Category: Administrative & Regulatory

SCOTUS Cert Recap: Civil Procedure, Bankruptcy, And Worker’s Comp

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted three of the cert. petitions it considered at its first conference of the new year.

The Court agreed to hear issues involving: 1) the grounds for relief from a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), 2) the limits on Congress’ authority to apply different bankruptcy rules to different parts of the country, and 3) the scope of states’ authority to apply their workers’ compensation laws to federal facilities.

Such issues are not the most high-profile the Court will address this term, as underscored by the absence of cert-stage amicus briefs in all three of the cases (though this is less uncommon than one might think; by our calculations, about 40 percent of the cert. petitions granted for plenary review last term lacked cert-stage amicus briefs). For governmental entities, bankruptcy practitioners, and federal court civil litigators, however, the cases are worth noting and following.

Rule 60(b) Motions for Relief from Final Judgment

In Kemp v. United States, the Court finally agreed to resolve what the cert. petition characterizes as a 50-year circuit split on whether the “mistake” prong of Rule 60(b)(1) authorizes relief based on a district court’s legal error. Rule 60(b) sets out six categories of reasons why a district court may relieve a party from a final judgment, including “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” under 60(b)(1) and “any other reason that justifies relief” under 60(b)(6). The lower courts agree that 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) authorize relief for at least some legal errors, but disagree about which of those provisions does so.

And that seemingly picayune distinction can matter. The Federal Rules require all 60(b) motions to be made “within a reasonable time” but set a hard one-year time limit for relief sought on 60(b)(1) grounds. This means that if Rule 60(b)(1) does not encompass legal errors, motions alleging legal errors would fall under Rule 60(b)(6) and would not need to meet the bright-line one-year rule – though such motions would then be subject to the Supreme Court’s additional requirement that 60(b)(6) motions establish “extraordinary circumstances” justifying relief. Accordingly, the question in this case can mean the difference between a timely and untimely 60(b) motion, and civil litigators should be on the lookout for the Court’s answer.

Congress’ Authority to Adopt “Uniform” Bankruptcy Rules

The Court will also take up Siegel v. Fitzgerald, where it will consider the meaning of the Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause, which authorizes Congress to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” The petitioner in this case contends that Congress violated this “uniformity” requirement by dividing the nation’s bankruptcy courts into two slightly different categories. Most operate under the U.S. Trustee program, while six (all in North Carolina and Alabama) operate under the Bankruptcy Administrator program.

In 2017, Congress increased the quarterly fees paid by debtors in large Chapter 11 bankruptcies from $30,000 to $250,000, and while this increase was immediately applicable to all pending and future cases in Trustee districts, it was imposed in Administrator districts nine months later, and then only to future cases. In Siegel the Court will decide whether this difference renders the 2017 statute unconstitutionally “non-uniform” (and, if the Court concludes it is unconstitutional, there will be a further difficult question to tackle concerning how such a defect should be remedied). Notably, even the respondent (who is represented by the U.S. Solicitor General) urged the Court to take this case, observing that though Congress eliminated the difference in 2020, the question presented in this case could affect the status of approximately $324 million in quarterly fees imposed nationwide under the 2017 statute.

In light of such figures, bankruptcy professionals across the country – especially those with cases subject to the 2017 statute – will likely have a strong interest in what the Court will say.

Limits on States’ Application of Workers’ Compensation Laws to Federal Facilities

In United States v. Washington, the Court agreed to hear the federal government’s challenge to a Washington workers’ compensation law that applies exclusively to contractors at a federally owned nuclear-waste cleanup site. Under longstanding principles of intergovernmental immunity, state regulation of federal facilities is generally permissible only where such regulation is clearly authorized by Congress. And the federal government contends that the relevant statute here – which allows states to regulate workers’ compensation at federal facilities “in the same way and to the same extent as if the premises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State” – does not permit states to single out federal facilities for unique treatment. The state of Washington, meanwhile, counters that states routinely apply different rules to different employers, and it argues that the federal statute simply authorizes such context-sensitive regulation at private and federal facilities alike.

The dispute accordingly consists of competing interpretations of a narrow federal statute (40 U.S.C. § 3172(a)), and it is therefore difficult to see how the case could have much broader significance outside the workers’ compensation context. Contractors working at federal facilities, however, may be interested to see whether the Supreme Court opens the door for future challenges to state workers’ compensation laws.

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Article By Kian Hudson of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

For more articles on SCOTUS, visit the NLR Litigation / Trial Practice section.

Let’s Eat Grandma = Let’s Eat, Grandma?

To the possible dismay of grammar purists, a federal court recently found that an insurance policy provision meant the same thing whether or not it included a comma before a key phrase. After poking fun at insurance policies (“long been the butt of jokes”), the court recognized that they can “provide fodder for scores of attorneys, grammarians, and logophiles” like when “the placement (or omission) of one comma can make the difference.” This case is an example.

The policy covered Constantin for claims related to “services directed toward expertise in banking finance, accounting, risk and systems analysis, design and implementation, asset recovery and strategy planning for financial institutions.” Constantin sought coverage for an underlying litigation that involved “services directed toward expertise in . . . accounting.” But that litigation did not involve services “for financial institutions.”

So the question was whether “for financial institutions” applied just to the service immediately preceding it or to all services identified in the provision, including accounting services. The court found that it modified the entire series, explaining that “while commas at the end of a series can avoid ambiguity, the use of such commas is discretionary.”

Bottom line: While a comma can save grandma’s life, it couldn’t save coverage here.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Article By Patrick M. McDermott and Casey L. Coffey of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more articles on insurance, visit the NLR Insurance Reinsurance & Surety section.

How Does SEO Help Law Firms? 10 Benefits

How Does SEO Help Law Firms?

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is one of the most effective marketing strategies for law firms. Think about it: What better way to reach potential clients than in Google?

After all, people use Google to search for lawyers and legal service providers in their area – more than any other platform. SEO empowers law firms to rank high in the search results and attract clients who are already looking for services like theirs.

But SEO doesn’t just help law firms attract new clients. There are many benefits to adopting a law firm SEO strategy.

1. Organic Traffic

SEO is first and foremost focused on improving a website’s Google rankings and driving organic traffic. Most often, the goal is to rank high, consistently, in Search and earn organic visitors for the long term.

Lawyers can optimize their website for the search terms (“keywords”) people are using to search for their services. For example, if you are a family lawyer in Denver, you can attempt to rank for “denver family lawyer,” “family lawyer in denver,” “family law attorney denver” and the like.

Organic (unpaid) marketing is great because it doesn’t require a hefty ad spend in order to yield results. You can adopt your own SEO strategies to rank your website or choose to hire an SEO professional to aid the process.

2. Improved User Experience

Believe it or not, SEO is not just about pleasing the Google gods. In actuality, your goal should be to provide the best website experience, content, and information to your prospective visitors. Google’s algorithm serves to rank content that best matches what users are searching for.

SEO necessarily improves user experience (UX) because UX is included in Google’s known ranking factors. The speed, interactivity, and accessibility of your website are all important in terms of pleasing visitors and letting Google know your website is optimized.

A great UX keeps users on your website for longer and encourages them to “opt in” (contact you) rather than going to your competitors.

3. Faster Website Speed

Google assesses a website’s Core Web Vitals in order to determine that a website is fast and that its content is easily rendered to users. In other words, it wants to ensure that when users land on your site, it doesn’t take decades for your content to load.

Slow website speed can be a huge deterrent to potential clients. If your website takes too long, they are likely to go elsewhere. Also, slow website speed often means you have “heavy” images and code on your site, which can essentially glitch out or fail to load when users interact with them.

An effective SEO strategy works to improve your website’s Core Web Vitals across the board so you’re sure to provide a fast, user-friendly website experience to your visitors.

4. Better Content Marketing

The success of your SEO is largely driven by content. The content on your web pages and on your blog posts work to attract the right kinds of users to your site, improve your site’s authority, and so much more.

When you care about SEO, you care about your content, and in turn, create better content for users and for search engines. Better content not only ranks higher in Search, but it is more readily shared by users. Plus, your written content is often what ultimately convinces people to hire you.

5. Earned Links and Authority

Backlinks (links from other websites) are essentially votes of confidence from outside sites that your website is informative, factual, and valuable to users. Every SEO strategy aims to earn these authority-boosting links to show Google your website is legit.

Earned authority can improve your website’s appearance in search. At the same time, links from other websites can drive additional traffic to your website. Blogging, content marketing, and outreach are just a few ways law firms can earn backlinks for SEO.

6. Referral Traffic

Referral traffic is traffic that comes in via outside links or from other websites. SEO can help drive referral traffic to your site, because other sites begin to notice your content and want to link to it.

At the same time, most law firms adopt a localized SEO strategy that involves submitting their business information to local directories. These directories can then send more visitors (and leads) to your website.

Also, publishing expert-level content can grab the attention of other blogs and publications, which may then choose to feature you. Then, you can get this referral traffic via interviews, podcasts, and guest posts.

7. More Phone Calls

Law firm SEO often requires a localized strategy in order to target users in a specific service area. To do this, law firms can produce geo-specific content on their websites, submit to local directories, and even create a Google My Business listing.

Local SEO helps law firms get noticed in local search. With local listings, law firms can share their business contact information to drive more phone calls and leads.

In short, visitors don’t even need to visit your website if they are able to find your phone number directly from Google!

8. Improved Client Intake

Website optimization makes it far easier to collect lead information and file it away for better client intake. By including contact forms and contact information on your website, you can generate more digital leads and save this information to your client management system.

If you are strictly relying on phone calls, you’re likely missing out on a ton of potential leads. Contact forms, chat bots, and opt-ins make it easier than ever to gather lead information in real-time. You can even automate text messaging or email follow-up to reach potential clients faster.

9. Local and Foot Traffic

Local SEO also makes it easier for potential clients to find your physical office. You’re able to post your address and other business information so people can visit you in person, without ever having to go to your website.

Localization also sends geo-specific “cues” to Google telling it where your business exists and the areas it serves. If you have this information, it makes it more likely you will appear in the right local search results for the right audience. This is especially true if you work in a competitive market, but your competitors have not implemented SEO.

10. Reviews and Ratings

Reviews and SEO present a “chicken and the egg” situation; great reviews influence SEO, and SEO helps law firms earn reviews. There’s no way to go wrong!

Positive client reviews indicate to Google (and users) that your law firm is trustworthy, real (important!), and highly revered. SEO, in turn, encourages law firms to reach out and generate more positive reviews so they can improve their rankings.

Think those 5-star ratings don’t matter for Search? Think again! Not only do potential clients want to see those shining reviews, but Google values your business’s reputation as well. So don’t forget about reviews when it comes to your SEO.

SEO helps put your law firm on the map

SEO helps law firms beyond just traffic and lead generation; it provides a well-rounded marketing strategy that improves your business’s overall digital presence. And a better digital presence means more opportunities to attract new legal clients!

Every law firm should adopt SEO in order to improve user experience, website speed, content, and local visibility. This is one of the best ways to drive sustainable, organic traffic and put your website on the (Google) map.

Copyright 2022 © Hennessey Digital

Article By Jason Hennessey of Hennessey Digital

For more articles on SEO, visit the NLR Law Office Management section.

What Should Your COVID-19 Vaccination/Test Policy Contain?

Every employer who employs at least 100 employees is anxiously awaiting the decision from the United States Supreme Court on OSHA’s Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). One thing that cannot be avoided is having a policy in place/ready to go given that the January 10, 2022 enforcement date from OSHA is here.

Specifically, the ETS requires employers to have a written policy on COVID-19 vaccinations. Employers are able to decide whether to have a policy that mandates vaccinations for employees. Such a policy must address the following:

  1. The requirements to be vaccinated against COVID-19,
  2. Exclusions for medical reasons/accommodations based on disabilities and/or religious beliefs,
  3. Information required to be submitted regarding the employee’s vaccination status and how to provide the information to the employer,
  4. Paid time for vaccination purposes (up to four hours of leave for each dose that is not deducted from the employee’s leave bank) and sick leave for the vaccine’s side effects of up to 2 days (which can be deducted from the employee’s leave bank, if leave is available),
  5. Obligations to notify the employer of a positive test result and removal COVID-19 positive employees from the workplace, and
  6. Discipline for failure to comply with the policy.

For employers who choose not to mandate vaccines, they still have to have a policy that provides for the information above but allows employees to choose to submit to weekly COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering. Notably, of course, the weekly testing obligation for those who are not vaccinated is not in effect until February 9, 2022. However, if the ETS survives Supreme Court scrutiny (oral arguments were held last Friday, January 7, 2021), employees who report to the workplace weekly must submit to testing once every 7 days or within 7 days of reporting to the workplace if they do not work in person weekly.

The policy should inform employees of the testing obligation and that employees cannot both self-administer and self-read a test unless at least one step is observed by the employer or an authorized telehealth proctor.

With no guarantee as to how and when the Supreme Court will rule and given these enforcement dates, it is past time for employers to be developing their policies, collecting vaccination information, and informing employees who are not fully vaccinated, that they will be required to wear face coverings (and that weekly testing will begin in February).

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Article By Carrie Hoffman of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more articles on vaccination, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

COVID-19: Cameras in The Courtroom: Public Access to Appellate Proceedings Post-COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

While federal and state appellate courts have historically been cautious about allowing cameras in the courtroom, the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed courts toward live audiovisual broadcasting to preserve public access to proceedings. Appellate courts’ new practices for virtual arguments and live audiovisual broadcasting1 present expanded opportunities for client engagement in the appellate process.

HISTORY OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS

The founders did not countenance secret justice, believing that the operations of the courts were “matters of utmost public concern.”2

In the early years of the federal judiciary, Supreme Court justices lived this value when they rode circuit—traveling the country and hearing appeals in different courts. This allowed the public to view courtroom proceedings, showing the ways in which the new government, and its appellate judges, could serve their needs.3 Since circuit riding ended, however, both federal and state judiciaries have lagged in ensuring public access to court proceedings.

Only in 1980 did the Supreme Court first recognize a constitutional right to courtroom access. In Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,4  a criminal defendant on trial for murder asked that the courtroom doors be closed to the public, and the judge granted that request.5 A local newspaper sued, raising the issue of whether the public had a right to access the trial court’s proceedings.6 The Supreme Court said yes: The press and the public have a First Amendment right to access criminal trials.7 

The public may have the right to attend criminal trials, but the Fourth Circuit is the only federal court to hold that the public has a constitutional right to attend appellate court proceedings.8 The Ninth Circuit and Seventh Circuit, the only two other federal courts to address the issue, stopped short of finding a constitutional right, instead concluding that there is a presumption of public access to appellate proceedings.9 Among the states, about half have general and presumptive “open court” constitutional provisions or statutes.10 Only six states have specifically addressed the issue of public access to appellate proceedings — Connecticut, Maine, Missouri, New Mexico, and Rhode Island each have rules of appellate procedure that call for public access to appellate court proceedings.11 The Florida Supreme Court recognizes a “presumption of openness [that] continues through the appellate review process.”12 The Nevada Supreme Court has stated that it agrees with other courts’ recognition of a public policy towards public access to appellate proceedings.13

Even among appellate courts that recognize or practice public access, however, there has been disagreement as to whether that access should include live audiovisual broadcasting.

APPELLATE COURTS’ CONCERNS ABOUT CAMERAS

Until recently, many, if not most, litigators, judges, and scholars opposed allowing cameras in the courtroom.14 They worried that lawyers and judges would grandstand in the presence of cameras, becoming more dramatic, argumentative, or long-winded knowing that their image was being broadcast on television.15 Other lawyers and judges might feel self-conscious and limit their arguments or their questions.16 Justice Kennedy expressed concern that allowing audiovisual broadcasting in the Supreme Court would encourage lawyers and justices to engage in sound bites rather than make legal arguments.17

Another concern has been that cameras would create a “circus” atmosphere and undermine the seriousness of or politicize the matter before the court.18 The American Bar Association in 1937 drafted a model rule for state bar associations that admonishes judges:

Proceedings in court should be conducted with fitting dignity and decorum. The taking of photographs in the courtroom, during sessions of the court or recesses between sessions, and the broadcasting of court proceedings, degrade the court and create misconceptions with respect thereto in the mind of the public and should not be permitted.19

This rule—or, more accurately, ban—was adopted by all federal jurisdictions and all but three states.20

Incremental change began in the 1980s. After demonstrations urging the Supreme Court to permit cameras in the courtroom and a letter from C-SPAN offering to help make that a reality, Chief Justice Rehnquist formed an ad hoc committee in 1988 to study the issue.21 From 1990 to the mid-2010s, federal circuit and state supreme courts began to explore the idea of cameras in the courtroom. A pilot program began in 1991 in which the Second and Ninth Circuits televised appellate arguments.22 While the program did not result in the Judicial Conference mandating cameras in all courtrooms, the Ninth Circuit was permitted to continue using cameras.23 State supreme courts followed similar test-and-see approaches. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for example, spent six months testing audiovisual broadcasting before formally approving oral arguments to be broadcast live on the Pennsylvania Cable Network.24

Nonetheless, many courts remained cautious about allowing cameras in the courtroom. For example, the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics prohibit live audiovisual broadcasting of proceedings unless authorized by the presiding judge.25 Such authorization requires obtaining advance consent from the attorneys who would be recorded and establishing a plan to ensure that the live broadcasting will not detract from the “dignity of the court proceedings.”26 The Fourth Circuit, despite having expressly recognized the public’s right to access appellate proceedings, refused to permit cameras in its courtrooms, instead opting to broadcast only audio of oral arguments.27

Such hesitancy has largely evaporated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

THE RISE OF LIVE BROADCAST VIRTUAL ORAL ARGUMENTS DURING THE PANDEMIC

The COVID-19 pandemic pushed judicial proceedings, including appellate proceedings, onto virtual platforms. This encouraged appellate courts to consider their commitments to open access and adjust accordingly. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, instituted live audio broadcasting.28State supreme courts took this opportunity to bring cameras into the courtroom.

Now, nearly two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, 38 out of the 50 state supreme courts are offering live audiovisual broadcasting of oral arguments:

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Washington

West Virginia

Of the states that have adopted a live audiovisual broadcasting system in response to the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on court access, public engagement has greatly increased. For example, hundreds of viewers logged on to the Hawaii Supreme Court’s first-ever live audiovisual broadcast oral argument regarding a water rights case.29 Will a return to in-person arguments prompt retrenchment, or is the genie now out of the bottle? We cannot know for sure, but fear of the unknown and dark predictions of grandstanding have lost much of their power in the debate over cameras in the appellate courtroom.

HOW PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, VIRTUAL ORAL ARGUMENTS HELP CLIENTS

Live audiovisual access to appellate proceedings promotes public access and transparency. No audience has a bigger stake in these proceedings than the clients that are a party to them. Here are just a few ways they benefit from audiovisual access:

  • Attorneys can share recordings of or links to live audiovisual broadcasts with clients that are new to appeals, so they can learn what to expect of the proceedings.
  • Clients no longer have to travel to watch oral argument, saving them significant money and time.
  • Clients can view the work of counsel they are interested in hiring, the approach of opposing counsel, and the ways in which appellate judges and justices engage with attorneys, all of which audio recordings and written transcripts only imperfectly reveal.

Clients should, therefore, welcome this development and encourage its continuation.

1 This client alert uses the term “live audiovisual broadcasting” to describe both live television broadcasts and livestreaming of video as well as audio content via the Internet.

2 Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839, 98 S. Ct. 1535 (1978); see also JOHN ADAMS, A DISSERTATION ON THE CANON AND THE FEUDAL LAW, NO. 3 (1765), https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-01-02-0052-0006 (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022) (“[L]iberty must at all hazards be supported. . . . And liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right from the frame of their nature, to knowledge . . . of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents and trustees for the people; and if the cause, the interest and trust is insidiously betray[ed], or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority, that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute abler and better agents, attorneys and trustees. And the preservation of the means of knowledge, among the lowest ranks, is of more importance to the public, than all the property of all the rich men in the country.”).

3 David R. Stras, Why Supreme Court Justices Should Ride Circuit Again, 91 MINN. L. REV. 1710, 1716–17 (2007).

4 448 U.S. 555, 100 S. Ct. 2814 (1980).

5 Id. at 559–60.

6 Id. at 562–63.

7 Id. at 580.

8 United States v. Moussaoui, 65 F. App’x 881, 890 (4th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he First Amendment guarantees a right of access by the public to oral arguments in the appellate proceedings of this court. Such hearings have historically been open to the public, and the very considerations that counsel in favor of openness of criminal trial support a similar degree of openness in appellate proceedings.”).

9 United States v. Sedaghaty, 728 F.3d 885, 892 n.2 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing a “strong public policy in favor of public access to judicial proceedings” to explain why it heard nearly all of the issues on appeal in open court); In re Krynicki, 983 F.2d 74, 75–76 (7th Cir. 1992) (“Judges deliberate in private but issue public decisions after public arguments based on public records. . . . Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat; this requires rigorous justification. . . . Public argument is the norm even, perhaps especially, when the case is about the right to suppress publication of information.”).

10 ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 13; COLO. CONST. ART. II, § 6; CONN. CONST. ART. I, § 10; DEL. CONST. ART. I, § 9; FLA. CONST. ART. I, § 21; IDAHO CONST. ART. I, § 18; IND. CONST. ART. I, § 12; KY. CONST. § 14; LA. CONST. ART. 1 § 22; MISS. CONST. ART. III, § 24; MONT. CONST. ART. II, § 16; NEB. CONST. ART. I, § 13; N.C. CONST. ART. I, § 18; N.D. CONST. ART. I, § 9; OHIO CONST. ART. I, § 16; OKLA. CONST. ART. II, § 6; OR. CONST. ART. I, § 10; PA. CONST. ART. I, § 11; S.D. CONST. ART. VI, § 20; TENN. CONST. ART. I, § 17; TEX. CONST. ART. I, § 13; UTAH CONST. ART. I, § 11; WA. CONST. ART. I, § 10; W.VA. CONST. ART. III, § 17; WYO. CONST. ART. I, § 8; IOWA CODE § 602.1601 (2018).

11Conn. R. App. P. § 70-9; M.R. App. P. 12B(e); Miss. Sup. Ct. Op. R. 20.02(c); N.M. R. App. P. 12-322; R.I. Sup. Ct. R. 22(b).

12Barron v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers, 531 So. 2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988).

13Whitehead v. Comm’n on Jud. Discipline, 111 Nev. 70, 119–21 (Nev. 1995) (citing In re Krynicki, 983 F.2d at 75, and Barron, 531 So. 2d at 118,, in justifying its decision to refuse to seal its review of charges of judicial misconduct).

14 Nancy S. Marder, The Conundrum of Cameras in the Courtroom, 44 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 1489, 1514–17 (2012).

15 Id. at 1514.

16 Id. at 1515.

17 Id. at 1514–15.

18 Id. at 1517.

19 ABA CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, CANON 35 (1937); see also Richard B. Kielbowicz, The Story behind the Adoption of the Ban on Courtroom Cameras, 63 JUDICATURE 14, 14 (1979).

20 Kielbowicz, 63 JUDICATURE at 14.

21 Lysette Romero Córdova, Will SCOTUS Continue to Livestream Oral Arguments and are Cameras Next? Let’s Hope So., AM. BAR ASS’N (Aug. 24, 2021), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/appellate_issue….

22 History of Cameras in Courts, U.S. Cts., https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/ca… (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022).

23 Id.

24 Amy Worden, Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Allow Cable TV Cameras, PHILA. INQUIRER (Aug. 15, 2011), https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/breaking/20110815_Pa__Supreme_Court….

25 Ala. Canons Jud. Ethics 3.A(7); 3.A(7B), https://judicial.alabama.gov/docs/library/rules/can3.pdf (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022).

26 Id.

27 Electronic Device Policy, U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Fourth Cir., https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/visiting-the-court/electronic… (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022).

28 U.S. Sup. Ct. Audio Broad., https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the First Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiq_Kg0zEPrjMFK_s-KP5_g (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Second Cir. Audio Broad., https://ww2.ca2.uscourts.gov/court.html (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Third Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLSXp4JMYiFc7BHD_ln3d-w (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Fourth Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Fifth Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/ (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022) (audio broadcast links posted weekly); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Sixth Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/live-arguments (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Seventh Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWvXsHlWdsIJHy3R_znCUsA (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Eighth Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/ (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022) (audio broadcast public access telephone numbers posted weekly); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Tenth Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.youtube.com/c/theuscourtofappealsforthe10thcircuit (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Eleventh Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/live-streaming-oral-arguments (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Dist. of Columbia Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20Calenda… (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC78NfBf28AQe3x7-SbbMC2A (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022). The Ninth Circuit is the only federal appellate court to date to offer audiovisual broadcasting. U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Ninth Cir. Audiovisual Broad., https://www.youtube.com/c/9thCircuit (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022).

29 Madison Adler & Allie Reed, All U.S. Appeals Courts Embrace Argument Streaming Due to Covid, BLOOMBERG (Aug. 4, 2020), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pharma-and-life-sciences/all-u-s-appeals-c….

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

Article By Robert B. Mitchell and Monica A. Romero of K&L Gates

For more articles on COVID-19 in the courtroom, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Petitioner Succeeds in Wiping Out Challenged Claims at PTAB

Background

In Micron Technology Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, IPR2020-01007, Paper 36 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2021), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found claims 1−17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,424,041, which described semiconductor devices designed to prevent copper from diffusing from wiring into memory storage regions, unpatentable. The Board’s decision, which determined that the claims were unpatentable as obvious in light of the prior art, undertook both a claim construction and obviousness determination.

Claim Construction

The Board’s decision construed two terms: “memory storage portion” and “copper-diffusion blocking means.” The primary dispute regarding “memory storage portion” was whether it must contain “access circuitry.” The Patent Owner argued that the “memory storage portion” must include access circuitry. After reviewing the specification, the Board construed “memory storage portion” to mean “the region where at least the components that are used for the storage of information are located” and determined that no access circuitry was required. Id. at *23. Then, the Board took to determining the meaning of the term “copper-diffusion blocking means,” which was a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112. To construe this term, the Board determined what the claimed function was and identified the structures or materials disclosed in the specification that corresponded to the means for performing that function. Considering the specification, the Board agreed with the Petitioner’s proposed construction that the claimed function of the term was “blocking copper diffusion from said wiring portion toward said memory storage portion,” and the corresponding structures were a ceiling film or a vertical wall, and equivalents of these. Id. at *28.

Obviousness

The Board determined that Petitioner made a sufficient showing that claims 1−17 would have been obvious in light of two prior art references, Kishii and Ryan.

The parties disputed whether Kishii taught “a memory storage portion on a main surface of said semiconductor substrate.” Id. at *32. The petitioner argued that Kishii’s stacked fin capacitor was a memory storage portion. The patent owner disputed this contention, arguing that the petitioner did not show that Kishii’s capacitor stored information and the stacked fin capacitor may be used for a different purpose in dynamic random-access memory (“DRAM”), such as a decoupling capacitor that does not store information. Petitioner offered expert testimony, which cited examples where a stacked-fin capacitor had been previously used in a DRAM memory cell, as opposed to decoupling circuitry. The Board was persuaded by Petitioner’s expert and found Kishii’s stacked-fin capacitor was a portion or component of a semiconductor device that stored information.

Next, the Board determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably motivated to combine Kishii and Ryan to teach using a copper wire, as required by claim 1, given Ryan’s teaching that copper was a preferred material for such interconnect layers due to its low resistivity, low cost, and enhanced reliability. The Board found the final limitation of claim 1 was taught by Kishii, which was determined to teach a protective film that was “structurally indistinguishable” from the ’041 patent and performed the same claimed function as claim 1 required.

Additionally, the Board determined that petitioner made a sufficient showing that claims 13 and 14 would have also been obvious over Liang and El-Kareh. Claims 13 and 14 added the claim limitation – “wherein the memory storage portion is a memory storage portion for accumulating and releasing charges according to information.” Id. at *59. Combining the prediction from El-Kareh that protection against degradation would be necessary, and Liang’s ability to protect against said degradation, the Board determined that the two references taught a reasonable expectation of success for the limitation of claims 13 and 14.

© 2022 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Article By Emma N. Ng, Shannon M. Patrick and Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D. of Finnegan

For more articles on IP, visit the NLR Intellectual Property section.

Will A Starbucks Union Affect Your Morning Cup Of Coffee?

Many among us can’t face the day ahead until they get their morning fix of caffeine, and Starbucks is a popular choice for procuring a morning beverage. While the coffee chain giant has long been known for employee perks and strong employee culture, some baristas in Buffalo, New York, recently formed the first union at a corporate-owned Starbucks store. The employees cited problems associated with understaffing, among other things.

The union’s recent election victory means that Starbucks will have to sit down and negotiate in good faith a collective bargaining agreement to cover the terms and conditions of those workers’ employment. Depending on the terms negotiated, believe it or not, changes to how and what you can order at a unionized café may be on the horizon.

Labor agreements typically cover wages, insurance benefits, grievance and arbitration procedures, workplace policies, and a host of other issues affecting employment. The employer and union go through negotiations to come to an agreement on specific language on each of the terms and then those terms control. For example, if a company agrees in a collective bargaining agreement that it will have a minimum staffing level for a shift, then a union can file a grievance seeking damages if the employer fails to keep staffing levels at the minimum. In a non-union setting, this typically is not a concern due to the absence of a grievance and arbitration procedure.

One item that could be of interest to coffee drinkers if it comes up in negotiations is limits on coffee orders. Baristas in Buffalo cited burnout from extensive mobile orders that allow customers to preorder and then pick up drinks and food at the café. The workers believed the volume was too much to keep up with. Custom orders – such as a latte with non-fat milk, two pumps of vanilla, one pump of mocha, and exactly two ice cubes – have been a point of frustration for baristas as well. The union may propose limits on the number of mobile orders a barista can be required to accept per hour and additional limits on the amount of specialty modifications that can be made to a drink. In other words, you may not be able to place a mobile order at the time you want or get all the customizations you desire if ordering from a location restricted by such an agreement. That doesn’t mean Starbucks needs to (or will) agree to those proposals, but based on the employee complaints we’ve seen, it’s likely to be an issue at the table – so it’s possible such a provision could make its way into a labor agreement.

We’re now seeing more union petitions being filed at Starbucks stores around the country, including in Chicago and Boston. To the extent we see a national wave of Starbucks cafés getting unionized, your morning cup of coffee may look different in 2022 and beyond.

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more articles on unions, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

The OSHA Mandate — Supreme Court Oral Argument Preview

Tomorrow morning (Friday, January 7), the Supreme Court hears oral argument in the OSHA (10 a.m. EST) and CMS (11 a.m. EST) mandate cases.  (You can listen to the arguments live here.)  For the OSHA mandate, one group of petitioners consists of a coalition of twenty-seven States, led by Ohio, and the other consists of a coalition of business associations.  We’ve read the briefs, and here are our issues to look out for tomorrow:

Whether OSHA may only regulate occupational dangers.  The petitioners argue that because the OSH Act and OSHA regulations are all concerned with occupational hazards, OSHA cannot regulate against a virus presenting a risk to all Americans.  Meanwhile, OSHA argues that the OSH Act is not limited to dangers that are workplace-specific, especially given Congress’ previous endorsement of OSHA’s measures to encourage vaccination against bloodborne pathogens.

Whether COVID-19 is a “grave danger” that represents a “new hazard.”  The States argue that the OSH ACT limits “grave danger” to those “from exposure to substances are agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful,” connoting toxicity and poisonousness.  Thus, it cannot refer to airborne viruses that are “both widely present in society” and “non-life-threatening to a vast majority of employees.”  OSHA argues that the statute’s disjunctive phrasing allows for an ETS targeting viruses that are physically harmful, or a “new hazard, even if not technically “toxic” in nature.

Whether there is an “emergency” to justify the ETS.  The petitioners continue to argue that nothing significant has changed over the past year the country had been living with the virus to justify finding an emergency.  OSHA responds by pointing to problems presented by the return to work, the Delta variant, and COVID fatigue.

Whether the ETS is “necessary.”  The States argue that the OSH Act imposes a higher standard:  while other regulations may be merely “reasonably necessary or appropriate,” the Act requires emergency regulations to be “necessary”—which the States read as essential or indispensable.  According to the States, the delay between the issuance of the ETS and the time it was supposed to go into effect dooms any argument that it is necessary.  The business associations, for their part, stress that OSHA could have gone through notice and comment proceedings months ago.  In OSHA’s view, the statute is not nearly so narrow and it is enough that workplaces contribute substantially to the spread of the virus and that vaccines are the best way to fight COVID-19.

The scope of relief.  The petitioners obviously want to stay the entire mandate—both the vaccine and masking/testing requirements.  OSHA argues that any stay should be limited to the vaccine requirement.

Major-questions doctrine and federalism canon.  The petitioners argue that these canons of construction require Congress to speak clearly when delegating major economic and political questions to agencies that alter the balance between federal and state governments.  OSHA argues that neither of these canons apply and, in any event, Congress did speak clearly, as evidenced by the fact that it recently allocated $100 million to OSHA to carry out COVID-19 related worker protection activities.

Facts outside the administrative record.   While the OSHA and CMS mandates are supposed to be judged according to the record — which makes much of the factual discussion seem a little dated in this fast-moving pandemic — we’ll be interested to see whether the Omicron variant, the recent spike in cases, and other relatively recent developments show up at oral argument.

And, maybe, a few Constitutional issues.  While constitutional issues like the Commerce Clause and Non-Delegation Doctrine might appear tomorrow, we expect the statutory arguments to dominate the discussion—exactly as they did in the parties’ Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit briefing and in most Sixth Circuit opinions.

We’ll be interested to see how the opinions of Judge Stranch, Judge Larsen, Judge Sutton, and Judge Bush influence the Justices’ approach to the legal and factual questions.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more about OSHA litigation, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

A Hitchhiker’s Guide to What’s New in All Appropriate Inquiries

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) due diligence standards have been updated to address environmental conditions not widely recognized in 2013 but EPA’s “all appropriate inquiry” regulations have yet to conform.

ASTM International (ASTM) issued its seventh version of Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) standards, E1527-21, on Nov. 1, 2021. These ASTM standards provide the leading source of guidance on minimum standards for Phase I ESAs for commercial and industrial property acquisitions. While ASTM E1527-21 improves upon the predecessor E1527-13, the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “all appropriate inquiry” regulations (40 CFR § 312.11(b)) currently codify E1527-13 as setting the appropriate due diligence standard. As a matter of course, EPA is expected to amend its regulations to replace the reference to E1527-13 with a reference to E1527-21. However, until EPA amends its rules, buyers should recognize that the improved commercial standard for due diligence is based on E1527-21, but the regulatory safe harbor for complying with “all appropriate inquiry” standards for purposes of meeting EPA requirements remains E1527-13.

The changes in E1527-21 make it more stringent than E1527-13 and make E1527-13 insufficient for current transactions. Because rigorous ESAs provide important pre-acquisition business information, as well as statutory liability protection, we recommend, until EPA updates its Section 312 regulations, that purchasers immediately require that ESAs be performed to meet both E1527-13 and E1527-21 requirements. And following such EPA rulemaking, buyers should require ESAs meet E1527-21 requirements (presuming that is the outcome of the rulemaking).

E1527-21 identifies new requirements to be addressed in Phase I ESAs, including the following:

  • Enhanced research into the history of both the subject and adjoining properties.
  • Enhanced site recon investigation.
  • Definition changes to clarify what is or is not a recognized environmental condition (REC). For instance, a closure of an underground storage tank site may not have been remediated in the past to current regulatory standards. So there is now a requirement to look beyond, for example, a prior No Further Action letter. This is now a REC requiring further due diligence analysis.
  • Examples of RECs, such as poorly stacked drums and bulging tanks, are provided in new Appendix X.4.
  • Clarification of property use limitations and significant data gaps, which respectively may impair future site use or render an assessment’s findings of no RECs questionable.
  • Clarification on when the shelf life of a Phase I ESA commences, e.g., with an early record review component (or after a timely update) as opposed to using the final report date of the ESA.
  • Caveats about emerging issues like PFAS. See “Not So PFAS,” National Law Review (Nov. 2, 2021).
  • Clarification that the user is responsible for identifying environmental liens or land use or property use restrictions in a title search going back to 1980.

The environmental professional remains responsible for reporting to users on title search information and for finding institutional or engineering control records.

A systemic flaw in the E1527 standard is that it treats compliance issues like stepchildren, or not at all, by relying on users to add non-scope items such as wetland, air, water, and waste permit compliance. While this absence may be prudent for commercial properties and “green fields,” industrial properties require more. Compliance audits, including air, water, and waste compliance review, are needed for them. Unfortunately, the ASTM standard for those audits is only consultant process oriented (see ASTM E2107-20) and not sufficiently detailed, in our opinion.

However, the new E1527-21 standard will produce more conservative ESAs, perhaps increasing the cost of closing or raising additional cleanup concerns.

© 2022 Jones Walker LLP

Article By Robert Holden and Stanley A. Millan of Jones Walker LLP

For more articles on the ATSM, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

In-House Counsel’s Role in Bridging the Generation ‘We’ Gap

A new generation of tech savvy, social justice-focused and environmentally aware employee stakeholders are creating recruitment, retention and other employment challenges. Unlike their predecessors, the “Generation We” cohort of employees (which loosely encompasses Gens Y and Z and even the new “Alphas”) tend to view employment as experimental rather than a long-term commitment. Managing employees with a transactional approach to work and who demand purpose-driven employment creates significant human capital risk. Corporate counsel can play a key role in managing and mitigating that risk, not only in response to the growing ESG disclosure and regulation trends, but as part of the need to design future-proof legal frameworks for the workplace.

The Framework for Generation-Conscious Policies

Good compliance practice begins with a forward-looking framework for employment policies. The pandemic has razed traditional office life and if the prediction that 37% of office desks will remain empty in 2022 comes true, the technology supporting remote work and the policies governing it are mission critical. Generation We embraces technology as a life tool, not just a work tool.  The primacy of technology requires a second look at policies that regulate it. Examples of leading-edge policies include those addressing AI infrastructure in the workplace (as applied to, for example, applicant tracking systems) and policies addressing anti-bias in technology. Social media and communication policies also demand a generationally-aware review.  These policies, which are needed for brand protection and communication consistency, may need modernization in light of the platforms Generation We inhabit. One of legal’s (many) jobs is to construct that compliance framework. This may mean more than an annual review of human resources policies which is tough enough in this frenetic environment. But that policy review should include second look at all employment policies to ensure they are generationally adept, consistent with technology changes, and meet what the new workforce demands.

Who Participates and How

The Zoom room may have been new at the pandemic’s inception, but is mundane now. In-person teams have been displaced by fully remote or hybrid collaboration and a host of legal issues the virtual world creates. Some employment policies may not account for virtual world inclusiveness or rules of engagement. Microaggressions could be amplified in the virtual environment as employees who feel left out may lack the typical platforms to make those feeling known – resulting in the public broadcast of employment disputes or job abandonment. It is hard to pick up on social cues from an inch square web-box. It may even be harder to identify when someone feels sidelined because of gender, race or other underrepresented status. Legal should play a role in championing people on the sidelines. This means empowering managers to shut down grandstanders who grab the virtual floor. It also means taking note of those who don’t virtually raise their hands, and ensuring that all employees are heard. Rules of engagement regarding the use of video (all on? all off?) and the discouragement of side-chats and other digital unpleasantness not only express inclusiveness but role models best practices. Generation We demands inclusiveness in their work and personal lives; they are unforgiving of employers who lack sensitivity to these issues and are quick to publicize their contrary views.

Learning, not Training

Mandatory training may not speak to socially aware employees who reject stereotypical gender roles and labels and embrace racial justice. Employers cannot legally abandon statutorily-mandated training, but they can modernize it. Structured meetings with a core educational focus is meaningful because it imparts information and drives behavior. Counsel should consider helping their human resource partners to update traditional training to reflect learning about unconscious bias. Similarly, new subjects like mindfulness, wellness, mental health issues and how the workplace impacts people might also be included in learning tools.  Are the corporation’s core messages embedded in the training or is it is an off-the-shelf program lacking relevance to the business? Training is an important part of counsel’s compliance obligations but incorporating the corporation’s core mission into that programming in a customized way is an effective learning tool. Corporate counsel plays a key role in driving change in these learning systems and these changes could positively mitigate human capital and business risk.

Performance with Purpose

Corporate counsel’s role is becoming less transactional (get the deal done) and more transformational (recruiting and retaining the workforce and implementing the ceaseless legal developments that have altered how we work). Performance in this context may be more than returning value to shareholders or a fulfilling a non-profit’s philanthropic aim. Performance may instead encompass achieving a group aim.  The Great Resignation anecdotally informs us that Generation We is in search of meaning and personal growth, and not always money (though they are keenly interested in equitable compensation). Purpose-driven organizations can lead to a sense of community.  Because community is important to this generation, the identification and amplification of the corporate mission becomes even more important. A recently released Goldman Sachs Asset management report concludes that a growing percentage of youngers workers are already planning to retire earlier than their predecessors. If that movement is real, retaining the next generation of workers becomes even more important.

Generation We is driving the primacy of the employee stakeholder and underlies the addition of the “E” to ESG. This generation fearlessly exercises their workplace voice and are quick to abandon work when a business cannot articulate or veers off a cohesive a mission. Counsel can play a key role in bridging the intergenerational divide. That role and its impact begins with the compliance framework being built in a manner that adapts to the ever-growing expectations of the next generation of the workforce.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Article By Jennifer B. Rubin of Mintz

For more articles on Generation We, visit the NLR labor section.