Expert Analysis

• Calif. Justices Usher In Stricter Era For Wage Law Ignorance

  

  In Iloff v. LaPaille, the California Supreme Court determined that neither an employer's ignorance of wage obligations nor a worker agreeing to an unconventional arrangement is sufficient to establish good faith, demonstrating that the era of casual wage arrangements without legal vetting is over, says Brandy Alonzo-Mayland at Michelman & Robinson.

• Protecting Sensitive Court Filings After Recent Cyber Breach

  

  In the wake of a recent cyberattack on federal courts' Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, civil litigants should consider seeking enhanced protections for sensitive materials filed under seal to mitigate the risk of unauthorized exposure, say attorneys at Redgrave.

• Means-Plus-Function Terms In Software Claims May Be Risky

  

  Though the Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision rejecting a set of means-plus-function software claims as lacking sufficient structure, practitioners who proceed under this holding may run into indefiniteness problems if they do not consider other Federal Circuit holdings related to the definiteness requirement, says Jeffrey Danley at Seed IP Law Group.

• Wash. Ruling Raises Pay Transparency Litigation Risk

  

  Washington Supreme Court’s recent decision in Branson v. Washington Fine Wine and Spirits, affirming applicants standing to sue regardless of their intent in applying, broadens state employers' already broad exposure — even when compared to other states with pay transparency laws, say attorneys at Hunton.

• Why Feds' Criminal Vehicle Tampering Theory Falls Short

  

  In recent years, federal regulators have advanced a novel theory that reprogramming a vehicle's onboard diagnostics system is a crime under the Clean Air Act — but a case now pending in the Ninth Circuit shows that the government's position is questionable for a host of reasons, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• High Court Right-To-Counsel Case Could Have Seismic Impact

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in Villarreal v. Texas about whether prohibiting testimony discussions between defendants and their counsel during an overnight recess violates the Sixth Amendment, and the eventual decision could impose a barrier in the attorney-client relationship, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• Gauging SEC Short-Sale Rules' Future After 5th Circ. Remand

  

  Though the Fifth Circuit recently remanded to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission two Biden-era rules requiring disclosure of securities lending and short-sale activity in order to consider the rules' cumulative economic impact, it's possible they will get reproposed, meaning compliance timelines could change, says Scott Budlong at Barnes & Thornburg.

• High Court Firearm Case Tests Limits Of Double Jeopardy

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next week on the double jeopardy implications of overlapping federal gun statutes in Barrett v. U.S., and its ultimate decision could either erode a key shield in defense practitioners’ arsenals or provide strong constitutional grounds to challenge duplicative charges, says Sharon Appelbaum at Appelbaum Law.

• Series

  Judging Figure Skating Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Judging figure skating competitions helps me hone the focus, decisiveness and ability to process complex real-time information I need in court, but more importantly, it makes me reengage with a community and my identity outside of law, which, paradoxically, always brings me back to work feeling restored, says Megan Raymond at Groombridge Wu.

• Female Athletes' NIL Deal Challenge Could Be Game Changer

  

  A challenge by eight female athletes to the NCAA’s $2.8 billion name, image and likeness settlement shows that women in sports are still fighting for their share — not just of money, but of respect, resources and representation, says Madilynne Lee at Anderson Kill.

• 9th Circ. Ruling May Help Pharma Cos. Avert Investor Claims

  

  The Ninth Circuit's recent decision affirming the dismissal of a securities fraud class action alleging that Talphera deceived investors by marketing a drug with a misleading slogan should give plaintiffs pause before filing similar complaints where snappy slogans are accompanied by copious clarifying information, say attorneys at Simpson Thacher.

• What Ethics Rules Say On Atty Discipline For Online Speech

  

  Though law firms are free to discipline employees for their online commentary about Charlie Kirk or other social media activity, saying crude or insensitive things on the internet generally doesn’t subject attorneys to professional discipline under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, says Stacie H. Rosenzweig at Halling & Cayo.

• What's At Stake In High Court's Ill. Ballot Deadline Case

  

  In Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next week on whether and when candidates for office have standing to bring prospective challenges to election laws, raising broader issues about the proper timing of federal court election litigation, say Richard Pildes and Samuel Ozer-Staton at NYU School of Law.

• How Okla. High Court Ruling Will Alter Workers' Comp. Cases

  

  The Oklahoma Supreme Court's recent decision in OBI Holding Company v. Schultz-Butzbach confirms that workers' compensation claims should move through the system without needless delay, which means attorneys on both sides will need to adjust how they handle such claims, says Steven Hanna at Gilson Daub.

• Kimmel 2nd Circ. Victory Holds Novel Copyright Lessons

  

  The Second Circuit's recent decision in Santos v. Kimmel, dismissing a copyright infringement claim against Kimmel for airing Cameo videos recorded by former U.S. Rep George Santos, examines the unusual situation of copyrighted works created at the request of the alleged infringer, say attorneys at Venable.