Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  Requiring Leave To File Amicus Briefs Is A Bad Idea

  

  A proposal to amend the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that would require parties to get court permission before filing federal amicus briefs would eliminate the long-standing practice of consent filing and thereby make the process less open and democratic, says Lawrence Ebner at the Atlantic Legal Foundation and DRI Center.

• NJ Ruling Offers Road Map To Fight Dishonored Check Claims

  

  As ATM and mobile check deposits become more common, a New Jersey state appellate court’s recent ruling in Triffin v. Neptune shows that issuers can rely on copies of checks to defend against claims that checks were wrongfully dishonored after being electronically deposited, say attorneys at Sherman Atlas.

• 4 Ways To Motivate Junior Attorneys To Bring Their Best

  

  As Gen Z and younger millennial attorneys increasingly express dissatisfaction with their work and head for the exits, the lawyers who manage them must understand and attend to their needs and priorities to boost engagement and increase retention, says Stacey Schwartz at Katten.

• A Look At Recent Challenges To SEC's Settlement 'Gag Rule'

  

  Though they have been unsuccessful so far, opponents of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's so-called gag rule, which prevents defendants from denying allegations when settling with the SEC, are becoming increasingly vocal and filing more challenges in recent years, say Mike Blankenship and Regina Maze at Winston & Strawn.

• How 3 Unfolding Cases Could Affect The Energy Industry

  

  Three judicial decisions now in the pipeline — Texas' challenge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's methane regulations, Delaware's climate suit against big energy companies, and a case before the Supreme Court of Texas on royalty lease interpretation — could have important implications for the energy industry, say Michelle Scheffler and Rachael Cox at Skadden.

• Conn. Bankruptcy Ruling Furthers Limitation Extension Split

  

  A recent Connecticut bankruptcy court decision further solidifies a split of authority on whether Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) may be used to extend the limitations period, meaning practitioners seeking to extend should serve the motion on all applicable parties and, where possible, rely on the doctrine of equitable tolling, says Shane Ramsey at Nelson Mullins.

• How Purdue Pharma High Court Case May Change Bankruptcy

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling in Purdue Pharma may be the death of most third-party releases in Chapter 11 cases, and depending on the decision’s breadth, could have much more far-reaching effects on the entire bankruptcy system, say Brian Shaw and David Doyle at Cozen O'Connor.

• Series

  Serving As A Sheriff's Deputy Made Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Skills developed during my work as a reserve deputy — where there was a need to always be prepared, decisive and articulate — transferred to my practice as an intellectual property litigator, and my experience taught me that clients often appreciate and relate to the desire to participate in extracurricular activities, says Michael Friedland at Friedland Cianfrani.

• Fears About The End Of Chevron Deference Are Overblown

  

  While some are concerned about repercussions if the U.S. Supreme Court brings an end to Chevron deference in the Loper and Relentless cases this term, agencies and attorneys would survive just fine under the doctrines that have already begun to replace it, say Daniel Wolff and Henry Leung at Crowell & Moring.

• What A Post-Chevron Landscape Could Mean For Labor Law

  

  With the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Chevron deference expected by the end of June, it’s not too soon to consider how National Labor Relations Act interpretations could be affected if federal courts no longer defer to administrative agencies’ statutory interpretation and regulatory actions, say attorneys at Morgan Lewis.

• Perspectives

  Context Is Everything In Justices' Sentencing Relief Decision

  

  In the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Pulsifer v. U.S. decision, limiting the number of drug offenders eligible for sentencing relief, the majority and dissent adopted very different contextual frames for interpreting the meaning of “and” — with the practical impact being that thousands more defendants will be subject to severe mandatory minimums, says Douglas Berman at Moritz College of Law​​​​​​​.

• Opinion

  The SEC Is Engaging In Regulation By Destruction

  

  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's recent use of regulation by enforcement against digital assets indicates it's more interested in causing harm to crypto companies than providing guidance to the markets or protecting investors, says J.W. Verret at George Mason University.

• Former Minn. Chief Justice Instructs On Writing Better Briefs

  

  Former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea, now at Greenberg Traurig, offers strategies on writing more effective appellate briefs from her time on the bench.

• Studying NY, NJ Case Law On Employee Social Media Rights

  

  While a New Jersey state appeals court has twice determined that an employee's termination by a private employer for social media posts is not prohibited, New York has yet to take a stand on the issue — so employers' decisions on such matters still need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, say Julie Levinson Werner and Jessica Kriegsfeld at Lowenstein Sandler.

• A 5th Circ. Lesson On Preserving Indemnification Rights

  

  The Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Raymond James & Associates v. Jalbert offers an important lesson for creditors and parties to indemnification agreements: If a debtor has indemnified a creditor, the creditor should consider participating in the bankruptcy case to avoid being deemed to have forfeited its indemnification rights, say Dania Slim and Alana Lyman at Pillsbury.