Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  Inconsistent Injury-In-Fact Rules Hinder Federal Practice

  

  A recent Third Circuit decision, contradicting a previous ruling about whether consumers of contaminated products have suffered an injury in fact, illustrates the deep confusion this U.S. Supreme Court standard creates among federal judges and practitioners, who deserve a simpler method of determining which cases have federal standing, says Eric Dwoskin at Dwoskin Wasdin.

• Takeaways From Oral Argument In High Court Trademark Case

  

  Unpacking oral arguments from Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers, which the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on this year, sheds light on the ways in which the decision could significantly affect trademark infringement plaintiffs' ability to receive monetary damages, say attorneys at Buchanan Ingersoll.

• In-House Counsel Pointers For Preserving Atty-Client Privilege

  

  Several recent rulings illustrate the challenges in-house counsel can face when attempting to preserve attorney-client privilege, but a few best practices can help safeguard communications and effectively assert the privilege in an increasingly scrutinized corporate environment, says Daniel Garrie at Law & Forensics.

• 4 Potential Effects Of 3rd Circ.'s Coinbase Ruling

  

  The Third Circuit's recent landmark decision in Coinbase v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the SEC's refusal to engage in rulemaking to clarify its stance on crypto enforcement was "insufficiently reasoned" could have wide-ranging impacts, including on other cases, legislation and even the SEC's reputation itself, says Daniel Payne at Cole-Frieman.

• Disability Ruling Guides On Cases With Uncertain Causation

  

  In Dime v. MetLife, a Washington federal court’s recent ruling in favor of a disability claimant instructs both claimants and insurers on the appropriate standard for establishing and making a disability determination when there is limited medical evidence explaining the disability’s cause, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Law.

• National Bank Act Rulings Facilitate More Preemption Analysis

  

  Two recent National Bank Act preemption decisions from an Illinois federal court and the Ninth Circuit provide the first applications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s May ruling in Cantero v. Bank of America, opening the potential for several circuit courts to address the issue this year, say attorneys at Moore & Van Allen.

• Series

  Collecting Rare Books Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  My collection of rare books includes several written or owned by prominent lawyers from early U.S. history, and immersing myself in their stories helps me feel a deeper connection to my legal practice and its purpose, says Douglas Brown at Manatt Health.

• Opinion

  New DOJ Leaders Should Curb Ill-Conceived Prosecutions

  

  First-of-their-kind cases have seemingly led to a string of overly aggressive prosecutions in recent years, so newly sworn-in leaders of the U.S. Department of Justice should consider creating reporting channels to stop unwise prosecutions before they snowball, says Jonathan Porter at Husch Blackwell.

• Opinion

  Judge Should Not Have Been Reprimanded For Alito Essay

  

  Senior U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor's New York Times essay critiquing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito for potential ethical violations absolutely cannot be construed as conduct prejudicial to the administration of the business of the courts, says Ashley London at the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University.

• What Justices' FLSA Ruling Means For 2-Step Collective Cert.

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in EMD Sales v. Carrera may have sounded the death knell for the decades-old two-step process to certify collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which could lead more circuits to require a preponderance of the evidence showing that members are similarly situated, says Steven Katz at Constangy.

• Lights, Camera, Ethics? TV Lawyers Tend To Set Bad Example

  

  Though fictional movies and television shows portraying lawyers are fun to watch, Hollywood’s inaccurate depictions of legal ethics can desensitize attorneys to ethics violations and lead real-life clients to believe that good lawyers take a scorched-earth approach, says Nancy Rapoport at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

• SEC Motion Response Could Reveal New Crypto Approach

  

  Cumberland DRW recently filed to dismiss the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement action against it for the unlawful purchase and sale of digital asset securities, and the agency's response should unveil whether, and to what extent, the Trump administration will relax the federal government’s stance on digital asset regulation, say attorneys at O'Melveny.

• Perspectives

  Accountant-Owned Law Firms Could Blur Ethical Lines

  

  KPMG’s recent application to open a legal practice in Arizona represents the first overture by an accounting firm to take advantage of the state’s relaxed law firm ownership rules, but enforcing and supervising the practice of law by nonattorneys could prove particularly challenging, says Seth Laver at Goldberg Segalla.

• Perspectives

  DC Circ. Cellphone Ruling Upends Law Enforcement Protocol

  

  The D.C. Circuit’s recent U.S. v. Brown decision, holding that forcibly requiring a defendant to unlock his cellphone with his fingerprint violated the Fifth Amendment, has significant implications for law enforcement, and may provide an opportunity for defense lawyers to suppress electronic evidence, says Sarah Sulkowski at Gelber & Santillo.

• The Post-Macquarie Securities Fraud-By-Omission Landscape

  

  While the U.S. Supreme Court's 2024 opinion in Macquarie v. Moab distinguished inactionable "pure omissions" from actionable "half-truths," the line between the two concepts in practice is still unclear, presenting challenges for lower courts parsing statements that often fall within the gray area of "misleading by omission," say attorneys at Katten.