Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  The Supreme Court Can't Fix The SEC's In-House Court Issue

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Jarkesy v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that, if upheld, could shutter the in-house courts used by the SEC to litigate many of its enforcement cases, but a constitutional challenge to these courts is probably too blunt an instrument for the job, says David Slovick at Barnes & Thornburg.

• Perspectives

  Service Members Should Have Right To Unanimous Verdicts

  

  As several recent cases exemplify, service members can be convicted of crimes by nonunanimous juries in military courts and cannot appeal such verdicts, despite Supreme Court precedent from recent years — a glaring constitutional error that Congress should rectify expeditiously, says Kevin Carroll at Hughes Hubbard.

• Opinion

  Appellate Funding Disclosure: No Mandate Is Right Choice

  

  The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules' recent decision, forgoing a mandatory disclosure rule for litigation funding in federal appeals, is prudent, as third-party funding is only involved in a minuscule number of federal cases, and courts have ample authority to obtain funding information if necessary, says Stewart Ackerly at Statera Capital.

• Justices' Test For Redacted Confessions Casts Context Aside

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Samia v. U.S., allowing co-defendant confessions with certain redactions to be admitted as evidence in a joint trial, puts form over substance by focusing on the superficial aspects of a confession, which may ultimately erode Sixth Amendment protections, says Michael McCarthy at Kendall Brill.

• Paltrow Win Offers Lesson In Celebs Staying On Brand At Trial

  

  Gwyneth Paltrow was recently cleared of liability for a ski collision by a Utah state jury, demonstrating why lawyers should consider the public's preexisting perception of a high-profile client and not be afraid to leverage it at trial, even if a celebrity’s persona is unrelatable, say attorneys at Winston & Strawn.

• Justices' Retrial Ruling Will Be Key In Complex Venue Cases

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Smith v. U.S. decision, holding that defendants first tried in an improper venue may be reprosecuted in a different jurisdiction, raises several issues for criminal cases involving complex venue questions, particularly those concerning the use of technology or products located in different districts, says Matthew Koerner at Perkins Coie.

• How Attys Can Avoid Exposing Their Firms To Cyberattacks

  

  Attorneys are the weakest link in their firms' cyberdefenses because hackers often exploit the gap between individuals’ work and personal cybersecurity habits, but there are some steps lawyers can take to reduce the risks they create for their employers, say Mark Hurley and Carmine Cicalese at Digital Privacy & Protection.

• Virginia 'Rocket Docket' Slowdown Is Likely A Blip

  

  After being the fastest or second-fastest federal civil trial court for 14 straight years, the Eastern District of Virginia has slid to 18th place, but the rocket docket’s statistical tumble doesn't mean the district no longer maintains a speedy civil docket, says Robert Tata at Hunton.

• High Court Cert Denial Puts New Spotlight On Plea Bargains

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Davis v. U.S. — provoking two justices’ dissent — highlights a lesser-known circuit split on whether an attorney's failure to pursue a plea agreement constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, and will likely spur several key changes in criminal law practice, says Spencer Gottlieb at Perkins Coie.

• 'Varsity Blues' Reversal May Inform Conspiracy Defenses

  

  The First Circuit’s recent decision vacating the convictions of two “Varsity Blues” defendants provides potential support for creative arguments against conspiracy charges, particularly where defense counsel can show competition or indifference among alleged co-conspirators, say Cormac Connor and Emily Mikes at Husch Blackwell.

• Diacetyl Jury Verdicts Fuel Continued Flavoring Litigation

  

  As litigation concerning widely used flavoring ingredients, especially diacetyl, has grown — targeting manufacturers of products ranging from microwave popcorn to e-cigarettes — and recent trials have resulted in plaintiff verdicts, it is important for companies to review all flavors used in their products, and the regulations that apply, says Jennifer Steinmetz at Tucker Ellis.

• 5 Management Tips To Keep Law Firm Merger Talks Moving

  

  Many law firm mergers that make solid business sense still fall apart due to the costs and frustrations of inefficient negotiations, but firm managers can increase the chance of success by effectively planning and executing merger discussions, say Lisa Smith and Kristin Stark at Fairfax Associates.

• Broader Implications Of High Court's Identity Theft Law Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dubin v. U.S., vacating a medical services biller’s aggravated identity theft conviction, endorses a restrained interpretive approach for practitioners dealing with ambiguous criminal statutes, and serves as a warning to prosecutors, say Gabrielle Friedman and Zachary Shemtob at Lankler Siffert.

• East Penn Verdict Is An FLSA Cautionary Tale For Employers

  

  A Pennsylvania federal jury's recent $22 million verdict against East Penn set a record for the Fair Labor Standards Act and should serve as a reminder to employers that failure to keep complete wage and hour records can exponentially increase liability exposure under the FLSA, say Benjamin Hinks and Danielle Lederman at Bowditch & Dewey.

• Rethinking In-Office Attendance For Associate Retention

  

  The hybrid office attendance model doesn't work for all employees, but it does for many — and balancing these two groups is important for associate retention and maintaining a BigLaw firm culture that supports all attorneys, says Summer Eberhard at Major Lindsey.