Reel Justice: 'One Battle After Another' And The Limits Of Zeal

The political thriller “One Battle After Another,” following a former revolutionary who became a recluse, offers a potent metaphor for attorneys on diligence and the ethical boundaries of zealous advocacy, says Veronica Finkelstein at Wilmington University School of Law.

Series

Traveling Solo Makes Me A Better Lawyer

Traveling by myself has taught me to assess risk, understand tone and stay calm in high-pressure situations, which are not only useful life skills, but the foundation of how I support my clients, says Lacey Gutierrez at Group Five Legal.

6th Circ. FirstEnergy Ruling Protects Key Legal Privileges

The Sixth Circuit’s recent grant of mandamus relief in In re: First Energy Corp. confirms that the attorney-client privilege and work-product protections apply to internal investigation materials, ultimately advancing the public interest, say attorneys at Cooley.

Opinion

Courts Must Continue Protecting Plaintiffs In Mass Arbitration

In recent years, many companies have imposed onerous protocols that function to frustrate plaintiffs' ability to seek justice through mass arbitration, but a series of welcome court decisions in recent months indicate that the pendulum might be swinging back toward plaintiffs, say Raphael Janove and Sasha Jones at Janove Law.

Series

Law School's Missed Lessons: Client Service

Law school teaches you how to interpret the law, but it doesn't teach you some of the key ways to keeping clients satisfied, lessons that I've learned in the most unexpected of places: a book on how to be a butler, says Gregory Ramos at Armstrong Teasdale.

Loper Bright's Evolving Application In Labor Case Appeals

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which upended decades of precedent requiring courts to defer to agency interpretations of federal regulations, the Third and Sixth Circuits' differing approaches leave little certainty as to which employment regulations remain in play, say attorneys at Foley & Lardner.

Mass. Ruling May Pave New Avenue To Target Subpoenas

A Massachusetts federal court’s recent decision to quash a subpoena seeking information on gender-affirming care at Boston Children’s Hospital is a significant departure from courts' deferential approach to subpoena enforcement, and may open a new pathway for practitioners challenging investigative tools in the future, say attorneys at Gibson Dunn.

Where 4th And 9th Circ. Diverge On Trade Secret Timing

Recent Fourth and Ninth Circuit decisions have revealed a deepening circuit split over when plaintiffs must specifically define their alleged trade secrets, turning the early stages of trade secret litigation into a key battleground and elevating the importance of forum selection, say attorneys at Skadden.

What Justices' Bowe Ruling Could Mean For Federal Prisoners

Bowe v. U.S. — set for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 14 — presents the high court with two consequential questions about the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's successive-petition regime that will be immediately relevant to federal postconviction practice, says attorney Elizabeth Franklin-Best.

Why Justices Seem Inclined To Curtail Del. Affidavit Statute

After recent oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Berk v. Choy — asking whether Delaware's affidavit-of-merit statute applies in federal diversity actions, or whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure displace the state requirement — it appears the court is poised to simplify the standard approach, says Eric Weitz of The Weitz Law Firm.

Series

Adapting To Private Practice: 3 Tips On Finding The Right Job

After 23 years as a state and federal prosecutor, when I contemplated moving to a law firm, practicing solo or going in-house, I found there's a critical first step — deep self-reflection on what you truly want to do and where your strengths lie, says Rachael Jones at McKool Smith.

Justices May Decide Whether Restitution Is A Punishment

Forthcoming oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Ellingburg v. U.S. will focus on whether criminal restitution qualifies as criminal punishment under the U.S. Constitution — a key question as restitution has expanded in reach and severity, while providing little meaningful compensation for victims, says Lula Hagos at George Washington University Law School.

Series

Painting Makes Me A Better Lawyer

Painting trains me to see both the fine detail and the whole composition at once, enabling me to identify friction points while keeping sight of a client's bigger vision, but the most significant lesson I've brought to my legal work has been the value of originality, says Jana Gouchev at Gouchev Law.

What's At Stake At High Court For Presidential Removal Power

Two pending U.S. Supreme Court cases —Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook — raise fundamental questions about the constitutional separation of powers, threaten the 90-year-old precedent of Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. and will determine the president's authority to control independent federal agencies, says Kolya Glick at Arnold & Porter.

Courts Are Still Grappling With McDonnell, 9 Years Later

The Seventh and D.C. Circuits’ recent decisions in U.S. v. Weiss and U.S. v. Paitsel, respectively, demonstrate that courts are still struggling to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in McDonnell v. U.S., which narrowed the scope of “official acts” in federal bribery cases, say attorneys at Quinn Emanuel.