Expert Analysis

• Mitigating Whistleblower Risks After High Court UBS Ruling

  

  While it is always good practice for companies to periodically review whistleblower trainings, policies and procedures, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent whistleblower-friendly ruling in Murray v. UBS Securities helps demonstrate their importance in reducing litigation risk, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• Perspectives

  Justices' Double Jeopardy Ruling Preserves Acquittal Sanctity

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision last week in McElrath v. Georgia, barring the state from retrying a man acquitted of murder after a so-called repugnant verdict, is significant in the tangled web of double jeopardy jurisprudence for its brief and unequivocal protection of an acquittal’s finality, says Lissa Griffin at Pace Law School.

• High Court Forfeiture Case Again Pits Text Against Purpose

  

  In oral arguments Tuesday in McIntosh v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether a federal court can impose asset forfeiture on a defendant even if it doesn’t comply with timing rules, which may affect the broader interpretation of procedural deadlines — and tees up the latest battle between textualism and purposivism, say Anden Chow and Christian Bale at MoloLamken.

• 6 Pointers For Attys To Build Trust, Credibility On Social Media

  

  In an era of information overload, attorneys can use social media strategically — from making infographics to leveraging targeted advertising — to cut through the noise and establish a reputation among current and potential clients, says Marly Broudie at SocialEyes Communications.

• More Than Drugs At Stake In High Court's 'Blind Mule' Case

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's eventual decision in Diaz v. U.S., evaluating whether expert witnesses may testify that most defendants caught with drugs at the border know they are transporting drugs, could have implications for prosecuting everything from complex financial crimes to gun and drug cases, says Kenneth Notter at MoloLamken.

• Why Fla. High Court Adopting Apex Doctrine Is Monumental

  

  The Florida Supreme Court recently solidified the apex doctrine in the Sunshine State, an important development that extends the scope of the doctrine in the state to include both corporate and government officials, and formalizes the requirements for a high-level corporate official to challenge a request for a deposition, says Laura Renstrom at Holland & Knight.

• A Refresher On Witness Testimony In 3 Key Settings

  

  The recent controversy over congressional testimony from university presidents about antisemitism on campus serves as a reminder to attorneys about what to emphasize and avoid when preparing witnesses to testify before Congress, and how this venue differs from grand jury and trial proceedings, say Jack Sharman and Tyler Yarbrough at Lightfoot Franklin.

• A Post-Mortem Analysis Of Stroock's Demise

  

  After the dissolution of 147-year-old firm Stroock late last year shook up the legal world, a post-mortem analysis of the data reveals a long list of warning signs preceding the firm’s collapse — and provides some insight into how other firms might avoid the same disastrous fate, says Craig Savitzky at Leopard Solutions.

• Preparing For DOJ's Data Analytics Push In FCPA Cases

  

  After the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent announcement that it will leverage data analytics in Foreign Corrupt Practice Act investigations and prosecutions, companies will need to develop a compliance strategy that likewise implements data analytics to get ahead of enforcement risks, say attorneys at Cozen O'Connor.

• Considering The Logical Extremes Of Your Legal Argument

  

  Recent oral arguments in the federal election interference case against former President Donald Trump highlighted the age-old technique of extending an argument to its logical limit — a principle that is still important for attorneys to consider in preparing their cases, says Reuben Guttman at Guttman Buschner.

• Storytelling Strategies To Defuse Courtroom Conspiracies

  

  Misinformation continues to proliferate in all sectors of society, including in the courtroom, as jurors try to fill in the gaps of incomplete trial narratives — underscoring the need for attorneys to tell a complete, consistent and credible story before and during trial, says David Metz at IMS Legal Strategies.

• Lessons From Rare Post-Verdict Healthcare Fraud Acquittal

  

  A Maryland federal court recently overturned a jury verdict that found a doctor guilty of healthcare fraud related to billing levels for COVID-19 tests, providing defense attorneys with potential strategies for obtaining acquittals in similar prosecutions, says attorney Andrew Feldman.

• Calif. Disclosure Update Adds To Employer Trial Prep Burden

  

  Though California’s recently updated litigation disclosure procedures may streamline some aspects of employment suits filed in the state, plaintiffs' new ability to demand a wider range of information on a tighter timeline will burden companies with the need to invest more resources into investigating cases much earlier in the process, says Jeffrey Horton Thomas at Fox Rothschild.

• EDNY Ruling Charts 99 Problems In Rap Lyric Admissibility

  

  A New York federal court’s recent ruling in U.S. v. Jordan powerfully captures courts’ increasing skepticism about the admissibility of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials, particularly at a time when artists face economic incentives to embrace fictional, hyperbolic narratives, say attorneys at Sher Tremonte.

• 3 Principles For Minimizing The Risk Of A Nuclear Verdict

  

  In one of the latest examples of so-called nuclear verdicts, a single plaintiff was awarded $2.25 billion in a jury trial against Monsanto — revealing the need for defense attorneys to prioritize trust, connection and simplicity when communicating with modern juries, say Jenny Hergenrother and Mia Falzarano at Alston & Bird.