying relevance and redacting privilege — rather, generative artificial intelligence tools now allow attorneys to draw connections, extract meaning and tell a coherent story, says Rose Jones at Hilgers Graben.

• How McKesson Ruling Will Inform Interpretations Of The TCPA

  

  Amid the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson, we can expect to see both plaintiffs and defendants utilizing the decision to revisit the Federal Communications Commission's past Telephone Consumer Protection Act interpretations and decisions they did not like, says Jason McElroy at Saul Ewing.

• Justices Rethink Minimum Contacts For Foreign Entities

  

  Two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Devas v. Antrix and Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, suggest that federal statutes may confer personal jurisdiction over foreign entities that have little to no contact with the U.S. — a significant departure from traditional due process principles, says Gary Shaw at Pillsbury.

• Opinion

  High Court Must Overrule Outdated Patent Eligibility Doctrine

  

  A certiorari petition should directly ask the U.S. Supreme Court to correct its 1972 patent decision in Gottschalk v. Benson, the critical point where patent eligibility law veered from the statutory text toward judicial policymaking, says Robert Greenspoon at Dunlap Bennett.

• Examining TCPA Jurisprudence A Year After Loper Bright

  

  One year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, lower court decisions demonstrate that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act will continue to evolve as long-standing interpretations of the act are analyzed with a fresh lens, says Aaron Gallardo at Kilpatrick.

• Gauging The Risky Business Of Business Risk Disclosures

  

  With the recent rise of securities fraud actions based on external events — like a data breach or environmental disaster — that drive down stock prices, risk disclosures have become more of a sword for the plaintiffs bar than a shield for public companies, now the subject of a growing circuit split, say attorneys at A&O Shearman.

• How Justices' Ruling Limits Options To Challenge DHS Orders

  

  In Riley v. Bondi, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a 30-day deadline for challenging deportation orders begins when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issues a final administrative review order, opening the door for the government to effectively bar circuit court review in future similar cases, says Kevin Gregg at Kurzban Kurzban.

• Series

  Playing The Violin Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Playing violin in a string quartet reminds me that flexibility, ambition, strong listening skills, thoughtful leadership and intentional collaboration are all keys to a successful legal practice, says Julie Park at MoFo.

• Purdue Case Could Transform Patent Obviousness Analyses

  

  If accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, Purdue Pharma v. Accord Healthcare — concerning whether Purdue's abuse-deterrent opioid formulation patents were invalid as obvious — could significantly shift how courts weigh secondary considerations in patent obviousness analyses, say attorneys at Lathrop.

• NM Cyber Ruling Will Spur Litigation As Coverage Remedy

  

  In Kane v. Beazley, the New Mexico Court of Appeals recently found that a cyber liability provision insuring security breaches included coverage for funds transfer fraud, implicitly and incorrectly motivating policyholders to commence litigation to avoid contractual limitations on cyber coverages, say attorneys at Zelle.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: Practicing Self-Care

  

  Law schools don’t teach the mental, physical and emotional health maintenance tools necessary to deal with the profession's many demands, but practicing self-care is an important key to success that can help to improve focus, manage stress and reduce burnout, says Rachel Leonard​​​​​​​ at MG+M.

• Texas' Cactus Ruling Clarifies 'Produced Water' Rules

  

  The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Cactus Water Services v. COG Operating, holding that mineral interest lessees have the rights to water extracted alongside oil and gas, should benefit industry players by clarifying the rules — but it leaves important questions about royalties unresolved, say attorneys at Yetter Coleman.

• ABA Opinion Makes It A Bit Easier To Drop A 'Hot Potato'

  

  The American Bar Association's recent ethics opinion clarifies when attorneys may terminate clients without good cause, though courts may still disqualify a lawyer who drops a client like a hot potato, so sending a closeout letter is always a best practice, say attorneys at Thompson Hine.