Expert Analysis

• 5 Key Questions Attys Should Ask About Statistical Analyses

  

  Even attorneys without a background in statistics can effectively vet the general concepts of a statistical analysis by asking targeted questions and can thereby reinforce the credibility and relevance of expert testimony — or expose its weaknesses, say Katrina Schydlower and Christopher Cunio at Hunton and Kevin Cahill at FTI Consulting.

• Assessing EcoFactor's Impact On Damages Experts' Opinions

  

  Though the Federal Circuit's ruling in EcoFactor v. Google gave rise to concerns that damages experts would be forced to rely on undisputed facts, recent case law suggests that those concerns are unwarranted, says Christopher Loh at Venable.

• 7 Mistakes To Avoid When Using Trial Graphics

  

  With several federal district judges recently expressing frustration with the overuse of PowerPoint slides in trial presentations, now is a good time for lawyers to assess when and how they use visuals to make sure their messages are communicated as effectively as possible, say Mark Rosman at Proskauer and Dan Bender at Digital Evidence Group.

• 2nd Circ. Clarifies When Prior Good Acts May Be Admissible

  

  The Second Circuit's recent ruling in U.S. v. Cardenas, vacating a drug conspiracy conviction over improperly excluded evidence, indicates that evidence of prior good acts may be admissible to corroborate a defendant's testimony about their understanding of events and intent, say attorneys at Lowenstein Sandler.

• Opinion

  State Bars Need To Get Specific About AI Confidentiality

  

  Lawyers need to put actual client information into artificial intelligence tools to get their full value, but they cannot confidently do so until state bars offer clear, formal authority on which plan tiers of the three most popular generative AI tools are safe to use when sharing specific client details, says attorney Nick Berk.

• Opinion

  Judicial Restraint Anchors Constitutional Order

  

  Contrasting opinions in two recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings — Trump v. CASA and Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections — demonstrate how the judiciary’s constitutionally entrusted role can easily be preserved or disrupted, and invite renewed attention to the enduring importance of judicial restraint, says Ninth Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace.

• Series

  Alpine Skiing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Skiing has shaped habits I rely on daily as an attorney — focus, resilience and the ability to remain steady when circumstances shift rapidly — and influences the way I approach legal strategy, client counseling and teamwork, says Isaku Begert at Marshall Gerstein.

• Legal Theories In Social Media Verdicts Hold Clues On Impact

  

  Although the two verdicts in cases in New Mexico and California involving Meta and Google are being lumped together, they rest on fundamentally different legal theories, and that distinction determines how their effects may be felt in other jurisdictions, says Mark Morgan at Day Pitney.

• 2 Rulings Poke Holes In Mandatory Restitution Framework

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ellingburg v. U.S., as well as the Third Circuit’s recent ruling in U.S. v. Abrams, provide criminal defense practitioners with new tools to challenge Mandatory Victims Restitution Act orders, and highlight several restitution-related issues that converged in the recent prosecution of former Frank CEO Charlie Javice, say attorneys at Lankler Siffert & Wohl.

• Why MDLs Slow Down — And How To Speed Them Up

  

  Multidistrict litigation has become central to mass tort practice, but as MDLs grow in size and complexity, so do delays and costs — so tools like the new federal rule governing MDLs, targeted use of special masters and strategically deployed Lone Pine orders are more essential than ever, say attorneys at Ice Miller.

• What A Court Doc Audit Reveals About Erroneous Filings

  

  My audit of 1,522 court documents from last month found that over 95% contained at least one verifiable error, with fewer than 1% showing clear indicators of artificial intelligence use — highlighting above all else that lawyers may want to focus most on strengthening their review processes, says Elliott Ash at ETH Zurich.

• Exploring When Fraud Asset Freezes Limit Right To Pick Atty

  

  The defendant’s claim in the Seventh Circuit’s pending U.S. v. Shah case that the government restrained his assets until he couldn’t afford his chosen counsel presents a useful case study in how criminal forfeiture procedure interacts with U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Sixth Amendment rights and appealing complex fraud convictions, says Elisha Kobre at Sheppard.

• Why Indicia Of Fraud Matter In Forensic Accountant Testimony

  

  Amid federal probes into Minnesota social welfare programs and an elevated focus on detecting and prosecuting fraud, counsel must understand the professional and procedural lines that forensic accounting experts should not cross when analyzing evidence for indicia of fraud, say Kelly Bossard and George Saitta at FTI Consulting.

• Apple Verdict May Inform Jury Instruction In Patent Suits

  

  A Texas federal jury's recent verdict in Optis v. Apple provides an important example of how juries must be instructed when Step 2 of the Alice framework is submitted to them, with important implications for both litigators and courts in patent cases, says Joshua Reisberg at Blank Rome.

• Justices' Ruling Stresses Quick Action Against Absconders

  

  Following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent holding in Rico v. U.S. that a supervised release term is not automatically extended when a defendant absconds, probation officers and prosecutors risk being unable to address later violations if they don't act promptly to secure warrants, say attorneys at Winston & Strawn.