Expert Analysis

• Ariz. Uber Verdict Has Implications Beyond Ride-Hailing Cos.

  

  When an Arizona federal jury in Jaylyn Dean v. Uber Technologies recently ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to a woman who said she was sexually assaulted by her driver, their most important finding — that the driver was Uber's agent — could have huge consequences for future litigation involving platform-based businesses, says Michael Epstein at The Epstein Law Firm.

• Series

  Judges On AI: Practical Use Cases In Chambers

  

  U.S. Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard in the Southern District of California discusses how she uses generative artificial intelligence tools in chambers to make work more efficient and effective — from editing jury instructions for clarity to summarizing key documents.

• Opinion

  Criminalizing Officials' Speech Erodes Trust In Justice System

  

  Federal prosecutors reportedly investigating whether Minnesota officials’ public statements illegally impeded immigration enforcement is a dangerous overextension of obstruction law that would criminalize dissent and sow public distrust in law enforcement, say Marc Levin and Khalil Cumberbatch at the Council on Criminal Justice.

• Series

  Trail Running Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Navigating the muddy, root-filled path of trail marathons and ultramarathons provides fertile training ground for my high-stakes fractional general counsel work, teaching me to slow down my mind when the terrain shifts, sharpen my focus and trust my training, says Eric Proos at Next Era Legal.

• Opinion

  Justices' Monsanto Decision May Fix A Preemption Mistake

  

  In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the U.S. Supreme Court will address whether federal law preempts states' label-based failure-to-warn claims when federal regulators have not required a warning — and its decision could correct a long-standing misinterpretation of a prior high court ruling, thus ending myriad meritless state law personal injury claims, says Lawrence Ebner at Capital Appellate.

• Malpractice Claim Assignability Continues To Divide Courts

  

  Recent decisions from courts across the country demonstrate how different jurisdictions balance competing policy interests in determining whether legal malpractice claims can be assigned, providing a framework to identify when and how to challenge any attempted assignment, says Christopher Blazejewski at Sherin & Lodgen.

• A Primer On Law Enforcement Self-Defense Doctrine

  

  In the wake of several shootings by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis, misconceptions persist about what the laws governing police use of force actually permit, and it’s essential for legal practitioners to understand the contours of the underlying constitutional doctrine, says Markus Funk at White & Case.

• Series

  Teaching Logic Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Teaching middle and high school students the skills to untangle complicated arguments and identify faulty reasoning has made me reacquaint myself with the defined structure of thought, reminding me why logic should remain foundational in the practice of law, says Tom Barrow at Woods Rogers.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: Practicing Resilience

  

  Resilience is a skill acquired through daily practices that focus on learning from missteps, recovering quickly without internalizing defeat and moving forward with intention, says Nicholas Meza at Quarles & Brady.

• Takeaways From The DOJ Fraud Section's 2025 Year In Review

  

  Former acting Principal Deputy Chief Sean Tonolli of the U.S. Department of Justice's Fraud Section, now at Cahill Gordon, analyzes key findings from the section’s annual report — including the changes implemented to adapt to the new administration’s priorities — and lays out what to watch for this year.

• How Specificity, Self-Dealing Are Shaping ERISA Litigation

  

  Several recent cases, including the U.S. Supreme Court's forthcoming ruling in Anderson v. Intel, illustrate the competing forces shaping excessive fee litigation, with plaintiffs seeking flexibility, courts demanding specificity, fiduciaries facing increased scrutiny for conflicts of interest, and self-dealing amplifying exposure, says James Beall at Willig Williams.

• Upshot Of 'Skinny Label' Case May Go Beyond Pharma

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's pending review of Hikma v. Amarin, over a drugmaker's "skinny label," carries implications for both generics and brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers, and could shed light on how inducement doctrine should operate in other regulated industries where products have substantial lawful uses, says Jason Shull at Banner Witcoff.

• Opinion

  Minn. Can Still Bring State Charges In Absence Of Fed Action

  

  After two fatal shootings by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota's role isn't waiting to see if the federal government brings criminal charges, but independently weighing state homicide charges and allowing the judiciary to decide whether the subject conduct falls within the narrow protections of supremacy clause immunity, says Sheila Tendy at Tendy Law.

• 4 Lessons From FTC's Successful Bid To Block Edwards Deal

  

  The Federal Trade Commission's recent victory in blocking Edwards Lifesciences' acquisition of JenaValve offers key insights for deals in life sciences and beyond, including considerations around nonprice dimensions and clear skies provisions, say attorneys at Orrick.

• NYC Bar Opinion Warns Attys On Use Of AI Recording Tools

  

  Attorneys who use artificial intelligence tools to record, transcribe and summarize conversations with clients should heed the New York City Bar Association’s recent opinion addressing the legal and ethical risks posed by such tools, and follow several best practices to avoid violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, say attorneys at Smith Gambrell.