Expert Analysis

• Fraud Enforcement, Sentencing Face Unusual Convergence

  

  The Trump administration’s newly created task force to eliminate fraud and the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s recent proposals to scale back certain elements of the federal sentencing framework seem to point in opposite directions, creating a collision of policy priorities that may reshape how fraud cases are charged, negotiated and sentenced for years to come, says David Tarras at Tarras Defense.

• 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.

• CFTC Actions Show Prediction Market Insider Trading Risks

  

  It is a myth that insider trading law does not apply in prediction markets, as the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission's recent enforcement actions illustrate that it has full authority to pursue such cases federally — and intends to, says attorney Gregg Goldfarb.

• 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

  Futures Market Anonymity Now Presents A Structural Problem

  

  Following anomalous trading on prediction markets just before major recent policy announcements from the Trump administration, many have called on Congress to act, but the problem is not primarily a statutory gap — it is a structural one, built into the self-regulatory model that governs futures exchanges, says Tamara de Silva at De Silva Law Offices.

• 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.

• Ohio Case Reflects States' Aggressive Criminal Antitrust Turn

  

  The Ohio Attorney General's Office’s recent bid-rigging indictment of an online auctioneer is the latest signal that states, through attorneys general pursuing more kickback cases and legislators expanding the reach of antitrust laws, are shedding their historical reluctance to wield their criminal antitrust enforcement powers, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• Justices' Geofence Ruling May Test 4th Amendment's Future

  

  When the U.S. Supreme Court decides in Chatrie v. U.S. whether law enforcement may use geofence warrants to compel Google to disclose location history data, the ruling is likely to become an important statement about the future of Fourth Amendment law in data-driven investigations, says Duncan Levin at Levin & Associates.

• Series

  NY Banking Brief: All The Notable Legal Updates In Q1

  

  In the first quarter of 2026, New York's banking developments were headlined by initiatives to expand oversight of financial institutions and strengthen consumer protection laws, including a new framework for buy now, pay later lenders, a sweeping debt collection rule and a revised corporate self-disclosure program for financial crimes, say attorneys at Proskauer.

• 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.

• 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.

• What's Missing From Latest Gov't Claims Against Harvard

  

  The most interesting thing about the Trump administration’s recent civil rights enforcement efforts targeting Harvard University is its decision not to assert violations of the False Claims Act when given the opportunity, despite signals that its enforcement efforts will include use of the federal FCA, say attorneys at Bass Berry.

• Defense Counsel Options Widen As No-Bill Rate Increases

  

  Citizens impaneled on grand juries in politically motivated cases who are reasserting their role as a critical check on state power could provide criminal defense attorneys an opportunity to pursue seldom-used preindictment strategies, say attorneys at Ballard Spahr.