Australia, Brazil and Germany have emerged as premier hubs for global law firm expansion in 2017, fueled in part by increased anti-corruption enforcement in Brazil, infrastructure investment in Sydney and the U.K.’s vote to leave the European Union.
International law firms play a crucial role in India despite being barred from practicing there, and some say opening up the country’s legal industry wouldn’t drastically change how they do business.
The Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday tossed a suit accusing a hospital of medical malpractice, saying the patient failed to diligently pursue her case since the first claim was filed more than a decade ago.
A split Texas appellate panel on Thursday allowed a suit accusing two doctors of negligently treating a teen patient’s injured testicle, which later required amputation, to move forward, saying the patient’s two expert medical witnesses are qualified to testify under state law.
An Indiana appeals court has affirmed a doctor’s victory at trial over claims that his negligence caused a man's death from a heart condition and internal bleeding, ruling Friday that the exclusion of evidence about the patient's prior treatment was harmless error.
A Houston doctor and the Houston Ear Nose & Throat Clinic LLP that employs him were hit with a lawsuit Thursday by a mother on behalf of her now-deaf son, who alleges the doctor performed a cochlear implant surgery on the wrong ear and rendered the boy completely deaf in both ears.
A California appellate court ruled Thursday that a lower court was right to cut a doctor loose from a suit accusing several parties of bungling a patient’s treatment for an antibiotic-resistant infection, ruling that the doctor was a county employee and that the patient had not filed a timely administrative claim.
Most doctors believe that subjecting patients to unnecessary medical treatment is a common practice that is mostly prompted by a fear of medical malpractice claims, according to a survey published Wednesday by Johns Hopkins University researchers.
A Georgia appellate panel tossed a suit accusing a nurse midwife of being responsible for a baby's permanent brain injuries by negligently managing the mother's labor and delivery, saying Thursday that a theory submitted by the woman’s expert medical witness is not generally accepted in the scientific community and is therefore inadmissible.
An Illinois federal judge ruled Wednesday that Homeland Insurance Co. of New York need not cover A-Tec Ambulance Inc. in an underlying suit alleging that the ambulance company is responsible for a patient’s death after he fell while being loaded into an ambulance, an activity not covered by the policy, the judge said.
Two notable Dallas attorneys announced Wednesday that they have launched a new boutique, Hamilton Wingo LLP, that one of its name partners said he intends to build into “the best trial firm in the United States.”
A Tennessee appeals court on Wednesday declined to revive a suit accusing a Memphis doctor of causing the death of a patient by not ensuring she was transferred to intensive care after an inflammation that blocked her windpipe, ruling the expert witness testimony was too thin and speculative for the suit to continue.
A Massachusetts federal judge on Wednesday changed course and ruled an insurance claims administrator is protected by a state “safe harbor” law in a suit arising from a $16 million verdict stemming from a woman’s death at a nursing home, but said a trial is still needed to resolve the case.
A University of Maryland-affiliated hospital is accused of failing to respond to signs of fetal distress and failing to perform a timely Cesarean section on a woman, which purportedly caused her baby to suffer permanent brain damage, according to a suit filed Tuesday in Maryland federal court.
An Illinois appellate panel on Tuesday upheld a county court's order for a hospital to produce documents pertaining to the case of a premature infant who died three weeks after birth, despite the hospital's claims they were protected.
An Arkansas appeals court on Wednesday tossed a suit accusing an anesthesiologist of failing to account for a patient’s medical history, which purportedly caused his death days after heart surgery, saying the patient’s estate failed to establish that the patient would have survived if not for the alleged negligence.
An Illinois appellate panel on Tuesday affirmed the dismissal of a nurse’s suit alleging her termination by a hospital for neglecting a patient was racially motivated, saying the discrimination allegations were not supported by the evidence.
A veteran has filed a suit in Washington federal court accusing VA Puget Sound Health Care System of negligence that he says resulted in a lengthy stay in the intensive care unit and permanent damage following an elective surgery.
A Maryland appellate court on Friday overturned a jury’s verdict in favor of a man accusing a neurosurgeon of failing to properly consider the risks of his spinal surgery, saying the trial judge erred by giving the jury certain special instructions and by tacitly imposing a one-hour verdict deadline.
The family of a woman who died during surgery to remove a cancerous tumor from her skull asked the Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday to take up an appellate decision that affirmed a directed verdict for a doctor who was accused of improperly greenlighting anesthesia for the woman.
The simple practice of asking jurors important and substantive questions early can help make trial by jury a more reliable form of dispute resolution, say Stephen Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and Dr. Roy Futterman of the NYU School of Law Civil Jury Project.
One year ago the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decisively rejected the widespread anti-choice tactic of restricting women’s reproductive rights with sham legislation. A new lawsuit recently filed in Louisiana reveals exactly why that ruling is the most important decision on abortion rights in a generation, says Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
It was a privilege to spend a half-hour on the phone with the nation's foremost First Amendment lawyer. Floyd Abrams and I discussed his career, his new book and what he sees in his free-speech crystal ball. And he was a very good sport when I asked if it is constitutionally protected to yell inside a movie theater: “Citizens United is a terrible decision and should be set on fire,” says Randy Maniloff of White and Williams LLP.
Recent surveys show that law firms won't be able to rely on the flood of associates their business model demands as long as they require them to dedicate all day, most nights, every weekend and all holidays to firm business, says Jill Dessalines, founder of Strategic Advice for Successful Lawyers and former assistant GC at McKesson Corp.
Despite legal education training and the focus on logic and reason by the courts, lawyers address emotional issues on a daily basis — albeit more indirectly. But a shift to consciously and strategically addressing emotions gives us a powerful tool to help our clients reach faster, better decisions, say dispute resolution experts Robert Creo and Selina Shultz.
When it comes to medical marijuana, health care providers are in an awkward — but not impossible — spot. In many cases, state and federal laws governing medical marijuana are in direct conflict, leaving providers who want to encourage their patients to use marijuana on shaky legal ground, says Michaela Poizner of Baker Donelson.
The guessing game around Justice Anthony Kennedy’s possible retirement is reaching a crescendo. Yet the speculation does more than fuel bookmakers’ odds. It draws attention to his pivotal role as the court’s swing vote, says Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice.
One way to combat juror confusion and boredom is to allow jurors to ask witnesses questions. No federal evidentiary or court rule prohibits it, and every federal circuit court to address the practice has held it permissible, say Stephen Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and Dr. Roy Futterman of the NYU School of Law Civil Jury Project.
In the midst of the worst drug crisis in American history, two key developments this month may have far-reaching impacts on both the underlying liability claims as well as the insurers to whom the defendants are looking to finance hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure, says Adam Fleischer of BatesCarey LLP.
Since the California Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Howell v. Hamilton Meats, the case has significantly shaped the litigation landscape, including many high-profile opinions and jury verdicts in its aftermath. It also has significant implications for the Affordable Care Act and plaintiffs’ litigation strategy, says Robert Tyson Jr. of Tyson & Mendes LLP.