For the women at elite law firms, an enduring gender gap among advocates can create a high hurdle for their high court ambitions. Here, Law360 looks at the law firms where women score Supreme Court arguments, and where they don’t.
A Boston jury has awarded $43.1 million in damages after finding that the blame for a man’s fatal lung cancer lay with R.J. Reynolds but not with rival tobacco company Philip Morris or an auto parts firm accused of selling asbestos-laden brakes.
The Seventh Circuit on Monday revived a retaliation suit accusing medical equipment manufacturer Stryker of illegally firing an employee because she reported the sexual harassment of a colleague, saying there was enough evidence for a jury to decide whether her complaint led to her ouster.
Attorneys for six former New England Compounding Center employees accused of misleading regulators about the workings of the facility whose tainted drugs caused a deadly meningitis outbreak placed the blame on the workers' boss in statements to a Boston federal jury Monday.
A financial investigation company on Monday urged a New Jersey state appeals court to vacate a $40 million jury verdict in favor of an investment management firm claiming its reputation was damaged by the company's allegedly defamatory reports, arguing that the accusation is based on “nothing but presumptions.”
A group of Asian American applicants rejected by Harvard University said the school’s admissions process has a statistically significant “Asian penalty” that benefits other racial groups, while the university insisted its process is fair, thorough and in line with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as a closely watched bench trial began Monday in Boston.
An Oregon federal judge on Monday refused the federal government's bid to end a lawsuit accusing it of failing to protect future generations from the effects of climate change, saying the 21 children who lodged the suit have made a strong enough case to have their claims contested at trial later this month.
A California appeals court issued a last-minute stay of Monday's scheduled trial to determine what penalties Starbucks Corp. and other coffee roasters owe for violating cancer-warning statute Proposition 65, after the roasters asked to wait until the state agency enacting the propositon finalizes a proposed rule saying coffee needs no cancer warnings.
While women have made significant inroads into the elite world of U.S. Supreme Court advocacy, last term the number of women arguing at the court hit a decade low. Was it an off year? Or a sign of progress stalled?
In exclusive on-camera interviews with Law360, the most prolific female U.S. Supreme Court advocate of the past decade and a first-timer reflect on the status of women in a field still dominated by men.
A California jury on Thursday awarded $6.3 million to the family of a 74-year-old man who was struck and killed by a vendor’s vehicle at a Southern California farmers market, finding the trade association that runs the market was almost entirely at fault for the accident.
Former New York State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos asked a New York federal judge on Friday to give him a sentence of less than two years in light of his life of public service, the needs of his two autistic grandchildren, and the consequences he’s already suffered as a result of his two convictions.
A Washington federal jury on Thursday awarded nearly $5 million to a former Mercedes Benz of Seattle finance director who claims he was wrongfully fired after receiving a prosthetic voice box as a result of undergoing surgery for throat cancer.
A Hewlett Packard Malaysia manager was merely "cheerleading" when she described possible future work to a startup that now claims it was duped into providing tens of millions of dollars in free services and software, HP's attorney argued Friday at the close of a California federal trial.
A South Dakota jury has acquitted the former head of a proposed Black Hills school of charges he backdated contracts to avoid a potential audit after the school’s chief financial officer killed himself and his family amid theft accusations, according to news reports.
Former West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Allen Loughry was convicted Friday on 11 counts of fraud, witness tampering and false statements after prosecutors said he helped himself to government transportation and court furniture, including a historic desk associated with an early celebrity architect.
A former foreign currency exchange trader for Barclays PLC and UBS Group AG on Friday told a Manhattan federal jury that he and three other forex traders at rival banks used a chatroom dubbed “the cartel” to coordinate their euro-U.S. dollar deals, including those tied to benchmark fix rates.
The Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday accused three dental supply companies of conspiring through email and in-person communication to refuse to offer discounts to buying groups on the ground that the groups could cut into the companies’ profit margins.
On Monday, dozens of companies that sell coffee in California will try to convince a California judge that they shouldn’t pay any penalties for violating the state’s cancer-warning statute Proposition 65, in the final phase of a long-brewing case about the presence of the chemical acrylamide in coffee. Here, Law360 takes a look at the case in advance of the trial.
Tire maker OTR Wheel Engineering Inc. urged a Washington federal judge on Thursday to stop West Worldwide from selling nearly 5,000 tires, saying they were the same products at issue in its Lanham Act trial win, which was recently upheld by the Ninth Circuit.
The first comprehensive overhaul of California's Rules of Professional Conduct in nearly 30 years becomes operational on Nov. 1. Some of the new rules mirror the model language used by the American Bar Association, but many continue to reflect California’s unique approach to certain ethical questions, says Mark Loeterman of Signature Resolution LLC.
The balancing act between protecting attorneys’ speech rights and ensuring unbiased adjudications was highlighted recently in two cases — when Michael Cohen applied for a restraining order against Stephanie Clifford's attorney, and when Johnson & Johnson questioned whether a Missouri talc verdict was tainted by public statements from the plaintiffs' counsel, says Matthew Giardina of Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a pivotal antitrust decision in Ohio v. American Express. Three partners at Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP who represented AmEx explain how one of the most significant antitrust enforcement actions in recent history led to a landmark precedent for two-sided platforms.
In Sheppard Mullin v. J-M Manufacturing Co., the California Supreme Court ruled last month that a law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict with another current client did not categorically disentitle the firm from recovering fees. But the court didn’t provide hoped-for guidance on how to write an enforceable advance conflict waiver, says Richard Rosensweig of Goulston & Storrs PC.
In this monthly series, Amanda Brady of Major Lindsey & Africa interviews management from top law firms about the increasingly competitive business environment. Here we feature Melanie Green, chief client development officer at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
Tom Mesereau may be recently recognizable as one of the attorneys who defended Bill Cosby, but his biggest claim to fame is successfully defending Michael Jackson in 2005. On the eve of what would have been the King of Pop’s 60th birthday, Randy Maniloff, of White and Williams LLP, spoke to Mesereau about his unconventional path to a remarkable career.
The U.S. Supreme Court should agree to hear Lacaze v. Louisiana, a case involving an egregious conflict of interest for a judge who presided over a capital case. It is an opportunity to remind judges to disclose their known connections to cases before them, and recuse themselves when necessary, says George Eskin, a retired California Superior Court judge.
In Martinez v. Landry Restaurants, a California state appeals court recently held that the time period during which a federal appeal from an order remanding a case to state court is pending should be included when calculating the “five-year rule” for bringing a case to trial. This shows that all counsel should consider whether to seek a stay of proceedings where the case crosses jurisdictional boundaries, says Karin Bohmholdt of Greenberg Traurig LLP.
A Delaware federal court's ruling in Amgen v. Hospira last month may indicate a significant narrowing of the patent infringement exception for activities related to obtaining drug approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, say attorneys at Paul Hastings LLP.
In Sacerdote v. New York University — the first university 403(b) employee retirement plan fee case to go to trial — a New York federal court recently ruled in favor of NYU. Arthur Marrapese of Barclay Damon LLP summarizes the university's fiduciary practices and explains how they helped it prevail at the trial level.