Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  Qualified Immunity Bill's Reach Goes Beyond Federal Officers

  

  The federal Qualified Immunity Abolition Act, introduced earlier this year and described by the bill sponsors as a federal-officer measure, would in actuality reach the entire universe of Section 1983 defendants, a distinction that matters as much to defense counsel as to plaintiffs, says attorney V. James DeSimone.

• Where The Justices Aligned In Appellate Authority Ruling

  

  The real story of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., finding that a doctrine designed to curtail duplicative litigation prevents federal district courts from reviewing state court decisions, is in how the justices together revisited an obscure, century-old jurisdictional doctrine, says Alex Dimitrief at Zeughauser Group.

• Discovery Ruling Shows How Extant Rules Mesh With AI Tools

  

  A California federal court’s recent ruling in Schulte v. LinkedIn reinforces that existing discovery rules can and should accommodate emerging artificial intelligence technologies, providing litigants with confidence that well-designed AI-enabled workflows can satisfy reasonableness and proportionality standards, say attorneys at WilmerHale.

• Series

  Judges On AI: Examining Administrative, Organizational Uses

  

  U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas examines how artificial intelligence could transform a court's ability to deal with administrative work and organize materials when preparing for hearings or drafting opinions, thereby affording judges more time to resolve contested issues.

• 4 Cert. Denials Keep Personal Jurisdiction Issues Percolating

  

  After the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Ford Motor v. Montana and Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway expanded limits on personal jurisdiction, the justices' denials this term of four certiorari petitions suggest they are content to let jurisdiction questions brew in lower courts before weighing in, say attorneys at Hunton.

• Series

  Being A Singer Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Before law school, I spent seven years trying to make it as a professional singer in Los Angeles, and nearly everything I learned about preparation, humility, confidence and more has followed me into my legal practice, says Jessica Caterina at Moses & Singer.

• Mass. UHC Fraud Suit Signals States' Medicaid FCA Push

  

  Massachusetts' recently filed False Claims Act suit alleging UnitedHealthcare misrepresented the health status of enrollees in a Medicaid senior care organization plan it managed pushes forward a new phase of state-level scrutiny of managed care data and Medicaid payment mechanisms, say Li Yu at Bernstein Litowitz, Ellen London at London & Naor and Gwendolyn Stamper at Vogel Slade.

• Series

  Being A Magician Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  The skills I've developed as a lifelong magician have translated directly into tangible benefits in the courtroom because performing magic and trying cases both live at the intersection of psychology, storytelling, timing and disciplined rehearsal, says Mark Dombroff at Fox Rothschild.

• How Litigants Are Testing Conversion Therapy Ruling's Scope

  

  Litigants are already using the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Chiles v. Salazar ruling, which applied strict scrutiny to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, to challenge laws limiting algorithmic rental pricing, artificial intelligence-based discrimination and anti-union employer speech, and courts must soon decide Chiles’ First Amendment limits, say attorneys at O'Melveny.

• Illinois Audit Law Will Make AI Clauses Actually Enforceable

  

  A law recently enacted in Illinois creates a first-in-the-nation requirement for artificial intelligence developers to undergo annual audits, providing objective standards that can be incorporated into private contracts and addressing the problem of defining responsible AI use, says William Tanenbaum at Moses & Singer.

• Reel Justice: 'Obsession' And The Importance Of Precision

  

  In “Obsession,” the main character’s failure to define the limits of his wish results in an unexpectedly horrifying outcome, highlighting for attorneys why careful word choice is essential not only in briefs, but also in charging decisions, statutory interpretation and all stages of criminal litigation, says Veronica Finkelstein at Widener-Delaware Law.

• $100M Clean Air Act Ruling Transforms Parent Co. Liability

  

  A Michigan federal court's recent decision in U.S. v. EES Coke Battery, holding a company liable for Clean Air Act violations at a plant owned by its subsidiary, weakens the legal shield between businesses and their corporate parents, and has started a legal battle that may last for years, say attorneys at Haynes Boone.

• Justices' Ruling Alters Playing Field For State Subpoena Suits

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport will spark more federal court challenges to state subpoenas, but procedural defenses will block some merits decisions, so plaintiffs must carefully time and manage parallel federal and state proceedings, say attorneys at Troutman.

• Looking At Drake's Diss Track Appeal Through An IP Lens

  

  Though Drake's pending Second Circuit appeal over UMG's promotion of Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us" is formally about defamation, it shows that IP considerations can help identify records showing how a work traveled, which may guide courts when deciding context, says attorney Abdul Abdullahi.

• Series

  Bass Fishing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Landing a trophy striped bass and closing a big deal both require cultivating the patience to finesse — not force — your way to desired outcomes, changing course when your old approach isn’t working and learning from the ones that got away, says Jon Ruiss at Alston & Bird.