Â鶹´«Ã½

Expert Analysis

• How Ill. Ruling Could Influence Future Data Breach Cases

  

  The Illinois Supreme Court's recent decision in Petta v. Christie Business Holding, which was based solely on standing, establishes an important benchmark for the viability of Illinois-based lawsuits arising out of data security incidents that defendants can cite in future cases, say attorneys at Wilson Elser.

• Expect To Feel Aftershocks Of Chopra's CFPB Shake-Up

  

  Publications released by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau personnel in the last days of the Biden administration outline former Director Rohit Chopra's long-term vision for aggressive state-level enforcement of federal consumer financial laws, opening the doors for states to launch investigations and pursue actions, say attorneys at Hudson Cook.

• The Rising Need For The Selective Prosecution Defense

  

  In a political climate where criminal and civil prosecution on the basis of political affiliation, constitutionally protected speech or other arbitrary classification is increasingly likely, existing precedent shows why judges should be more open to allowing a selective prosecution defense, say attorneys at Sidley.

• Opinion

  Inconsistent Injury-In-Fact Rules Hinder Federal Practice

  

  A recent Third Circuit decision, contradicting a previous ruling about whether consumers of contaminated products have suffered an injury in fact, illustrates the deep confusion this U.S. Supreme Court standard creates among federal judges and practitioners, who deserve a simpler method of determining which cases have federal standing, says Eric Dwoskin at Dwoskin Wasdin.

• In-House Counsel Pointers For Preserving Atty-Client Privilege

  

  Several recent rulings illustrate the challenges in-house counsel can face when attempting to preserve attorney-client privilege, but a few best practices can help safeguard communications and effectively assert the privilege in an increasingly scrutinized corporate environment, says Daniel Garrie at Â鶹´«Ã½ & Forensics.

• Disability Ruling Guides On Cases With Uncertain Causation

  

  In Dime v. MetLife, a Washington federal court’s recent ruling in favor of a disability claimant instructs both claimants and insurers on the appropriate standard for establishing and making a disability determination when there is limited medical evidence explaining the disability’s cause, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Â鶹´«Ã½.

• CFPB's Message To States Takes On New Weight Under Trump

  

  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's January guidance to state enforcers has fresh significance as the Trump administration moves to freeze the bureau's work, and industry should expect states to use this series of recommendations as an enforcement road map, say attorneys at Brownstein Hyatt.

• National Bank Act Rulings Facilitate More Preemption Analysis

  

  Two recent National Bank Act preemption decisions from an Illinois federal court and the Ninth Circuit provide the first applications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s May ruling in Cantero v. Bank of America, opening the potential for several circuit courts to address the issue this year, say attorneys at Moore & Van Allen.

• Series

  Collecting Rare Books Makes Me A Better Â鶹´«Ã½yer

  

  My collection of rare books includes several written or owned by prominent lawyers from early U.S. history, and immersing myself in their stories helps me feel a deeper connection to my legal practice and its purpose, says Douglas Brown at Manatt Health.

• It Starts With Training: Anti-Harassment After 'It Ends With Us'

  

  Actress Blake Lively's recent sexual harassment and retaliation allegations against her "It Ends With Us" co-star, director and producer, Justin Baldoni, should remind employers of their legal obligations to implement trainings, policies and other measures to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, say attorneys at Morrison Cohen.

• Opinion

  Judge Should Not Have Been Reprimanded For Alito Essay

  

  Senior U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor's New York Times essay critiquing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito for potential ethical violations absolutely cannot be construed as conduct prejudicial to the administration of the business of the courts, says Ashley London at the Thomas R. Kline School of Â鶹´«Ã½ of Duquesne University.

• Lights, Camera, Ethics? TV Â鶹´«Ã½yers Tend To Set Bad Example

  

  Though fictional movies and television shows portraying lawyers are fun to watch, Hollywood’s inaccurate depictions of legal ethics can desensitize attorneys to ethics violations and lead real-life clients to believe that good lawyers take a scorched-earth approach, says Nancy Rapoport at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

• SEC Motion Response Could Reveal New Crypto Approach

  

  Cumberland DRW recently filed to dismiss the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement action against it for the unlawful purchase and sale of digital asset securities, and the agency's response should unveil whether, and to what extent, the Trump administration will relax the federal government’s stance on digital asset regulation, say attorneys at O'Melveny.

• Perspectives

  Accountant-Owned Â鶹´«Ã½ Firms Could Blur Ethical Lines

  

  KPMG’s recent application to open a legal practice in Arizona represents the first overture by an accounting firm to take advantage of the state’s relaxed law firm ownership rules, but enforcing and supervising the practice of law by nonattorneys could prove particularly challenging, says Seth Laver at Goldberg Segalla.

• The Post-Macquarie Securities Fraud-By-Omission Landscape

  

  While the U.S. Supreme Court's 2024 opinion in Macquarie v. Moab distinguished inactionable "pure omissions" from actionable "half-truths," the line between the two concepts in practice is still unclear, presenting challenges for lower courts parsing statements that often fall within the gray area of "misleading by omission," say attorneys at Katten.