Expert Analysis

• 3 Presidential Privilege Questions After Trump Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. U.S., carving out a new evidentiary privilege for presidents, leaves unanswered several key questions concerning whether this new privilege is waivable or subject to various exceptions, says Jeremy Bates at Frankfurt Kurnit.

• Notable Q2 Updates In Insurance Class Actions

  

  Mark Johnson and Mathew Drocton at BakerHostetler discuss the muted nature of the property and casualty insurance class action space in the second quarter of the year, with no large waves made in labor depreciation and total-loss vehicle class actions, but a new offensive theory emerging for insurance companies.

• What To Know About Major Fla. Civil Procedure Rule Changes

  

  The Florida Supreme Court recently amended the state's Rules of Civil Procedure, touching on pretrial procedure, discovery, motion and trial practice, and while the amendments are intended to streamline cases, the breadth of the changes may initially present some litigation growing pains, say Brian Briz, Benjamin Tyler and Yarenis Cruz at Holland & Knight.

• Prior Art Takeaways From Fed. Circ. Public Disclosure Ruling

  

  While the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in Sanho v. Kaijet clarified that a private sale is not a public disclosure under patent law, there remains significant room for advocacy, as the opinion lacked meaningful guidance on how to satisfy the public disclosure exception to prior art, says Derrick Carman at Robins Kaplan.

• Series

  Playing Golf Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Golf can positively affect your personal and professional life well beyond the final putt, and it’s helped enrich my legal practice by improving my ability to build lasting relationships, study and apply the rules, face adversity with grace, and maintain my mental and physical well-being, says Adam Kelly at Venable.

• Perspectives

  2 High Court Rulings Boost Protections Against Gov't Reprisal

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Gonzalez v. Trevino and Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon significantly strengthen legal protections against retaliatory arrests and malicious prosecution, and establish clear precedents that promote accountability in law enforcement, say Corey Stoughton and Amanda Miner at Selendy Gay.

• Law Firms Should Move From Reactive To Proactive Marketing

  

  Most law firm marketing and business development teams operate in silos, leading to an ad hoc, reactive approach, but shifting to a culture of proactive planning — beginning with comprehensive campaigns — can help firms effectively execute their broader business strategy, says Paul Manuele at PR Manuele Consulting.

• 3 High Court Rulings May Shape Health Org. Litigation Tactics

  

  Three separate decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent term — Loper Bright, Corner Post and Jarkesy — will likely strengthen healthcare organizations' ability to affirmatively sue executive agencies to challenge regulations governing operations and enforcement actions, say attorneys at McDermott.

• Opinion

  The Big Issues A BigLaw Associates' Union Could Address

  

  A BigLaw associates’ union could address a number of issues that have the potential to meaningfully improve working conditions, diversity and attorney well-being — from restructured billable hour requirements to origination credit allocation, return-to-office mandates and more, says Tara Rhoades at The Sanity Plea.

• Opinion

  It's Time For A BigLaw Associates' Union

  

  As BigLaw faces a steady stream of criticism about its employment policies and practices, an associates union could effect real change — and it could start with law students organizing around opposition to recent recruiting trends, says Tara Rhoades at The Sanity Plea.

• How Calif. Justices' Prop 22 Ruling Affects The Gig Industry

  

  The California Supreme Court's recent upholding of Proposition 22 clarifies that Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and other companies in the gig industry can legally classify their drivers as independent contractors, but it falls short of concluding some important regulatory battles in the state, says Mark Spring at CDF Labor.

• What 7th Circ. Samsung Decision Means For Mass Arbitration

  

  The Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Wallrich v. Samsung highlights the dilemma faced by mass arbitration filers in the face of nonpayment of arbitration fees by the defending party — but also suggests that there are risks for defendants in pursuing such a strategy, says Daniel Campbell at McDermott.

• Takeaways From Virginia's $2B Trade Secrets Verdict Reversal

  

  The Virginia Court of Appeals' recent reversal of the $2 billion damages award in Pegasystems v. Appian underscores the claimant's burden to show damages causation and highlights how an evidentiary ruling could lead to reversible error, say John Lanham and Kamran Jamil at Morrison Foerster.

• How Justices Upended The Administrative Procedure Act

  

  In its recent Loper Bright, Corner Post and Jarkesy decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally changed the Administrative Procedure Act in ways that undermine Congress and the executive branch, shift power to the judiciary, curtail public and business input, and create great uncertainty, say Alene Taber and Beth Hummer at Hanson Bridgett.

• Employers Face Uncertainty After Calif. Justices' Slur Ruling

  

  In Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that a singular use of a racial slur may be sufficiently severe to support a hostile work environment claim, leaving employers to speculate about what sort of comments or conduct will meet this new standard going forward, says Stephanie Roeser at Manatt.