Expert Analysis

• Reel Justice: 'No Other Choice' And Moral Rationalization

  

  In the satirical thriller "No Other Choice," the main character rationalizes his decision to kill business competitors by creating a narrative of necessity, illustrating for attorneys the dangers of treating strategic litigation decisions as inevitabilities rather than choices, says Veronica Finkelstein at Wilmington University.

• 5 Trial Lessons You Learn By Losing

  

  Exploring insights that are usually gained only after trial loss can expose the gaps between what we intend to communicate and what lands with the fact-finder, including why being right isn't always a win and how winning a cross‑examination can help you lose your case, says Allison Rocker at Baker & McKenzie.

• 3 Factors Shifting Criminal Defendants' Cooperation Decisions

  

  Several factors, including a recent decline in assistant U.S. attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice, new offense level changes to the sentencing guidelines and a swift uptick in presidential pardons, are prompting federal criminal defendants to rethink cooperation with the government, says Ben Schrader at Bass Berry.

• Series

  Officiating Football Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Though they may seem to have little in common, officiating football has sharpened many of the same skills that define effective lawyering in management-side labor and employment: preparation, judgment, composure, credibility and ability to make difficult decisions in real time, says Josh Nadreau at Fisher Phillips.

• E-Discovery Quarterly: Recent Rulings On ESI Control

  

  Several recent federal court decisions have perpetuated a split over what constitutes “control” of electronically stored information — with judges divided on whether the standard should turn on a party's legal right or practical ability to obtain the information, say attorneys at Sidley.

• 2 Discovery Rulings Break With Heppner On AI Privilege Issue

  

  While a New York federal court’s recent ruling in U.S. v. Heppner suggests that some litigants’ communications with AI tools are discoverable, two other recent federal court decisions demonstrate that such interactions generally qualify for work-product protection under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, says Joshua Dunn at Brown Rudnick.

• Series

  Isshin-Ryu Karate Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  My involvement in martial arts, specifically Isshin-ryu, which has principles rooted in the eight codes of karate, has been one of the most foundational in the development of my personality, and particularly my approach to challenges — including in my practice of law, says Kaitlyn Stone at Barnes & Thornburg.

• Fraud Enforcement, Sentencing Face Unusual Convergence

  

  The Trump administration’s newly created task force to eliminate fraud and the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s recent proposals to scale back certain elements of the federal sentencing framework seem to point in opposite directions, creating a collision of policy priorities that may reshape how fraud cases are charged, negotiated and sentenced for years to come, says David Tarras at Tarras Defense.

• 2nd Circ. Clarifies When Prior Good Acts May Be Admissible

  

  The Second Circuit's recent ruling in U.S. v. Cardenas, vacating a drug conspiracy conviction over improperly excluded evidence, indicates that evidence of prior good acts may be admissible to corroborate a defendant's testimony about their understanding of events and intent, say attorneys at Lowenstein Sandler.

• Opinion

  State Bars Need To Get Specific About AI Confidentiality

  

  Lawyers need to put actual client information into artificial intelligence tools to get their full value, but they cannot confidently do so until state bars offer clear, formal authority on which plan tiers of the three most popular generative AI tools are safe to use when sharing specific client details, says attorney Nick Berk.

• Opinion

  Judicial Restraint Anchors Constitutional Order

  

  Contrasting opinions in two recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings — Trump v. CASA and Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections — demonstrate how the judiciary’s constitutionally entrusted role can easily be preserved or disrupted, and invite renewed attention to the enduring importance of judicial restraint, says Ninth Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace.

• Series

  Alpine Skiing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Skiing has shaped habits I rely on daily as an attorney — focus, resilience and the ability to remain steady when circumstances shift rapidly — and influences the way I approach legal strategy, client counseling and teamwork, says Isaku Begert at Marshall Gerstein.

• Ohio Case Reflects States' Aggressive Criminal Antitrust Turn

  

  The Ohio Attorney General's Office’s recent bid-rigging indictment of an online auctioneer is the latest signal that states, through attorneys general pursuing more kickback cases and legislators expanding the reach of antitrust laws, are shedding their historical reluctance to wield their criminal antitrust enforcement powers, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• Justices' Geofence Ruling May Test 4th Amendment's Future

  

  When the U.S. Supreme Court decides in Chatrie v. U.S. whether law enforcement may use geofence warrants to compel Google to disclose location history data, the ruling is likely to become an important statement about the future of Fourth Amendment law in data-driven investigations, says Duncan Levin at Levin & Associates.

• 2 Rulings Poke Holes In Mandatory Restitution Framework

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ellingburg v. U.S., as well as the Third Circuit’s recent ruling in U.S. v. Abrams, provide criminal defense practitioners with new tools to challenge Mandatory Victims Restitution Act orders, and highlight several restitution-related issues that converged in the recent prosecution of former Frank CEO Charlie Javice, say attorneys at Lankler Siffert & Wohl.