Expert Analysis

• DOJ-Agri Stats Settlement Offers Key Benchmarking Lessons

  

  A Minnesota federal court's recent approval of the Agri Stats settlement marks a significant milestone as it's the most granular U.S. Justice Department guidance on permissible competitor benchmarking since the 2023 withdrawal of the safety zone, lending predictability for companies in data-pooling arrangements, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• Opinion

  Clancy Trial Shows Need For Juror Anonymity Reforms

  

  Doxing of the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy murder mistrial in Massachusetts illustrates the increasing need to provide jurors with greater protection once service ends in high-profile cases, balancing concerns about transparency and independence, says Daniel Schneider at Offit Kurman.

• NY Art Ruling Creates Fault Line In Cultural Property Cases

  

  A recent New York state appellate decision, blocking a Holocaust victim’s heirs from using a criminal turnover order to reclaim a work the Art Institute of Chicago says it acquired legally, makes establishing ownership a newly central question in cultural property disputes, says Duncan Levin at Levin & Associates.

• Testing AI's Promise For Large-Scale Document Review

  

  Our document-review comparison of attorneys' responsiveness and issue coding decisions versus predictions generated by artificial intelligence across 1,600 documents suggests that these tools can offer a reasonable and reliable basis for improved discovery workflows, provided lawyers understand where guardrails are needed, say attorneys at Redgrave.

• AI Meeting Recaps Pose New Discovery And Privilege Risks

  

  The New York City Bar Association’s recent ethics opinion, cautioning attorneys not to record nonclient conversations with artificial intelligence tools, reflects an emerging view that AI meeting recaps are now a distinct business record category, meaning counsel should set meeting-level controls and apply framework-level updates, says William Wright at Faegre Drinker.

• $95M Nev. Case Provides Clues On Wound Care Enforcement

  

  Federal prosecutors’ recent U.S. v. Dubin indictment, charging a Nevada physician with healthcare fraud over an alleged $95 million Medicare billing scheme involving amniotic wound allografts, provides a clearer picture of an increasingly data-driven enforcement strategy that follows the entire wound care transaction, say attorneys at Bass Berry.

• First Steps For Companies Facing AI-Assisted Pro Se Suits

  

  As the volume of filings by pro se litigants assisted by artificial intelligence tools continues to increase, companies should adopt a consistent early assessment process to control costs while responding fairly and effectively to such claims, say attorneys at Stradley Ronon.

• 4 Tips On Expert Gatekeeping From J&J Talc Deal

  

  Johnson & Johnson's successful campaign to exclude plaintiff-side oncologist testimony about whether its talcum powder caused ovarian cancer, which prompted the recent resolution of 70,000 claims, offers lessons on how product liability defendants can reshape risk calculation by rigorously applying expert admissibility rules, say attorneys at Hollingsworth.

• Series

  Playing Bid Whist Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  As a child, I viewed bid whist as a family tradition and a source of friendly card game competition, but as a lawyer, I see it as a tool that has helped me cultivate skills like communication, teamwork, risk assessment and composure, says Keyonn Pope at Riley Safer.

• What Greek Tragedy Teaches About Mediating AI Disputes

  

  While ancient Greek writers could not have anticipated modern arbitration, their tragic plays illustrate new and familiar questions for mediators dealing with artificial intelligence disputes, including the functional differences between adjudication and resolution, says Giuseppe De Palo at JAMS.

• Teva, Wyeth Show How Claimed Advances Shape Enablement

  

  Two recent Federal Circuit decisions involving method-of-treatment claims — Teva v. Eli Lilly and Wyeth v. AstraZeneca — reached opposite enablement outcomes from strikingly similar procedural postures, but a closer comparison of the cases reveals a three-step framework for understanding the court's reasoning, says Kendall Gurule at Polsinelli.

• Opinion

  Calif. Bill Goes Too Far In Trying To Regulate Attorney AI Use

  

  California’s first-in-the-nation act regulating how attorneys and arbitrators use generative artificial intelligence will likely soon become law, but read broadly, the provisions may dissuade lawyers from employing AI at all, thereby depriving them of key work tools, says Joshua Wurtzel at Schlam Stone.

• Reel Justice: 'The Furious' And Journalistic Evidence

  

  Viewing "The Furious” from a litigator’s perspective highlights nuances that arise when gathering evidence from journalistic investigations, serving as a reminder to not only ask whether evidence is relevant, but also what legal framework governs the person or entity holding it, says Veronica Finkelstein at Widener-Delaware Law.

• Resetting For Success After Corporate Litigation Loses Focus

  

  Corporate litigation that has lost strategic coherence may barrel disastrously ahead if counsel’s understanding of the matter drifts from the client’s goals, but cases can be wrenched back on track by diagnosing how facts have evolved, determining where resources are justified and deploying practical strategies for restoring discipline, says Jonathan Morris at Gordon Rees.

• How Bifurcation And Verdict Forms Can Sway Jury Outcomes

  

  The bifurcated trial structure used in a Nevada personal injury case — where the jury recently awarded the plaintiff more than $56 million — highlights a strategic option that litigators often overlook and raises considerations about the potential advantage of carefully assembled verdict forms, says litigation consultant Clint Townson.