Expert Analysis

• $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.

• Meta Deal Highlights Advisory Jury Issues, Litigation Risk

  

  The $17 billion settlement of youth safety claims brought against Meta offers lessons for all consumer-facing companies because the court made the rare move of empaneling an advisory jury and the case was built on what the company learned from its own studies, says Mark Morgan at McCarter & English.

• 2nd Circ. Tylenol MDL Ruling Clarifies Court Gatekeeper Role

  

  The Second Circuit’s recent decision in multidistrict litigation over alleged links between Tylenol and developmental disorders, holding that the trial court improperly excluded expert witnesses, preserves meaningful judicial gatekeeping while making clear that judges may not resolve legitimate scientific disputes themselves, say attorneys at Lowenstein Sandler.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: Cultivating Good Judgment

  

  Law schools generally overlook the role that solid judgment skills play in real-world practice, but attorneys can bridge the gap by strengthening their abilities to assess a case’s strengths and weaknesses, develop and execute effective strategies, and provide clear recommendations to clients, says Manny Caixeiro at Venable.

• Intersecting Investigation Risks Loom In Next Congress

  

  Taken together, two July D.C. Circuit decisions and a recent U.S. Department of Justice opinion on executive privilege may affect the procedural defenses and privilege protections available to targets of oversight in the upcoming Congress, and companies should begin preparing now, say attorneys at WilmerHale.

• 9th Circ. Comet Ruling Spotlights Trade Secret Proof Burdens

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision to vacate a $40 million verdict awarded to Comet Technologies in its trade secret dispute with XP Power underscores how the burden of proof differs between federal and state law, giving litigants a fresh perspective on several issues, including how a jury should be instructed, say attorneys at Cooley.