law firm Archives - Page 2 of 19 - The National Law Forum

Clop Claims Zero-Day Attacks Against 130 Organizations

Russia-linked ransomware gang Clop has claimed that it has attacked over 130 organizations since late January, using a zero-day vulnerability in the GoAnywhere MFT secure file transfer tool, and was successful in stealing data from those organizations. The vulnerability is CVE-2023-0669, which allows attackers to execute remote code execution.

The manufacturer of GoAnywhere MFT notified customers of the vulnerability on February 1, 2023, and issued a patch for the vulnerability on February 7, 2023.

HC3 issued an alert on February 22, 2023, warning the health care sector about Clop targeting healthcare organizations and recommended:

Educate and train staff to reduce the risk of social engineering attacks via email and network access.
Assess enterprise risk against all potential vulnerabilities and prioritize implementing the security plan with the necessary budget, staff, and tools.
Develop a cybersecurity roadmap that everyone in the healthcare organization understands.

Security professionals are recommending that information technology professionals update machines to the latest GoAnywhere version and “stop exposing port 8000 (the internet location of the GoAnywhere MFT admin panel).”

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Deadline Approaches for Chicago Employers

As a reminder to employers in Chicago, anti-sexual harassment training is required by Chicago’s Human Rights Ordinance and must be completed by July 1, 2023. This requirement applies to all Chicago employers, regardless of size or industry.

The training consists of one (1) hour of anti-sexual harassment training for all non-supervisory employees and two (2) hours of anti-sexual harassment training for supervisory employees. Regardless of supervisory status, all employees must also undergo one (1) hour of bystander training. Employers must provide training on an annual basis. Additional information about training requirements can be found here. Employers who fail to comply may be subject to penalties.

Article By Audrey H. Shinn of Vedder Price

Privacy Tip #358 – Bank Failures Give Hackers New Strategy for Attacks

Hackers are always looking for the next opportunity to launch attacks against unsuspecting victims. According to Cybersecurity Dive, researchers at Proofpoint recently observed “a phishing campaign designed to exploit the banking crisis with messages impersonating several cryptocurrencies.”

According to Cybersecurity Dive, cybersecurity firm Arctic Wolf has observed “an uptick in newly registered domains related to SVB since federal regulators took over the bank’s deposits…” and “expects some of those domains to serve as a hub for phishing attacks.”

This is the modus operandi of hackers. They use times of crises, when victims are vulnerable, to launch attacks. Phishing campaigns continue to be one of the top risks to organizations, and following the recent bank failures, everyone should be extra vigilant of urgent financial requests and emails spoofing financial institutions, and take additional measures, through multiple levels of authorization, when conducting financial transactions.

We anticipate increased activity following these recent financial failures attacking individuals and organizations. Communicating the increased risk to employees may be worth consideration.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more communications, media, and internet legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Lawyer Bot Short-Circuited by Class Action Alleging Unauthorized Practice of Law

Many of us are wondering how long it will take for ChatGPT, the revolutionary chatbot by OpenAI, to take our jobs. The answer: perhaps, not as soon as we fear!

On March 3, 2023, Chicago law firm Edelson P.C. filed a complaint against DoNotPay, self-described as “the world’s first robot lawyer.” Edelson may have short-circuited the automated barrister’s circuits by filing a lawsuit alleging the unauthorized practice of law.

DoNotPay is marketed as an AI program intended to assist users in need of legal services, but who do not wish to hire a lawyer. The organization was founded in 2015 to assist users in disputing parking tickets. Since then, DoNotPay’s services have expanded significantly. The company’s website offers to help users fight corporations, overcome bureaucratic obstacles, locate cash and “sue anyone.”

In spite of those lofty promises, Edelson’s complaint counters by pointing out certain deficiencies, stating, “[u]nfortunately for its customers, DoNotPay is not actually a robot, a lawyer, or a law firm. DoNotPay does not have a law degree, is not barred in any jurisdiction and is not supervised by any lawyer.”

The suit was brought by plaintiff Jonathan Faridian, who claims to have used DoNotPay for legal drafting projects, demand letters, one small claims court filing and drafting an employment discrimination complaint. Faridian’s complaint explains he was under the impression that he was purchasing legal documents from an attorney, only to later discover that the “substandard” outcomes generated did not comport with his expectations.

When asked for comment, DoNotPay’s representative denied Faridian’s allegations, explaining the organization intends to defend itself “vigorously.”

Article By Troy J. Chinnici of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

For more communications, media, and internet legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

March 2023 Legal Industry News Highlights: Law Firm Hiring News, Industry Awards and Recognition, and the Latest Updates in Diversity and Inclusion

Welcome back to another edition of the National Law Review’s legal industry news roundup. We hope you are remaining safe, happy, and healthy! Please read on below for the latest in law firm hiring and expansion news, key industry awards and recognition, and a spotlight on important diversity, equity, and inclusion updates!

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Joanna Horsnail has been named managing partner of Mayer Brown’s Chicago office, effective February 28, 2023. Her appointment marks the fourth consecutive female leader for the firm’s largest office. Ms. Horsnail’s practice has primarily focused on advising clients on key transformational deals, primarily in the City of Chicago and State of Illinois. Most notably, she counseled on the deal securing the James R. Thompson Center as the corporate headquarters for Google, and has also previously worked with the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, the Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and other public and not-for-profit organizations.

“Joanna’s well-earned reputation for professional excellence, coupled with her outstanding profile in the Chicago community make her an exceptional choice to lead the office,” said firm chair Jon Van Gorp. “Her natural charisma, approachability as a mentor to many and vision for the office will make her an inspirational and hugely successful leader. I look forward to working closely with her to achieve the growth and development objectives that the firm has for this office, which is where I started my career at Mayer Brown.”

“I’m delighted to be named office managing partner,” said Ms. Horsnail. “I have such tremendous enthusiasm for both Mayer Brown and this office and look forward to guiding the office as we continue our success in Chicago.”

Morten Lund has joined Foley & Lardner’s San Diego office as an of counsel in the Finance Practice Group. Mr. Lund has more than 25 years of experience advising developers, lenders, investors, and other project participants and has extensive experience in the energy sector.

Mr. Lund’s practice has primarily focused on solar energy and energy storage projects. His range of project experience also includes wind energy projects, combustion generator projects, nuclear energy facilities, hydroelectric facilities, cogeneration facilities, chemical facilities, forestry/paper facilities, large aircraft, and shipping fleets. He earned his JD from Yale University.

Eversheds Sutherland has added Megan K. Hall to their Tax Practice Group as a partner. Ms. Hall, located in the firm’s Washington D.C. office, further strengthens the firm’s international tax capabilities, focusing chiefly on transactional matters, cross-border employment and global mobility. She has previously worked with clients including multinational corporations on international tax matters, including the tax aspects of acquisitions, mergers, internal restructurings and business formations.

“I’m very excited to welcome Megan to the team and know she will add depth to our international tax practice,” said Robert S. Chase, US Tax Practice Group Leader. “Megan’s familiarity with cross-border operational structures and the tax considerations relevant to operating a multinational business enhances the firm’s ability to support clients in an area of increased focus for international tax authorities. The firm’s global footprint will provide a unique opportunity to enhance support to her international network.”

Jeremiah Kelly and Justin Coen have joined Venable LLP as partners in the firm’s FDA Group. Mr. Kelly’s practice concentrates on the FDA’s complex regulatory framework, helping clients with product development, application, and compliance for drugs, biologics, medical devices, and combination products. Mr. Coen’s practice focuses on guiding companies through FDA regulations related to drug, biologic, and device development, advising them on every stage of product development and commercialization.

Claudia A. Lewis, a co-chair of the firm’s FDA Group, said, “Venable has established itself among the premier practices in the FDA regulatory space and is regularly called upon to handle a myriad of issues involving the development and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. With the addition of Jeremiah and Justin, our services now include robust legal capabilities for companies navigating the FDA regulatory framework to commercialize drugs, biologics, devices, and combination products, among other product categories.”

Legal Industry Awards and Recognition

Janet Wagner, principal in the Banking practice at Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., has been accepted as a fellow of the respected American College of Mortgage Attorneys (ACMA) for 2023. Fellows of ACMA, which is composed of lawyers in North America who are authorities in mortgage law, seeks to give back to their profession, improving and reforming laws and procedures affecting real estate secured transactions and raising the level of performance of lawyers practicing in this area. Candidates are recommended each year and are selected after thorough review of their qualifications and achievements.

Ms. Wagner primarily focuses her practice on banking and commercial financing transactions, providing key counsel to commercial banks, credit unions, institutional lenders, insurance companies and other lenders. Previously, she has represented lenders involving a variety of classes of real estate in states across the country on acquisitions, refinancing and construction loans.

The Brain Injury Association of America (BIAA) has named Lawrence J. Buckfire to their prestigious Preferred Attorneys Program. The objective of the Preferred Attorneys Program is to offer a credible, diverse listing of outstanding attorneys to be used as a resource for both referring attorneys and individuals with brain injury, their family members/caregivers, and others seeking legal counsel. BIAA Preferred Attorneys are selected for their demonstrated legal credentials and their knowledge of the physical, cognitive, emotional, and financial tolls a brain injury inflicts.

Mr. Buckfire has consistently demonstrated skill and ability in representing those affected by a brain injury. He is the lead trial attorney and managing partner at Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. His practice focuses primarily on child lead paint poisoning, wrongful death, nursing home neglect, medical malpractice, and other serious injury cases.

Adam Beaudoin of Ward and Smith has been chosen to serve as President-Elect of the Board of Directors for the Community Associations Institute of North Carolina (CAI-NC). The Community Associations Institute seeks to promote and strengthen community associations, focusing on education and resources for homeowners, volunteers, and professional managers.

Mr. Beaudoin brings extensive experience to his new role with CAI-NC, having previously practiced community associations law for nearly two decades. He is the Co-Chair of Ward and Smith‘s Community Associations Practice Group, and he has been a CAI-NC member since 2006. He has presented at several local and national CAI events, served on the Legislative Action Committee, and was a board member prior to his election.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion News

Katten Health Care Partner and Deputy General Counsel Kenya Woodruff has been profiled as a Leader in Diversity by the Dallas Business Journal. Ms. Woodruff is the National Chair of Katten’s Diversity Committee Women’s Leadership Forum, where she leads efforts to provide women attorneys with the professional tools and support to take their rightful place as leaders in law.

“I’m particularly proud of the professional development programming we have offered through the Women’s Leadership Forum to help empower our female attorneys at the firm and give them the skills needed to advance in their careers,” says Ms. Woodruff.

Woodruff’s practice centers around the healthcare industry, where she uses her legal, business, and regulatory expertise to support successful clinical operations and corporate transactions. She has previously worked as Deputy General Counsel for Parkland Health & Hospital System and Privacy Officer for a publicly traded radiology company.

Three Barnes and Thornburg attorneys will represent the firm in two 2023 Leadership Council for Legal Diversity Programs. Adetayo Osuntogun, Partner at the D.C. office, will join LCLD’s Fellows Program, a year-long training program focused on relationship-building and leadership skill development. Indianapolis Associate Alyssa Hughes and Los Angeles Associate Mihran Yezbekyan are joining the LCLD Pathfinders Program, which gives early career professionals the chance to develop tools related to leadership, career development, and professional networking.

Mr. Osuntogun is an international trade law expert focused on helping businesses handle global commerce matters related to trade policy, customs, imports, economic sanctions, export laws, and more. He is active with Alpha Phi Alpha, the Diverse Associates Network, and the National Bar Association. Ms. Hughes, who The Best Lawyers in America listed as one of 2023’s “Ones to Watch,” works in the Litigation Department on matters related to government and internal investigations, corporate criminal defense, and general commercial disputes. Mr. Yezbekyan also works in the Litigation Department, handling product liability, mass torts, and consumer class actions. Outside of the office, he volunteers with the Los Angeles County Bar Association Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee.

“LCLD has been a long-standing partner of Barnes & Thornburg. Their pathfinder and fellow programs align with our mission to position all of our talent to win,” said Dawn R. Rosemond, firm diversity partner. “We know that these programs will only further elevate Adetayo, Alyssa and Mihran’s professional practice and presence.”

Stanley Blackmon, Partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings’ Birmingham office, has also been selected to be a 2023 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow. The program will provide alumni networks, mentoring, accountability partners, leadership lunches, and class meetings to advance his legal diversity efforts and help others to do the same. LCLD Fellows are selected for their leadership, engagement, and commitment to diversity and inclusion, which Mr. Blackmon demonstrates through his active pro bono practice and involvement with the Birmingham Bar Association as President of the Young Lawyers’ Section, the Magic City Bar Association as an Executive Committee Member, the Alabama Standing Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the American Bar Association.

“We congratulate Stanley on his selection as an LCLD Fellow,” said Bradley Director of Inclusion and Diversity George D. Medlock, Jr. “Since Bradley joined LCLD in 2020, we have been proud to participate in and support the LCLD’s programs, which help prepare future generations of diverse talent for the highest positions of legal leadership.”

Article By Chandler Ford and Crissonna Tennison of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more legal marketing news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Non-Negotiable Arbitration Agreements May Be Required as a Condition of Employment

On February 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit struck down AB 51, a California statute that imposed criminal and civil penalties against employers who required employees to enter into an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment, finding the statute to be an “unacceptable obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. Bonta, et al., No. 20-15291 (9th Cir. 2023).

As discussed in our prior post and articles (link here), in August 2022 the Ninth Circuit withdrew its prior decision, which had upheld portions of AB 51, following the United States Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana.

AB 51, embodied in California Labor Code §432.6 effective January 1, 2020, prohibited an employer from entering into a non-negotiable agreement that required the employee to waive “any right, forum, or procedure” for a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or the California Labor Code, including “the right to file and pursue a civil action.” Further, AB 51 imposed harsh penalties for employers who violated the statute, including a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months’ imprisonment, as well as the potential for civil litigation by the State of California or by private individuals. In an effort to avoid Supreme Court decisions striking down state laws that improperly targeted arbitration agreements, the California legislature also created the confusing outcome that potentially criminalized the formation of non-negotiable arbitration agreements, but permitted their enforcement once executed.

Noting that arbitration agreements by their very nature require parties to waive their rights to bring disputes in court, and crediting the plaintiffs’ evidence that the possible imposition of civil and criminal penalties deterred employers from attempting to enter into non-negotiable agreements with employees, the court affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction in favor of several trade associations and business groups who sought to block the implementation of the statute. Relying on principles of preemption and judicial precedent striking down similar state laws or judge-made rules that singled out executed arbitration agreements, the Court found AB 51 improperly “burden[s]” the formation of arbitration agreements in violation of the FAA.

Having written the previous 2-1 decision upholding AB 51, Judge Lucero now found himself dissenting. Arguing that the majority “misconstrue[d] the jurisprudence” of the Supreme Court, the dissent claimed that arbitration was permissible only if consensual and that AB 51 only applied to conduct occurring prior to the formation of the contract and thus was not an obstacle to the objectives of the FAA.

Employers may require their California employees to sign non-negotiable arbitration agreements to obtain or maintain their employment. Arbitration agreements may still be unenforceable however if they are procedurally and substantively unconscionable, if the agreement lacks mutual consent because a party was forced to sign by threats or physical coercion or “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” Thus, employers should review their agreements to ensure they are in compliance with other California requirements, that the terms are not unfair or one-sided, and, the agreement presented is not unfair, surprising or oppressive.

Article By Sheryl L. Skibbe of Vedder Price

For more arbitration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Biden Administration Sets New Course on ESG Investing in Retirement Plans

In late 2022, the Department of Labor finalized a new rule titled “Prudence in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights,” largely reversing Trump-era guidance that had strictly limited the ability of plan fiduciaries to consider “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) factors in selecting retirement plan investments and generally discouraged the exercise of proxy voting. In short, the new rule allows a fiduciary to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options, provided that the selection serves the financial interests of the plan and its participants over an appropriate time horizon, and encourages fiduciaries to engage in proxy voting.

The final rule moves away from 2020 Trump-era rulemaking by allowing more leeway for fiduciaries to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options. Specifically, the rule states that a “fiduciary’s duty of prudence must be based on factors that the fiduciary reasonably determines are relevant to a risk and return analysis and that such factors may include the economic effects of climate change and other ESG considerations on the particular investment or investment course of action.” The rule makes clear, however, that there is no requirement to affirmatively consider ESG factors, effectively limiting its scope and effect and putting the onus on fiduciaries to determine whether they want to incorporate ESG factors into their assessments of competing investments.

Overview

Similar to the Trump-era guidance, there is no definition of “ESG” or an “ESG”-style fund. Debate continues over what kinds of funds can be considered ESG investments, especially in light of the fact that some companies in industries traditionally thought to be inconsistent with ESG conscious investing are now trying to attract ESG investors (e.g. industrials, energy).

Fiduciaries are not required to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options. However, the consideration of such factors is not a presumed violation of a fiduciary’s duty of loyalty or prudence. Unlike the prior rule, which suggested that consideration of ESG factors could only be considered if all other pecuniary factors between competing investments were equal (the “tiebreaker” approach), the new rule allows a fiduciary to consider potential financial benefits of ESG investing in all circumstances.

Plan fiduciaries may take into account participant preferences in constructing a fund lineup. Therefore, if participants express a desire for ESG investment options, then it may be reasonable for plan fiduciaries to add ESG funds or to consider ESG factors in crafting the fund lineup.

ESG-centric funds may be used as qualified default investments (QDIAs) within retirement plans, reversing the prior outright prohibition on use of such funds as QDIAs.

In some situations, fiduciaries may be required to exercise shareholder rights when required to protect participant interests. It is unclear whether the exercise of such rights is only limited to situations that have an economic impact on the plan, or applies to additional situations. The clarification suggests that the exercise of proxy voting is not disfavored as an inefficient use of fiduciaries’ time and resources, as the prior iteration of the rule suggested.

Effective Date and Challenges to the Regulation

The new rule became effective in January 2023, except for delayed applicability of proxy voting provisions. However, twenty five state attorneys general have joined a lawsuit in federal court in Texas that seeks to overturn the regulation. The court is in the Fifth Circuit, which historically has been hostile to past Department of Labor regulations (including Obama-era fiduciary rules overturned in 2018, though the ESG rule is less far-reaching than the fiduciary rule and may survive a challenge even in the Fifth Circuit). Congressional Republicans have also introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) review proposal to repeal the regulation that has gained the support of Joe Manchin (D-WV). Although CRA actions are not subject to Senate filibuster rules, they are subject to presidential veto, which President Biden is sure to do if the repeal reaches his desk.

Action Steps

Employers should assume that the ESG rules will remain in effect and engage with plan fiduciaries, advisors, and employees and determine the extent to which ESG considerations should (or should not) enter into fiduciary deliberations when considering plan investment alternatives. Some investment advisors have already begun to include separate ESG scorecards for mutual funds and other investments in their regular plan investment reviews. Fiduciaries should also consider whether and how the approach that is ultimately taken should be reflected in the plan’s investment policy statement. Plans that delegate full control over investments to an independent fiduciary (an ERISA 3(38) advisor) should engage with their advisor to determine whether and the extent to which ESG considerations will be part of that fiduciary’s process, and whether that is consistent with the desires of the plan fiduciaries and participants.

Article By Alex H. Glaser and Timothy Brechtel of Jones Walker LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

10 Tips When Hiring a Federal Appeals Lawyer

When hiring a federal appeals attorney, it is important not to take your decision lightly. There is a good chance that the outcome of your appeal will have a major impact on your life or business—whether positive or negative—and your choice of counsel will have a major impact on your chances of success.

For many people, their first instinct is to engage their trial counsel for their appeal. On its face, this makes sense. Trial counsel is already intimately familiar with the facts of your case, and trial counsel is—or should be—well aware of the grounds that are available for seeking relief at the appellate level.

But, while trial counsel can be a good option in some cases, defendants should not engage their trial counsel by default. There are many circumstances in which hiring trial counsel to continue forward with an appeal will not be the right choice. There are several factors to consider, and considering all of these factors is essential for making an informed decision.

“Some lawyers are better equipped to handle federal criminal appeals than others. This is not a slight toward lawyers who don’t handle federal appeals, but rather simply an acknowledgment that federal appeals are a unique practice area just like white collar criminal defense, healthcare fraud defense, or defending against allegations of serious violent crimes. If you need to appeal the outcome of your federal criminal case, it is imperative that you choose a lawyer who has been there many times before.” – Dr. Nick Oberheiden, Founding Attorney of Oberheiden P.C.

Due to the unique challenges involved in successfully pursuing a federal criminal appeal, the considerations involved in choosing a federal appeals attorney are not the same as those involved in choosing trial counsel for a federal criminal case. This is important to keep in mind, and understanding the unique nature of the federal appeals process will help you make an informed choice about your appellate representation.

How To Choose Appellate Counsel for a Federal Criminal Appeal

So, how should you choose appellate counsel for your federal criminal appeal? Here are 10 tips to keep in mind when hiring a federal appeals lawyer:

1. Understand that an Appeal is Not a Re-Trial

The first thing to understand that will help you make an informed decision about your choice of appellate counsel is that an appeal is not a re-trial. As a result, being an effective trial lawyer does not necessarily translate to having the skills needed to provide effective representation at the appellate level. The federal trial and appellate processes are very different, and many of the arguments and strategies that work at trial are completely irrelevant to the process of seeking relief from an unjust conviction or sentence on appeal.

For example, while providing effective trial representation requires the ability to effectively question witnesses and argue the facts to the jury, providing effective appellate representation requires persuasive writing abilities and the ability to effectively argue the law to a panel of judges who aren’t necessarily focused on the defendant’s guilt or innocence. On appeal, the focus is instead on determining whether errors at the trial level entitle the defendant to the opportunity to pursue a different outcome.

2. Focus on Hiring a Lawyer with Significant Federal Appellate Experience

Given the unique nature of the federal appeals process, relevant experience is undoubtedly the most important factor to consider when choosing a lawyer to represent you. This means experience handling federal criminal appeals in cases similar to yours—and ideally experience handling federal criminal appeals in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that will hear your case. Although, this latter consideration is definitely the less important of the two. While each U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has its own rules of practice, it is far easier to adapt to a new set of procedural rules than it is to get up to speed on the substantive issues involved in a complex federal case.

3. Carefully Consider Whether Your Trial Counsel is Your Best Option

As we touched on above, continuing to work with your trial counsel for your federal criminal appeal may or may not be your best option. As a baseline, you should only consider engaging your trial counsel for your appeal if he or she has extensive experience in federal appellate practice. While some lawyers handle trials and appeals, many devote their careers to handling one type of case or the other.

Even if your trial counsel also has significant experience, you will still want to weigh other factors as well. How effective was your trial representation? Do you have any concerns about whether your trial counsel was able to effectively preserve your grounds for appeal? Does your attorney have other major trials in the pipeline? These are all important questions to consider when making your decision.

4. Expand Your Search

When choosing a federal appeals attorney, you don’t necessarily have to stay local—and, in fact, staying local might not be your best option either. There are federal appeals lawyers who handle cases throughout the country; and, depending on where you live or your business is located, your local options may be fairly limited. You can (and should) expand your search to law firms with a nationwide presence, and you can (and should) choose a lawyer based on relevant experience rather than geographic proximity.

5. Schedule a Consultation to Discuss Your Appeal

Whether you are considering your trial counsel or you are looking elsewhere for your appellate representation, you should schedule a consultation to discuss your appeal. Before you invest in an appeal, you need to make sure it makes sense to move forward. Scheduling a consultation also gives you the opportunity to speak with a lawyer one-on-one and decide whether he or she seems like the right choice to handle your case on appeal.

6. Do Some Legwork Yourself

In addition to scheduling a consultation, you can also do some legwork to help you make an informed decision—and to help yourself and your lawyer begin preparing for your appeal. When it comes to choosing a federal appeals lawyer, this includes taking steps such as:

Visiting the lawyer’s website and reading about his or her experience
Reading client reviews and testimonials online
Preparing a list of questions to ask during your initial consultation

When it comes to preparing for your appeal, some of the steps you can take to prepare in advance of your initial appellate consultation include:

Taking notes about any potential grounds for appeal that you have discussed with your trial counsel
Taking notes about any other specific issues during your trial that you think may have led to an unjust result
Familiarizing yourself with the unique aspects of federal appellate practice

7. Do Not Fall for a Sales Pitch

While a lawyer should only be willing to take your case if he or she is capable of representing you effectively, you still need to be careful to avoid falling for a sales pitch. Unfortunately, if you schedule a consultation with a lawyer who isn’t the right choice to handle your case, there is a possibility that he or she may still try to convince you otherwise. While these instances are relatively rare, they do happen. If you feel like a lawyer is pressuring you to move forward with an engagement, this is most likely a sign that you should choose someone else for your federal criminal appeal.

8. Schedule Another Consultation if Necessary

This brings us to another important point: If you schedule a consultation with a lawyer and you are not confident in the lawyer’s ability to handle your appeal effectively for any reason, you should not hesitate to schedule another consultation at another firm.

9. Make Your Decision Carefully

If it is not already abundantly clear, when hiring a federal appeals attorney, you need to make your decision carefully. You should not rush, and you should not make your decision out of convenience or the desire to avoid putting in effort. Your effort to find the right lawyer for your appeal will be well worth it. Whether you are facing a conviction as an individual or your business has been convicted of corporate fraud or any other crime, you need to have unwavering confidence in your counsel’s ability to provide strategic and efficient appellate representation. The more effort you put into choosing the right lawyer, the more confidence you will have in your decision.

10. Make Your Decision Promptly

Finally, while it is important not to rush your decision, you still need to make your decision promptly. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, you only have 14 days to file a Notice of Appeal. While a Notice of Appeal is a simple form filing, you cannot afford to risk any mistakes or delays. So, whether it has been hours or days since the trial court’s decision, finding the right federal appeals lawyer to represent you (or your business) needs to be your top priority.

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

For more litigation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

January 2023 Legal Industry News Highlights: Law Firm Expansion and Promotions, Industry Awards and Achievements, and a Spotlight on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Legal Field

Welcome back to another edition of the National Law Review’s legal industry news roundup, including a focus on law firm hirings and expansions, noteworthy awards and accomplishments in the field, and the latest in DEI efforts across the industry. We hope you are remaining safe and healthy, and that your new year has started off strong!

Additionally, be sure to check out the latest episode of our legal news podcast, Legal News Reach. New episodes will be forthcoming in 2023!