Expert Analysis

• 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.

• 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.

• Proposed Customer ID Rule Could Cost Investment Advisers

  

  A rule recently proposed by FinCEN and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to make financial advisers collect more customer information parallels an anti-money laundering and counterterrorism rule proposed this spring, but firms may face new compliance costs when implementing these screening programs, say attorneys at Lowenstein Sandler.

• Perspectives

  High Court Ruling Leaves Chance For Civil Forfeiture Reform

  

  Though advocates for civil forfeiture reform did not prevail in Culley v. Marshall last month, concerns voiced by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices potentially leave the door open to consider stricter limits in future cases, say attorneys at Dykema.

• How Cannabis Rescheduling May Affect Current Operators

  

  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency's proposal to reschedule marijuana to Schedule III provides relief in the form of federal policy from the stigma and burdens of Schedule I, but commercial cannabis operations will remain unchanged until the federal-state cannabis policy gap is remedied by Congress, say Meital Manzuri and Alexis Lazzeri at Manzuri Law.

• 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.

• In Biz Account Breaches, Look Beyond The Payment Platform

  

  A business's legal path to recovering funds after bad actors access a payment platform account and engage in unauthorized transactions can lead into murky legal territory where liability is unclear, and pursuing the payment platform itself will be an uphill, if not insurmountable, struggle, say Edward Marshall and Morgan Harrison at Arnall Golden.

• 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.

• Del. Bankruptcy Ruling Will Give D&O Insureds Nightmares

  

  In Henrich v. XL Specialty Insurance, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court recently found that a never-served qui tam claim had been "brought" before a D&O policy's retroactive date, thereby eliminating coverage, and creating a nightmare scenario for directors and officers policyholders facing whistleblower claims, says David Klein at Pillsbury.

• 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.