Expert Analysis

• Meta Deal Highlights Advisory Jury Issues, Litigation Risk

  

  The $17 billion settlement of youth safety claims brought against Meta offers lessons for all consumer-facing companies because the court made the rare move of empaneling an advisory jury and the case was built on what the company learned from its own studies, says Mark Morgan at McCarter & English.

• 2nd Circ. Tylenol MDL Ruling Clarifies Court Gatekeeper Role

  

  The Second Circuit’s recent decision in multidistrict litigation over alleged links between Tylenol and developmental disorders, holding that the trial court improperly excluded expert witnesses, preserves meaningful judicial gatekeeping while making clear that judges may not resolve legitimate scientific disputes themselves, say attorneys at Lowenstein Sandler.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: Cultivating Good Judgment

  

  Law schools generally overlook the role that solid judgment skills play in real-world practice, but attorneys can bridge the gap by strengthening their abilities to assess a case’s strengths and weaknesses, develop and execute effective strategies, and provide clear recommendations to clients, says Manny Caixeiro at Venable.

• Intersecting Investigation Risks Loom In Next Congress

  

  Taken together, two July D.C. Circuit decisions and a recent U.S. Department of Justice opinion on executive privilege may affect the procedural defenses and privilege protections available to targets of oversight in the upcoming Congress, and companies should begin preparing now, say attorneys at WilmerHale.

• 9th Circ. Comet Ruling Spotlights Trade Secret Proof Burdens

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision to vacate a $40 million verdict awarded to Comet Technologies in its trade secret dispute with XP Power underscores how the burden of proof differs between federal and state law, giving litigants a fresh perspective on several issues, including how a jury should be instructed, say attorneys at Cooley.

• What Trial Teams Should Know About AI Jury Research Tools

  

  Using artificial intelligence for jury research is quickly becoming part of the litigation consulting landscape, and can be a useful part of a case assessment toolkit — but litigators must understand what these systems are built to measure, and what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from their output, say Bill Kanasky and Steve Wood at Courtroom Sciences.

• Attorneys Using AI May Have Ethical Duty To Redact Docs

  

  The trajectory of legal ethics guidance in recent years strongly suggests that as redaction technology becomes more accessible, the failure to use it when uploading highly confidential materials into artificial intelligence tools will become increasingly difficult to defend as reasonable, say attorneys at Lewis Brisbois.

• Series

  Juggling And Unicycling Make Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Because I juggle (sometimes with fire) and ride the unicycle, friends and family used to joke that I should join the circus, but I pursued the practice of law instead and learned that my hobbies benefit my profession in several important ways, says Morgan Eddy at Smith Currie.

• Opinion

  NC Litigation Funding Ban Sets Model For Other States

  

  States worried about rising liability costs and the commercialization of their courts should treat North Carolina's recently enacted litigation funding ban as a model because a prohibition adequately addresses the distortion that disclosure only documents, say attorneys at McAngus Goudelock.

• Expert Witness's ChatGPT Use Highlights New AI Risks

  

  An expert witness's recent use of ChatGPT in multidistrict litigation involving 3M to formulate most of his opinion illustrates the lack of clear rules for how an expert may use generative AI in an opinion, expanding both offensive and defensive discovery considerations, says David Shargel at Bracewell.

• DOJ Executive Privilege Opinion Portends 3rd-Party Dilemmas

  

  The recent opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluding that executive privilege can shield the president's communications with private advisers may lead to interbranch disputes, and companies must come up with a response plan now before they’re caught in the middle, say attorneys at Gibson Dunn.

• Series

  Ballet Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  A lifetime of learning and performing ballet taught me that success — whether in dance or practicing law — comes only through hours of thorough preparation, boundless energy and relentless effort, says Sharon Katz-Pearlman at Greenberg Traurig.

• Pa. Anti-SLAPP Ruling Shows Risks Of Atty Defamation Suits

  

  A Pennsylvania federal court’s recent Lento Law Group v. Estrada ruling addressed an unsettled question about mandatory fee-shifting provisions in the state’s anti-SLAPP law — and illustrates why attorneys should think twice before suing former clients over negative online reviews, say attorneys at Pietragallo Gordon.

• Insurer Spoliation Ruling Flags Continuing Duty To Preserve

  

  An Illinois federal court’s recent decision to impose spoliation sanctions on the insurer in H.D. Smith v. Cincinnati Insurance provides practical guidance for navigating long-tail coverage litigation, underscoring the importance of evaluating preservation obligations in light of the full life cycle of a dispute, say attorneys at Morgan Lewis.

• Fed. Circ. In July: Meeting The Enablement Requirement

  

  The Federal Circuit's decision in Wyeth v. AstraZeneca last month exemplifies when a generalized conception of an invention is insufficient to enable the full scope of asserted patent infringement claims, and may lead to more enablement challenges, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.