Expert Analysis

• Series

  Being A Magician Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  The skills I've developed as a lifelong magician have translated directly into tangible benefits in the courtroom because performing magic and trying cases both live at the intersection of psychology, storytelling, timing and disciplined rehearsal, says Mark Dombroff at Fox Rothschild.

• Reel Justice: 'Obsession' And The Importance Of Precision

  

  In “Obsession,” the main character’s failure to define the limits of his wish results in an unexpectedly horrifying outcome, highlighting for attorneys why careful word choice is essential not only in briefs, but also in charging decisions, statutory interpretation and all stages of criminal litigation, says Veronica Finkelstein at Widener-Delaware Law.

• A 3-Part Blueprint For Sentencing Variance Arguments

  

  Tom Goldstein’s upcoming sentencing provides a useful lens for defense practitioners seeking a variance from the guidelines range, serving as a reminder to distinguish those requests from guidelines challenges and build an evidence-based case well before the hearing, says Joseph De Gregorio of Sentencing Advocacy Group.

• 4 Methods To Quantify Moral Damages In Int'l Arbitrations

  

  To aid tribunals in making informed decisions in quantifying moral damages, legal teams can look at four economic approaches that can value a monetary reparation for the victim commensurate with the harm suffered, say economists at Berkeley Research Group.

• Series

  Bass Fishing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Landing a trophy striped bass and closing a big deal both require cultivating the patience to finesse — not force — your way to desired outcomes, changing course when your old approach isn’t working and learning from the ones that got away, says Jon Ruiss at Alston & Bird.

• PacifiCorp Ruling Shows Limits Of Aggregate Wildfire Loss Models

  

  An Oregon appeals court's recent decision in James v. PacifiCorp illustrates that in litigation involving multiple wildfires, materially different causation theories, and evidence tied to particular fires and locations, a single undifferentiated damages model is vulnerable to attack, say Paige Van Oosten and Jason Kim at Hunton and Kevin Cahill at FTI Consulting.

• Roundup

  The Most Talked-About Supreme Court Decisions Of 2026

  

  This term, 11 U.S. Supreme Court decisions quickly became hot topics among Law360's guest writers.

• Fighting The Evidentiary Risks Of Deepfakes In Court

  

  Though courts and federal rules are only slowly developing frameworks for assessing digital evidence that could have been created or generated by artificial intelligence, litigators should understand what steps they'll likely need to take to successfully challenge potentially deepfaked exhibits — and fight questions about the authenticity of their own, say attorneys at MoFo.

• What Durnell Ruling Means For Mo. Roundup Settlement

  

  While the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell forecloses the failure-to-warn theory that carried most of the claims against Monsanto in a pending class action in Missouri state court, it leaves untouched the question of whether the class was assembled merely to contain the defendant's liability, says attorney Gregg Goldfarb.

• Generative AI Is Reshaping The Defense Of Complex Litigation

  

  Generative artificial intelligence is lowering the barriers to filing new cases, meaning that the defense bar must respond to an increased wave of litigation — but generative AI is also helping defense teams with legal research and drafting, fact witness development, and expert witness strategy, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• 'Tiger King' Funeral Clip Ruling Offers Fair Use Road Map

  

  The Tenth Circuit's decision in Whyte Monkee v. Netflix that the streaming service's use of another party's funeral footage in the docuseries "Tiger King" constituted fair use lays out a framework for producers to apply the four statutory fair use factors to their own projects, says Frank D’Angelo at Loeb & Loeb.

• Justices' Concurrences Foretell Fault Line On Appeal Waivers

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled 8-1 in Hunter v. U.S. that appeal waivers that produce a miscarriage of justice are unenforceable, but the decision's concurrences indicate future divisions over whether this exception will be used as a rare safety valve or to police ordinary but troubling plea errors, say attorneys at RJO.

• A Potential Turning Point For Short-And-Distort Claims

  

  A California federal jury's conviction of Andrew Left signals that the historically blurry line between securities fraud and legitimate criticism of companies is growing clearer, and that there is a viable recourse against so-called short-and-distort campaigns intended to create a false impression of the market, say attorneys at Baker McKenzie.

• High Court's FCC Fine Ruling Reframes Agency Enforcement

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T sweeps aside uncertainty about what kinds of regulatory enforcement trigger a Seventh Amendment right, say attorneys at Squire Patton.

• After Durnell, Connecting Science And Causation Will Be Key

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's June 25 decision in Monsanto v. Durnell narrowed label-based failure-to-warn claims — meaning that going forward, viable theories will depend even more on whether experts can reliably connect scientific evidence to the causal proposition the law requires, says Alex Smolak at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar.