Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  A Tale Of 2 Trump Cases: The Rule Of Law Is A Live Issue

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week in Trump v. U.S., holding that former President Donald Trump has broad immunity from prosecution, undercuts the rule of law, while the former president’s New York hush money conviction vindicates it in eight key ways, says David Postel at Henein Hutchison.

• Series

  Boxing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Boxing has influenced my legal work by enabling me to confidently hone the skills I've learned from the sport, like the ability to remain calm under pressure, evaluate an opponent's weaknesses and recognize when to seize an important opportunity, says Kirsten Soto at Clyde & Co.

• Opinion

  Industry Self-Regulation Will Shine Post-Chevron

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's Loper decision will shape the contours of industry self-regulation in the years to come, providing opportunities for this often-misunderstood practice, says Eric Reicin at BBB National Programs.

• Justices' Bribery Ruling: A Corrupt Act Isn't Necessarily Illegal

  

  In its Snyder v. U.S. decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a bribery law does not criminalize gratuities, continuing a trend of narrowing federal anti-corruption laws and scrutinizing public corruption prosecutions that go beyond obvious quid pro quo schemes, say Carrie Cohen and Christine Wong at MoFo.

• 3 Ways Agencies Will Keep Making Law After Chevron

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court clearly thinks it has done something big in overturning the Chevron precedent that had given deference to agencies' statutory interpretations, but regulated parties have to consider how agencies retain significant power to shape the law and its meaning, say attorneys at K&L Gates.

• Roundup

  After Chevron

  

  In the month since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference standard, this Expert Analysis series has featured attorneys discussing the potential impact across 26 different rulemaking and litigation areas.

• Key Takeaways From High Court's Substitute Expert Decision

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Smith v. Arizona decision, holding that the confrontation clause generally bars prosecutors’ use of a substitute expert witness at trial, will have the most impact in narcotics and violent crime cases, but creative defense lawyers may find it useful in white collar cases, too, say Joshua Naftalis and Melissa Kelley at Pallas Partners.

• Opinion

  Atty Well-Being Efforts Ignore Root Causes Of The Problem

  

  The legal industry is engaged in a critical conversation about lawyers' mental health, but current attorney well-being programs primarily focus on helping lawyers cope with the stress of excessive workloads, instead of examining whether this work culture is even fundamentally compatible with lawyer well-being, says Jonathan Baum at Avenir Guild.

• Series

  Skiing And Surfing Make Me A Better Lawyer

  

  The skills I’ve learned while riding waves in the ocean and slopes in the mountains have translated to my legal career — developing strong mentor relationships, remaining calm in difficult situations, and being prepared and able to move to a backup plan when needed, says Brian Claassen at Knobbe Martens.

• Unpacking The Circuit Split Over A Federal Atty Fee Rule

  

  Federal circuit courts that have addressed Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are split as to whether attorney fees are included as part of the costs of a previously dismissed action, so practitioners aiming to recover or avoid fees should tailor arguments to the appropriate court, says Joseph Myles and Lionel Lavenue at Finnegan.

• Justices' 'Blind Mule' Ruling Won't Change Defense Strategy

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week in Diaz v. U.S., holding that expert witnesses can testify broadly about the mental state of “most people” in a group, simply affirms the status quo for the majority of defendants, and is unlikely to change defense counsel’s strategy at trial, says Walter Gonçalves at the Arizona Federal Public Defender's Office.

• 4 Steps To Repair Defense Credibility In Opening Statements

  

  Given the continued rise of record-breaking verdicts, defense counsel need to consider fresh approaches to counteract the factors coloring juror attitudes — starting with a formula for rebuilding credibility at the very beginning of opening statements, says Ken Broda-Bahm at Persuasion Strategies.

• Prejudicial Evidence Takeaways From Trump Hush Money Trial

  

  The Manhattan District Attorney's Office's prosecution and conviction of former President Donald Trump on 34 felony counts provides a lesson on whether evidence may cause substantial unfair prejudice, or if its prejudicial potential is perfectly fair within the bounds of the law, says Reuben Guttman at Guttman Buschner.

• Lower Courts May Finally Be Getting The Memo After Ciminelli

  

  A year after the U.S. Supreme Court again limited prosecutors' overbroad theories of fraud in Ciminelli v. U.S., early returns suggest that the message has at least partially landed with the lower courts, spotlighting lessons for defense counsel moving forward, says Kenneth Notter at MoloLamken.

• After A Brief Hiccup, The 'Rocket Docket' Soars Back To No. 1

  

  The Eastern District of Virginia’s precipitous 2022 fall from its storied rocket docket status appears to have been a temporary aberration, as recent statistics reveal that the court is once again back on top as the fastest federal civil trial court in the nation, says Robert Tata at Hunton.