Tag: Legal News

December 2022 Legal Industry News Highlights: Law Firm Hiring and Growth, End-of-Year Industry Awards, and Diversity and Inclusion News Updates

Happy New Year from the National Law Review! We hope you are remaining happy, safe, and healthy as 2022 ends and 2023 begins. We thank you for all the time you’ve spent with us this past year, and we are looking forward to an even brighter year coming up!

In case you missed it, be sure to check out the National Law Review’s 2022 Go-To Thought Leadership Awards, which recognizes around 75 noteworthy thought leaders that have published with the NLR in the past year. Awardees have been selected for their high-quality writing, timely publication, and wide readerships! The NLR’s thought leadership awards go to a small subsection of our talented contributing authors, and we sincerely appreciate their part in providing the legal community a free to use, reliable news source.

Finally, please be sure to check out this year’s final episode of our Legal News Reach podcast: Creating A Diverse, Equitable and Inclusive Work Environment with Stacey Sublett Halliday of Beveridge & Diamond! Also, a big shout out to Crissonna Tennison and Shelby Garrett for taking on the hosting duties of the NLR’s podcast.

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP (DGS) has announced the addition of six new partners: Andrea M. Bronson, who focuses her practice on environmental law and litigation; Nathan J. Goergen, who focuses his practice on mergers and acquisitions; Jonathan M. Goldstein, who focuses his practice on real estate law; Almira Moronne, who focuses her practice on mergers and acquisitions and financing; Alena Prokop, who focuses her practice on executive and equity compensation; and Daniel A. Richards, who focuses his practice on complex civil litigation.

“These six attorneys have shown an impressive level of dedication to the firm and to the community we serve,” said Davis Graham & Stubbs Co-Managing Partner Kristin L. Lentz. “Their professionalism, experience, and commitment to our clients make them valuable additions to the firm’s partnership. We wish them all the best in this exciting next chapter in their careers as lawyers at DGS.”

Rob McFadden has joined Hill Ward Henderson as Senior Counsel. A commercial real estate attorney, Mr. McFadden’s practice is primarily focused on representing clients in commercial development work with an emphasis on retail, office, industrial and ground leases. He provides clients with practical advice and solutions that safeguard their interests while furthering their business objectives.

Hill Ward Henderson has also added four new associates: Ana Abado, who focuses her practice on general commercial litigation; Ezichi Chukwu, who focuses her practices on commercial leasing and real estate acquisitions; Matthew Kelly, who focuses his practice on real estate transactions and development agreements; and Tyler Miller, who focuses his practice on mergers and acquisitions, venture capital, and private equity.

Laquan T. Lightfoot has joined Goldberg Segalla’s Transportation and Civil Litigation and Trial groups in Philadelphia. Ms. Lightfoot focuses her practice on a wide array of civil litigation matters, with a particular focus on transportation law. She has also formerly litigated in a variety of fields, including product liability, premises liability, premises security, motor vehicle accident, catastrophic injury, and employment law matters.

In addition to her litigation practice, Ms. Lightfoot serves as an arbitrator with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Compulsory Arbitration Program adjudicating various civil disputes. Before entering private practice, Lightfoot served as an assistant district attorney in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, where she was assigned to Major Trials of the Southwest Division.

Blank Rome LLP has added twelve new partners, as well as four new counsel, effective as of January 1st, 2023. The following attorneys were selected:

“We are thrilled to announce our firm’s 2023 elevated class,” said Grant S. Palmer, Blank Rome’s Managing Partner and CEO. “This group’s demonstrated talent, stellar client service, diverse backgrounds, and collaborative leadership and teamwork in their respective practice areas reflects Blank Rome’s commitment to recruiting, supporting, and advancing talented attorneys who will not only help our firm continue to grow and succeed, but also elevate the next successful generation of legal industry professionals.

Awards and Recognition for Law Firms

Sean C. Griffin, a member at Dykema Gossett PLLC in Washington, D.C., has joined the International Association of Defense Counsel, a highly-recognized, invitation-only global legal organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance interests. Mr. Griffin, a former trial attorney for the Department of Justice, represents government contractors, law firms, construction companies, and other businesses in complicated contract litigation. He additionally serves as the senior director at the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel.

“I look forward to my membership with the IADC and the opportunity to contribute to this global association of preeminent attorneys,” Mr. Griffin said. “I am excited to meet my fellow members.”

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP attorney Roger Lee has been recognized by the Los Angeles Business Journal in its annual list of “Leaders of Influence: Thriving in Their 40s.” The list, which specifically honors leading business professionals between the ages of 40 and 49, covers Mr. Lee’s noteworthy representation of Bushfire Kitchen in its new partnership with leading private investment firm CapitalSpring to fuel Bushfire’s growth in Southern California and beyond.

Mr. Lee is senior counsel at Stubbs Alderton & Markiles. His practice is primarily focused on advising emerging growth and middle market companies in a wide variety of transactions, including buy and sell side mergers and acquisitions, mezzanine and senior debt financing transactions, and asset-based financing transactions. Notably, Mr. Lee was also recognized as a 2022 Go-To Thought Leader by the National Law Review for his coverage of President Biden’s Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors Act.

John Rolecki of Varnum LLP has been named to the Privacy Bar Section Advisory Board for the International Association of Privacy Professionals, a not-for-profit association committed to providing a forum for privacy professionals. As the world’s largest information privacy organization, the IAPP is dedicated to defining, promoting, and improving the privacy profession globally by allowing professionals to share best practices, track trends, and advance privacy management issues.

Mr. Rolecki is a partner in Varnum’s Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice. Primarily, he advises leading technology companies on emerging domestic and international data privacy regulations, and additionally provides counsel on matters such as data breach responses and ransomware situations.

Legal Industry Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion News

Emily Burkhardt Vicente, a labor and employment partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth, and Jane Hinton, a real estate investment and finance partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth, were recognized as 2022 Diversity & Inclusion Visionaries in The Los Angeles Times’ Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility magazine. This publication recognizes diverse business leaders who inspire change and exhibit achievements both within their organizations and the community at large through actionable programs and initiatives impacting diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility.

Ms. Hinton focuses her practice primarily on real estate transactions, which includes joint ventures, acquisitions, and leasing and portfolio property management. She places a particular emphasis on structuring debt and equity transactions. Ms. Vicente co-chairs the firm’s labor and employment group, focusing her practice primarily on complex employment litigation (such as California and FLSA wage and hour class and collective actions), PAGA actions, and employment discrimination class actions.

Recently, a number of lawyers and legal professionals have been named to the Lawyers of Color 2022 Hot List. Four attorneys at Foley & Lardner LLP have been named to the list, including partner Senayt Rahwa, senior counsel Olivia Singelmann, and associates Elizabeth Nevle and Jennifer Park. The publication is a nonprofit dedicated to promoting diversity in the legal profession, as well as advancing democracy and equality in marginalized communities.

Ms. Rahwa and Ms. Singelmann are both located in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Ms. Rahwa focuses her practice on finance and financial institutions, whereas Ms. Singelman focuses her practice on government enforcement defense, investigations, and business litigation. Ms. Nevle, located in the firm’s Houston office, focuses her practice on business litigation and dispute resolution. Ms. Park, located in the firm’s Chicago office, focuses her practice on business litigation and dispute resolution as well.

Katten’s Fabiola Valenzuela has also been added to the Lawyers of Color 2022 Hot List. Ms. Valenzuela concentrates her practice on structuring, negotiating and documenting business transactions, previously representing companies and investors through the entire corporate life cycle. She places particular focus on formations, mergers, acquisitions, venture capital financings, and corporate governance.

At the firm, Ms. Valenzuela also maintains an active pro bono practice, handling, among other matters, cases involving minors in federal immigration and deportation proceedings.

Moore & Van Allen’s (MVA) Jules W. Carter has also been named to the 2022 Lawyers of Color Hot List. Located in the firm’s Charlotte office, Ms. Carter concentrates on financial regulatory compliance issues, helping clients navigate complex regulatory environments and pursue business strategies that balance innovation with risk-awareness.

“Making the Lawyers of Color Annual Hot List is a prestigious and well-deserved honor for Jules,” said Thomas L. Mitchell, MVA’s managing partner and chair of the firm’s Management Committee. “We are proud of Jules’ commitment to provide sophisticated litigation and regulatory services to our clients, and grateful for her leadership as the chair of the firm’s Black Attorney Resource Group.”

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

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

Bouncing Back with Shaun Sethna [PODCAST]

Finding the right home for your career can do wonders to change your perspective. For Shaun Sethna, the move in-house was exactly what he needed to go from feeling like work as something he had to do to work being something he enjoyed. In this episode of Bouncing Back, he talks to Rebecca Glatzer about his career journey, the bumps along the way and his growth mindset.

Shaun Sethna is Deputy General Counsel at Altisource, a FinTech and services provider to the mortgage and real estate industries.  Shaun has been at Altisource for almost 10 years, where his practice focuses on technology transactions and M&A.  He also developed and helps to manage a team focused on contracts, compliance, and general legal support to Altisource’s technology, mortgage cooperative and insurance businesses. Previously Shaun was at Schlumberger in Houston, and he got his start in the IP practice group at King & Spalding LLP in Atlanta. Shaun received his undergraduate degree in Industrial Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and his J.D. from Columbia Law School.  Shaun’s favorite aspect of his job is managing and developing teams.

Article By Rebecca Glatzer of Major Lindsey & Africa

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Major, Lindsey & Africa, an Allegis Group Company. All rights reserved.

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses Review of Case Involving Technical Issue With Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge

Refusing to weigh in on the impact of a plaintiff’s failure to verify her discrimination charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Supreme Court lets stand the lower court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s failure to verify her charge barred her from filing a lawsuit. Mosby v. City of Byron, No. 21-10377, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10436 (11th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022), cert. denied, No. 22-283 (U.S. Nov. 7, 2022).

Background

Rachel Mosby served as the fire chief of Byron, Georgia, for 11 years. One month after she came out as transgender, the city fired her.

Mosby filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title VII states that charges filed “shall be in writing under oath or affirmation and shall contain such information and be in such form as the Commission requires.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. This process is called “verification.” The parties did not dispute that Mosby did not properly verify her charge.

The City of Byron submitted a position statement with the EEOC on the merits of Mosby’s claim, but it did not raise the fact that Mosby failed to verify her charge. Mosby never amended her charge to meet the verification requirement.

After receiving a “right to sue” letter from the EEOC, Mosby sued the City of Byron. Before answering Mosby’s complaint, the City of Byron moved to dismiss because Mosby failed to verify her charge, requiring dismissal as a matter of law. After converting the City’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, the district court held the failure to verify the charge barred Mosby’s Title VII and ADA claims.

Jurisdictional or Procedural?

Whether EEOC’s charge filing requirements are prerequisite to filing a lawsuit is jurisdictional or procedural remains in dispute. While procedural requirements can be waived or cured, jurisdictional requirements cannot. In 2019, the Supreme Court provided guidance in Fort Bend City v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, in which it held that a charge’s lack of verification does not strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to consider in a subsequent federal lawsuit. Unlike a jurisdictional issue, the Court reasoned, the lack of verification can be waived or forfeited by the parties. Accordingly, the Court held that an employer forfeited the issue of verification when it failed to raise it promptly at the outset of litigation.

Eleventh Circuit’s Reasoning

In appealing the dismissal of her claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (which has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia), Mosby argued that Fort Bend required a finding that the City of Byron waived its verification defense because it did not raise the defense in its position statement submitted with the EEOC. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. In the Supreme Court decision, the Eleventh Circuit said, Fort Bend City did not raise the verification defense until four years and “an entire round of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court” had passed. By contrast, the City of Byron raised the defense in a pre-answer motion to dismiss before causing “a waste of adjudicatory resources.”

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court, holding that “a charge neither filed under oath or affirmation nor subsequently cured by amendment fails to satisfy the statutory requirement that an employee submit [her] charge to the Commission.” The Fifth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in 2021, making these the only two circuits that have addressed the issue. See Ernst v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 1 F.4th 333.

Takeaway for Employers

An employer responding to a charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC should evaluate whether the claimant properly verified the charge. If not, preserve the defense by raising it as soon as practicable at the EEOC charge stage and in any ensuing litigation.

Article By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris and Stephanie E. Satterfield of Jackson Lewis P.C.

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

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Attorney Mindfulness When Addressing Emails and Texts: ABA Formal Opinion Provides Ethical Guidance to Lawyers on Electronic Communications

In their roles as advisors, advocates, counselors, negotiators, and client representatives, lawyers communicate extensively though electronic means, particularly email and increasingly text messages. However, the fact that use of these electronic communication tools is commonplace in legal practice doesn’t mean that attorneys shouldn’t exercise caution when crafting their communications. The American Bar Association (“ABA”) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility published a formal opinion this month that advises lawyers to refrain generally from including their clients on emails and texts sent to opposing counsel.

ABA Formal Opinion 503 focuses on ABA Model Rule 4.2, often referred to as the “no-contact” rule. Under this model rule, a lawyer who is representing a client may not communicate about the subject of the representation with a represented person absent the consent of that person’s lawyer unless the law or court order authorizes such as communication. Most states’ codes of professional legal ethics draw heavily upon the ABA Model Rules, so many states have similar “no-contact” rules for lawyers.

The new formal opinion states that lawyers would not be deemed to violate ABA Model Rule 4.2 if they send a “reply all” response to a group email or text sent by an opposing counsel, even if that communication includes the opposing counsel’s client. The opinion states that, “[a]bsent special circumstances, lawyers who copy their clients on emails or other forms of electronic communication to counsel representing another person in the matter impliedly consent to a ‘reply all’ response from the receiving counsel,” the opinion said. “Accordingly, the reply all communication would not violate Model Rule 4.2.”

As a practical matter, Formal Opinion 503 provides a number of options to lawyers who wish to avoid creating an implied presumption of consent to such “reply all” communications from opposing counsel to their clients. These options include:

  • forwarding the electronic communication separately to the client without including opposing counsel as an addressee,
  • informing receiving counsel expressly and in advance that including the client on the electronic communication does not constitute a consent to a “reply all” response, or
  • sending the communication through other means (such as a mailed hard copy letter) where different norms are in place regarding responding to all addressees.

The full text of ABA Formal Opinion 503 is available here.

Article By Electronic Discovery at K&L Gates

For more law office management legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

Lawyer Career Change: Everything to Know

Burnout, stress, or the curiosity of exploring a new career path are some of the most common reasons lawyers change careers. After all, for some, the idea of being a lawyer might have turned out to be pretty different than the reality of working at a firm.

Before making any immediate changes, be as clear as possible about why you’re looking for a career shift and what you’re looking for in your next role. With these insights at hand, you’ll be better positioned to strategically move forward — and even keep one foot in the door behind you as you go.

Find out everything you should know about making a career change as a lawyer.

When to Change Careers as a Lawyer

Being a lawyer can consume much of your time and energy. Maybe you’re facing a big life change and looking for more work/life balance or you’re tired of big law and considering solo practice. Alternatively, your talents and personality may be better suited for another field entirely.

When considering your need for a change, ask yourself these questions:

  • What do I enjoy about my work in law?

  • What depletes my energy as a lawyer? What do I enjoy least?

  • What are my passions? When do I feel most fulfilled or energized?

  • What is my ideal work culture? Management style? Company culture?

Then, comb through your skillset. Reflect on your strengths as a lawyer. You might excel at analysis and research, or you could also be an expert persuasive communicator.

This way, you can start thinking about other careers that might match well, or even better, with those in-demand skills. A strong negotiator could be well suited for a sales career or even running a company. Skilled researchers could become regulatory investigators or corporate analysts. Practicing law develops a host of skills that can readily transfer to many careers in the public and private sectors.

Alternative Careers for Lawyers

The list goes on and on for viable alternative careers for lawyers. As you shift away from legal practice, here are a few career paths to consider:

  • Legal consulting: This path lets you continue working on your lawyer skill set at a distance from the courtroom. You could be a consultant for a company or private individuals, advising clients on tricky legal issues and offering recommendations.

  • Legal project management: Legal project managers get to be involved with legal cases, but from the higher level of a practice manager. They ensure that the firm stays on top of all legal tasks, monitoring the firm’s processes for inefficiencies, and implementing strategies to improve client satisfaction and drive revenue.

  • Legal writing: As a legal writer, you could work anywhere from a law firm to a government agency to a marketing company or even a newspaper. If you like uncovering stories and informing the public, journalism could make a good fit. If you don’t want to walk out of a law practice entirely, you could focus on case research and write legal documents.

  • Legal billing specialist: If numbers are your sweet spot, consider legal billing. You’ll research any issues related to billing, prepare invoices and proformas, and ensure a firm gets paid for its services.

Pro Tip: No matter the legal profession track, having a working knowledge of law practice management software can give you a competitive edge in the market.

How to Change Careers as a Lawyer

Changing careers is about more than figuring out your dream job, of course. Once you have a better sense of your transferable skills and what you enjoy doing most, it’s time to tap into your network.

If you have professional relationships and friendships outside of the law, it’s time to leverage them. These relationships will not only give you a fresh perspective on life outside of a law career, but they could also provide valuable insight and leads on your next career move. Be prepared to let your network know that you’re shifting gears and what you’re looking for next. To ensure that you don’t lose your connection to legal practice entirely, consider working pro bono as you figure out your next options or after you change careers. This way, you can do fulfilling work and keep your legal skills fresh.

Article By Nina Lee of PracticePanther

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 PracticePanther

Five Data Quality Nightmares That Haunt Marketers and How Avoid Them

In this spooky season of vampires, witches and scary clowns, we’d like to add one more to the mix – data quality nightmares – which can be more frightful than a marathon of Freddy Kreuger movies to some of us.

We need data about our clients and prospects in order to create strategic programs that can lead to new business and increased visibility, but maintaining that data on an ongoing basis can quickly turn into a nightmare without the right resources.

Having good quality data is important for success in so many areas of your organization, including:

  • Communicating effectively with core constituencies
  • Successfully planning and executing events
  • Segmenting your target markets, clients or customers
  • Providing superior customer service
  • Understanding the needs of clients or customers
  • Effectively developing new business
  • Improving delivery and reducing costs of postal mailings

The reality is that your data will never be perfect, but there are ways you can address and improve it. The longer you wait to improve your data management, the scarier it will become. Here are some of the most common data quality nightmares we see and how to avoid them:

Data Quality Nightmare 1: Duplicate data

Is your CRM a graveyard for thousands of duplicate company and individual contacts? Data comes from all directions, so it’s important to ensure that data isn’t being duplicated. Dupes make it difficult to coordinate efforts and activities. Duplicate data occurs when customer information appears more than once in the database, or multiple variations of the same individual appear.

Secondly, duplicate data can damage your brand image. It is unlikely that a contact who receives the same information twice will be happy about it. This is an easy way to frustrate customers and prospects and can make your business appear disorganized.

Data Quality Nightmare 2: Missing or incomplete data

Are your contact details ‘ghosting you’? Without good data you can’t target or segment, and your communications and invitations won’t reach the right audiences.

Similar to inaccurate data, incomplete data can also have a negative impact on your business performance.

One way that organizations can help control this data quality nightmare, is by making certain form fields a required entry. That way, data entries will be more consistent and complete.

Data Quality Nightmare 3: Incorrect or inconsistent data

Does incorrect or inconsistent data give you nightmares? Bad CRM data leads to missed opportunities for new customers, and it could create issues for your sales cycle. There is almost no point in engaging with contacts in your database if the information is incorrect.

There are multiple ways to encourage good data habits, depending on your system and method of contact entry. If your firm relies on manual data entry, implement a firmwide Data Standards Guide to inform users how data should be entered (e.g., does your firm spell out or abbreviate job titles?). It can also be helpful to use system validation rules wherever possible to require certain information in new records such as last name, city and email address to ensure your contacts are relevant.

Data Quality Nightmare 4: Too much data

Are you in the ‘zombie zone’ trying blindly to figure out what to do with too much data and/or disparate data from disconnected systems?

Having too much data can be overwhelming – and unnecessary. It’s important to set parameters on what information you truly need about your clients and prospects, and then maintain only that information going forward. This will streamline the process and make everyone’s jobs easier by avoiding data quality nightmares.

Data Quality Nightmare 5: Lack of data quality resources

Does your team run screaming from data quality projects leaving you with a data disaster?

To encourage ongoing system adoption and utilization, data quality and maintenance must be top priorities. Resources must be dedicated – including time, money and people. Processes and procedures need to be put in place to maintain ongoing quality. Most importantly, training and communication are essential to ensure that end users don’t create unnecessary duplicates or introduce more bad data into the system.

Data Quality Doesn’t Have to Be Scary

While it’s easy to become scared by nightmare data, it’s important to put it in perspective. Focus on discreet data and projects that yield real ROI such as:

  • Start with your most relevant records like current clients. Begin cleaning your top 100 to 500 along with associated key contacts.
  • Review frequently used lists to ensure your communications and invitations are reaching the right recipients.
  • Vet bounced emails after each campaign, or better yet, regularly run lists through an automated data process to identify bad emails before a campaign to ensure that information actually reaches your targets in a timely manner.
  • Tackle time-sensitive one-off projects. For instance, an upcoming event often provides a good opportunity to get users engaged in cleanup efforts, particularly if the event is important to them.

It’s also important to remember that because data degrades so rapidly, data cleaning can’t be a one-time initiative. Once your team begins regularly maintaining your data, the cleanup will get easier over time. And remember, because data cleaning never really ends, the good news is that this means you have forever to get better at it.

Article By Christina R. Fritsch JD of CLIENTSFirst Consulting

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 CLIENTSFirst Consulting

Fair Market Value Defensibility Analysis: Why is It Different from a Fair Market Value Opinion?

Fair market value is a pinnacle issue for compliance under the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute. Compensation arrangements that are required to be representative of fair market value under Stark/AKS include employment, independent contractor, medical directorships, exclusive service arrangements, call coverage, quality reviews, medical staff officer stipends, etc.

Many consulting firms provide fair market value opinions relying extensively on the application of benchmark data. Based upon CMS’s statements in the Stark Law Final Rules, although application of benchmark data is a resource that can be utilized, fair market value can and should include the application of market/service area issues (i.e., deficiency of specialty) or physician-specific issues (i.e., expertise, productivity).

Commercial reasonableness is a separate concept from fair market value under Stark/AKS. Commercial reasonableness also entails whether the application of benchmark/market factors are defensible.

When analyzing the defensibility of compensation arrangements, it is important to view fair market value and commercial reasonableness as if advocating the facts and circumstances of the proposed compensation arrangement before a governmental entity (i.e., CMS, OIG, DOJ). When an attorney is rendering a fair market value defensibility analysis, not only will the analysis be protected under the attorney-client privilege, but the analysis will also include references and attachments to all of the applicable documentation and relevant information in case the compensation arrangement is ever required to be defended.

Article By Bob Wade of Nelson Mullins

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

Copyright ©2022 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Top Legal Industry News Updates for Fall 2022: Law Firm Hirings, Legal Industry Recognition, Women in Law, and More

Welcome back to another edition of the National Law Review’s legal news roundup! Please read on for the latest updates in law firm hiring and expansion, pro bono efforts, industry awards and recognition, and a spotlight on women in law! Additionally, be sure to check out the latest episode of our Legal News Reach podcast: The Perfect Storm: Law Firm Marketing & Business Development Budgeting with Beth Cuzzone, Global Practice Leader of Intapp.

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Kristian R. Sullivan has joined the Patent Prosecution & Litigation practice group at Womble Bond Dickinson. Based in Houston, Mr. Sullivan has a great deal of experience in intellectual property services, including the drafting of IP-related agreements, performing freedom-to-operate analyses, and the securing of important IP assets. He has worked across a great number of industries, such as energy, automotive, technology, and construction.

“The Houston economic market has a high concentration of clients in the advanced manufacturing and oil/gas industries. As such, there is a demand for patent prosecution attorneys with mechanical engineering experience to do this work,” said Jeff Whittle, Womble Bond Dickinson’s Houston Office Managing Partner and Energy Sector Co-Lead. “Kristian’s strong mechanical experience, including in oil and gas, will be a boost for the Houston office and add further depth to the firm’s Patent Prosecution & Litigation group and growing Energy sector team.”

Sidley Austin LLP has added James Lu as a Partner in the Corporate practice group. Mr. Lu, who focuses his practice on representing venture capital and private equity investors at leading companies, is based in the firm’s Century City office. He has a great deal of experience in many areas, primarily public and private securities offerings, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, and cross-border transactions.

“James is the trusted advisor that every client — and law firm — wants on its team. He combines market leading intelligence from two continents with a range of transactional expertise,” said Dan Clivner, co-leader of the firm’s global M&A and Private Equity practice. “Many of our partners have worked with James and couldn’t be happier to call him ‘our partner.’”

Danette R. Edwards, former Senior Counsel at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, has joined Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP’s Securities Litigation practice as a Partner. Ms. Edwards, who has vast experience leading enforcement efforts at the SEC and litigating complex cases involving anti-fraud and other securities laws, joins the firm at its office in Washington, D.C.

“Danette is a strong addition to our Securities Litigation team because she offers our clients exceptional experience on all types of SEC-related matters,” said Bruce G. Vanyo, chair of Katten‘s Securities Litigation practice. “Her impressive skill set and extraordinary background strengthens Katten’s already widely recognized reputation for defending high-stakes securities matters for some of the country’s most prestigious companies.”

Einhorn, Barbarito, Frost & Botwinick, PC has announced the addition of three new associates: Alma A. Godinez, Angelica M. Mercado, and T. Matthew Wolfe II. Ms. Godinez focuses her practice on personal injury matters involving medical malpractice, products liability, and other accidents. Ms. Mercado practices family and matrimonial law, with experience drafting motions and emergent applications related to matrimonial and non-dissolution matters. Mr. Wolfe II focuses his practice on wills, trusts, estates, and taxation matters, with a particular emphasis on topics such as family wealth transfer and preservation planning, charitable giving, and retirement planning.

“We are pleased to welcome these three exceptional young professionals to the firm and we know that their experience in several of our key practice areas will enhance our ability to serve our clients,” said Patricia M. Barbarito, Co-Managing Partner of Einhorn Barbarito.

Legal Industry Awards and Recognition

Jason Rubinstein, Partner at Gilbert LLP, has been named to the Board of Directors of the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia. Representing tenants facing evictions and assisting injured individuals to obtain important medical treatments, Mr. Rubinstein has made a special effort to prioritize pro bono work throughout his career. Beyond this work, at Gilbert, he has focused his practice on insurance recovery and strategic risk management.

“The work Legal Aid does for persons living in poverty in the District is unparalleled,” said Mr. Rubinstein of the honor, “and I look forward to helping to provide the leadership and legal assistance necessary to assist those in need.”

New York Law Journal recognized IMS Consulting & Expert Services as the winners of the “Best Of” 2022 award survey. They were named a Top 3 recipients in the “Best of” category for Online Jury Research Provider. Winners for this award were selected based on the results of a crafted ballot containing several dozen categories for attorneys and firm administrators to vote on.

IMS’ Vice President of Client Services, Chris Sizemore, commented, “We’re thrilled to be selected by our clients as one of New York’s top legal service providers. IMS consultants help reduce uncertainty before and at trial by understanding the psychology of the jury to identify and refine persuasive themes that will better connect with decision makers in the case—juries, judges, and arbitrators.”

On September 22, 2022, Bruno R. Marasso, partner at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, was installed as President of the Justinian Society of Lawyers. Mr. Marasso has received numerous awards previously, including the Emerging Lawyer award by Law Bulletin Publishing Company every year since 2017, a Rising Star by Super Lawyer every year since 2018, a naming to Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for 2021, and a naming to the list of Best Lawyers in America for 2023.

On his recent appointment, Mr. Marasso shared, “Romanucci & Blandin has a rich history in serving the Justinian Society of Lawyers and I am proud to continue it with my term as President. As Justinians, we pride ourselves in contributing to both the legal profession and to the community and I am humbled to serve in this role.” Mr. Marasso recently served as Vice President of the Justinian Society of Lawyers and focuses his practice on the areas of automobile collisions, wrongful death, premises liability, and institutional misconduct.

Diversity and Inclusion in the Field

The Arab American Foundation has selected Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick Associate Ali W. Latif for inclusion on their “40 Under 40” list for his role in empowering the national Arab American community. Ms. Latif is a trilingual Palestinian-American based in Columbus, Ohio who specializes in business, immigration, and environmental law. Prior to joining Shumaker, Latif owned his own firm, where he represented marginalized clients. He still prioritizes disadvantaged communities, spending hundreds of hours providing free legal services for low-income clients with the Legal Aid Society of Columbus. In 2019, he received the LASC/CBA/CBF New Attorney Pro Bono Award.

Shumaker Partner and Diversity and Inclusion Committee Co-Chair Cheri Budzynski says, “We are excited that Ali has the opportunity to be celebrated for his passion and leadership in connecting and empowering Arab Americans. As part of the firm’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, we recognize that our legal system needs to adapt to represent diversity and the people of our nation.”

Corporate Counsel Women of Color has chosen Foley & Lardner Senior Counsel Lauren Champaign to receive their “Next Gen Emerging Millennial Leader” award, which celebrates young attorneys with exceptional legal talent and community orientation. A commercial litigator specializing in securities, product liability, antitrust, and consumer finance, Ms. Champaign also co-founded Foley’s Racial Justice and Equity Practice Group.

Ms. Champaign has previously volunteered with numerous legal aid organizations, such as the D.C. Legal Aid Society’s Housing Division, and served as the Deputy GOTV Director for President Obama’s Philadelphia re-election campaign. There, she contributed to increased voter turnout and eventual victory, and as a Regional Field Director for Obama for America, she was featured in the Washington Post and PBS Now for her organizing work in South Carolina and Chicago. Ms. Champaign and her five fellow awardees will be feted at an October 7th ceremony during Corporate Counsel’s Career Strategies Conference.

Barnes & Thornburg Partner Robyn Maguire has been included on Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly’s “Top Women of Law” list, which showcases women leading the legal field through education, mentorship, and innovation. Ms. Maguire practices complex civil litigation in Boston, where she manages product liability, real estate, and land use disputes.

Ms. Maguire is an active member of her local pro bono and volunteer community, assisting clients with housing and asylum matters and submitting amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for issues related to immigration and employment discrimination. She chairs the Town of Hingham Zoning Board of Appeals and is an executive committee and board member for Lawyers for Civil Rights. She has previously been recognized as a “Rising Star” and “Super Lawyer” in Massachusetts Super Lawyers and on the “Top Ten Verdicts” list in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Maguire and her fellow nominees will be profiled in the magazine’s November issue and honored at an awards ceremony.

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

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

The “Iron Curtain” has Fallen: A Radical Shift in Lawyers Representing Whistleblowers

Whistleblower Network News (WNN) recently revealed, for the first time, that major corporate law firms specializing in representing defendants before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have, in some cases, switched sides and are now representing whistleblowers who are turning in corporate fraudsters.  All but one of the firms identified by the SEC did not call public attention to their new-found client base – most likely because they did not want to upset their bread-and-butter corporate clients.  It appears that major corporate law firms now understand that the Dodd-Frank Act’s whistleblower reward provisions are incredibly effective in incentivizing corporate insiders to report fraud, even when those insiders are executives usually on the other side of a whistleblower issue.  Lawyers who traditionally represent whistleblowers understand that Dodd-Frank is well designed and is being professionally implemented by the SEC.  Corporate lawyers and their firms have apparently caught on to this new reality and are now representing whistleblowers.

That defense firms are now actively engaged in representing whistleblowers cannot be denied.  Lists of law firms that have prevailed in Dodd-Frank whistleblower cases, disclosed in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed with the SEC, document that 9.3% of firms that have obtained rewards on behalf of whistleblowers were traditional defense firms.  These firms include some of the largest defense firms in the United States that represent numerous corporations subjected to SEC enforcement actions for violating securities laws as well as firms that have defended corporations against whistleblowers in retaliation cases.

If that statistic holds, it is clear hundreds of corporate defense firms or their attorneys are representing whistleblowers in confidential investigations.  Why are these cases still under review?  Dodd-Frank is still a young law, and the vast majority of cases have not yet resulted in formal reward determinations.  Cases often take five years or more to be finalized, and as of the end of Fiscal Year 2021 over 51,000 whistleblower cases had been filed with the SEC.  Furthermore, under the FOIA requests the SEC only released the names of law firms that prevailed in a whistleblower case.  The names of firms that did not prevail in a claim, or firms that represent whistleblowers in ongoing investigations, were not disclosed.

Time will tell whether defense firms’ representation of whistleblowers who accuse their employers (or other corporate wrongdoers) of fraud is a good or bad development.  But unique issues will arise whenever a firm that primarily generates its profits from representing corporations accused of wrongdoing switches sides and represents a whistleblower who has accused an executive of engaging in fraud.  Although such representations may be permitted under the attorney’s rules of ethics, this does not mean that such representations are always in the best interest of a lawyer’s clients.  There are inherent potential conflicts whenever a defense firm switches sides and decides to represent a whistleblower reporting major corporate crimes.

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, one thing is clear: the ethical, policy and legal implications of defense firms representing whistleblowers is a dramatic shift in legal practice and must be carefully evaluated.  Defense firms must understand that whenever they represent a whistleblower, they must zealously advocate on their behalf, even when the precedents set by their cases may be used against their corporate clients.  Likewise, whistleblowers need to be aware of the implications of choosing a lawyer whose primary practice is representing corporate crooks.  Conflicts of interest may not initially be visible but can unfold as a case progresses.

The Revelation

In August of 2022, Bloomberg Law and a draft non-peer-reviewed article published by University of Kansas Professor Alexander Platt raised the issue of which law firms represent whistleblowers.  Bloomberg and Platt obtained lists of law firms that prevailed in Dodd-Frank whistleblower cases.  They used the lists to identify a small number of firms, all of which could be classified as pro-whistleblower firms.  These firms’ practices are centered on fighting corporate fraud and speculated whether these firms were being given preferential treatment by the SEC. Neither publication offered proof of any wrongdoing.  But Platt and Bloomberg did not list all the law firms that prevailed in Dodd-Frank cases.  Significantly, neither even mentioned the fact that major defense law firms had already filed and won Dodd-Frank cases on behalf of whistleblowers.  Additionally, the two authors did not explore the special issues that could arise when firms dedicated to defending white-collar criminals quietly switch sides.

In response to Platt and Bloomberg, WNN filed its own Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain access to the documents relied upon in the two articles.  The SEC released over 1000 pages of documents to WNN, including all its correspondence with Platt and all the records provided to Platt (and Bloomberg) that identified law firms that successfully represented whistleblowers.

On September 27, 2022, WNN revealed, for the first time, that the SEC had identified 64 law firms that successfully obtained a reward on behalf of a whistleblower.  Among those firms were six that primarily represent corporations and individuals accused of corporate crimes.  These defense firms included industry giants such as Winston & Strawn and Akin Gump.  Together, the defense firms have already obtained over $56 million in rewards on behalf of whistleblowers.  In response to the Platt, Bloomberg, and WNN FOIA requests, the SEC only identified firms that had already prevailed and obtained a reward on behalf of their clients. Approximately 50,000 cases are pending within the SEC’s reward program, and there is a long delay in processing whistleblower cases.  Therefore, one can assume that numerous other pending cases where these or other defense firms are actively representing whistleblowers that were not disclosed by the SEC.

It is important to note that the Dodd-Frank provisions only apply to large fraud cases.  No reward is available unless the SEC issues sanctions against the entity being investigated in excess of $1 million.  Thus, the cases previously targeted by the defense firms and currently under investigation by the SEC would implicate major frauds.

The defense firms identified by WNN as being listed in the SEC-released materials were:

Winston & Strawn, LLP:  Winston advertises itself as defending “companies and individuals in SEC enforcement and regulatory matters related to allegations involving securities fraud.”  But not mentioned on its webpage is that it also represented a securities law whistleblower who obtained a $2.2 million reward.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP: Akin Gump also describes its practice as representing “companies and individuals” under investigation by various regulatory agencies, including the SEC.  Akin’s attorneys obtained a Dodd-Frank reward of $800,000 award.

Haynes and Boone, LLP: This 600-lawyer defense firm’s website explained that it has “represented employers” in “whistle blowing.”  However, the SEC documents revealed the firm also represented a whistleblower who obtained a “20%” award against a corporate fraudster.

Levine Lee LLP:  Although this firm markets itself as successfully representing clients accused of violating anti-fraud laws, like the other defense firms, it has apparently started a whistleblower practice and obtained a reward of $10 million on behalf of a whistleblower.

Leader Berkon Colao & Silverstein LLP:  This defense firm prevailed in cases filed on behalf of two separate whistleblowers and had considerable success.  Their whistleblower clients obtained $15 million and $27 million in awards.

Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC: Although this firm “regularly represents financial institutions” in “fraud” cases, the firm also represented a whistleblower who obtained a $1.8 million award.  Sallah Astarita was the only firm that listed its Dodd-Frank Act whistleblower case on its website as among the victories achieved by one of its partners.

The SEC’s Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program

Professor Platt and Bloomberg Law criticized the SEC’s Dodd-Frank program as having a bias in favor of a small number of whistleblower-rights law firms that had employed former SEC lawyers.  However, the information revealed by WNN completely refuted this negative implication raised by Platt and Bloomberg.  Instead, the FOIA documents support a finding that the SEC program is a paradigm of fairness and openness.  The extensive correspondence between Platt and the SEC demonstrates that the Commission freely disclosed the names of the firms that had won cases while carefully balancing the confidentiality needs of the whistleblower clients.  These numbers illustrate a program open to law firms regardless of their reputation or whether they employ former government lawyers.  They also reveal a program open to working directly with whistleblowers and rewarding them even if they had no lawyer.  Not one document produced provided any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, bias, or unprofessionalism.  The numbers speak for themselves:

  • Over 50 pro se whistleblowers won cases on their own behalf.  This high percentage of unrepresented applicants who successfully navigated the SEC’s program is remarkable.  In other legal programs, pro se whistleblowers (and other unrepresented persons) lose the vast majority of their cases.  Not so under Dodd-Frank. This demonstrates a high level of commitment by the SEC to helping individual whistleblowers who could not afford or obtain lawyers.
  • Of the 64 law firms that prevailed in a Dodd-Frank reward claim, only 12 had hired former SEC lawyers to assist in the cases.  Thus, the vast majority of successful law firms (52 of the 64) had no “insider” connection to the SEC.   This fact demonstrates the Commission’s staff’s willingness to work closely with attorneys who had no “friends” in the agency and whose information was solely merit-based. Moreover, a significant percentage of the firms that did employ former SEC or Justice Department lawyers were the very defense firms that Bloomberg Law and Platt did not discuss or analyze.
  • The Commission’s staff demonstrated no bias against firms based on their practice areas.  The Commission’s enforcement staff and Whistleblower Office worked with law firms that were defense-based (6) and law firms that traditionally represent whistleblowers or employees in lawsuits against companies (many of the remaining 58).

The FOIA documents support a finding that the Commission’s staff is open to whistleblowers, regardless of whether they represent themselves or whether or not the firms raising the concerns have any “insider” connections.   Organizations such as the National Whistleblower Center, which regularly works with whistleblowers, have widely praised the program, as have the last three Chairs of the SEC, appointed by Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden.  The Commission itself confirmed that as of September 2021, it returned over $1.3 billion to harmed investors based on whistleblower cases.

The Future Role of Defense Firms in Dodd-Frank Cases

The SEC cannot implement special rules that would be prejudicial to traditional defense firms that file whistleblower cases.   Likewise, whistleblowers have the right to hire counsel of their choice and, in most cases, can knowingly waive potential conflicts of interest.  But the mere fact that traditional defense firms can lawfully represent whistleblowers without violating any SEC or local Bar rules does not address the special problems that may exist when a defense firm represents a whistleblower.  For example, such representations can result in significant conflicts of interest that may not be apparent at the commencement of a case. This may result in the whistleblower’s attorneys not advocating for legal precedents that could harm their other corporate clients.

Traditional defense firms should implement internal procedures to guard against potential problems based on the obvious conflicts that can arise when they represent clients on both sides of whistleblower-disclosure cases.  More significantly, it is absolutely crucial that whistleblowers fully understand the potential for conflicts of interest when deciding on the best attorneys to hire.  Attorneys working for defense firms must clearly spell out these issues and ensure that when representing a whistleblower, their prospective client is fully aware of all the risks and limitations.

Among the rules, procedures, and practices that defense firms should implement or carefully consider are:

  1. At the very least, defense firms representing whistleblowers should identify this on their websites.  Corporate clients should know that the firm also represents whistleblowers and should be able to question counsel on these matters so they feel comfortable that no conflicts would arise.
  2. Whistleblower clients need full disclosure of how the defense firm’s primary practice may impact the representation.  This is particularly true whenever a case would require advocacy on behalf of a whistleblower that could expand legal interpretations benefiting whistleblowers.  It is hard to reconcile how a law firm defending some clients against whistleblowers can effectively argue before administrative agencies or courts of law legal precedents that could expand the rights of whistleblowers.  These expanded rights could and would ultimately not be to the advantage of corporate clients accused of wrongdoing.
  3. Similarly, defense firms need to reconcile how they can advocate for a whistleblower who engaged in tactics, such as removing documents or one-party tape recording, that their corporate clients may find offensive.  This is particularly true when the zealous representation of a whistleblower requires expanding the ability of whistleblowers to obtain evidence of wrongdoing, and the precedent this advocacy establishes may be used against the firm’s current or future corporate clients.
  4. The potential for a conflict of interest needs to be fully explored in every case.  One issue that firms and clients may not be fully aware of is how the “related action” provisions of the laws impact potential conflicts.  Once the SEC obtains a sanction of over $1 million in any case, all “related actions” become eligible for a reward.  Sanctions issued by other law enforcement or regulatory agencies based on “related” claims can form the basis of a reward.   When examining whether a conflict exists, law firms need to look beyond the SEC action and determine witnesses, parties, and issues that may be implicated in a “related action.” This determination is critical even if the related action is not based on any securities law violation.
  5. Defense firms can also explore ways to refer potential whistleblower clients to attorneys whose practices are based solely on representing whistleblowers.  These referrals would help ensure that the defense firm is not conflicted (either as a matter of ethics or marketing) and that the client can obtain the best counsel.

Conclusion: The Iron Curtain has Fallen

Whistleblower representation is entering a new world.  The “iron curtain” that formerly separated law firms that represent corporate crooks from those that represent whistleblowers has fallen. This new reality is not without serious risks to whistleblowers (and corporate clients).  Whistleblowers must be fully aware of the dangers of having a corporate law firm represent them.  Corporate law firms must institute procedures to guard against conflicts of interest and to ensure they can zealously represent whistleblowers.  Zealous representation is needed even when the precedents established in these cases may create trouble for their other client base.

At the end of the day, the fact that defense law firms are now representing whistleblowers affirms the success of Dodd-Frank.  It is an affirmation of the critical nature of the information whistleblowers provide to the government and the role of this insider information in stopping otherwise hard to detect corporate crimes.  The “iron curtain” has fallen, but it has fallen in the direction that helps whistleblowers.  It has fallen in the direction that affirms the quality of their disclosures. It refutes the often-repeated slander that whistleblowers are somehow simply disgruntled employees.

Whistleblowers are essential to ensuring fairness in the markets, holding wrongdoers accountable, and deterring future wrongdoing.  The SEC has publicly recognized this, and now leading corporate defense attorneys have quietly recognized it. Defense firms like Akin Gump, Winston and Strawn, and Hayes and Boone got it right when they advocated for paying whistleblowers substantial rewards.  Whistleblowers whose information holds corporate criminals accountable deserve large rewards. These rewards are in the public interest, and the SEC Dodd-Frank whistleblower program must be protected, enhanced and expanded.

Sources:

  1. Whistleblower Network News, “WNN Exclusive: SEC FOIA Documents Reveal Big Law Defense Firms are Confidentially Representing Dodd-Frank Whistleblowers,” (September 27, 2022)
  2. List of Law Firms that Obtained Rewards in Whistleblower Cases as of 2021
  3. List of Awards Obtained by the Six Defense Law Firms
  4. List of pro se Cases where Whistleblowers Obtained a Reward
  5. FAQ on the SEC’s Dodd-Frank Act program
  6. FAQ on Confidentiality of Dodd-Frank Act claims

Article By Stephen M. Kohn of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto

For more criminal law and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2022. All Rights Reserved.

What Are the Standards and Procedures for Jury Selection in My Jurisdiction?

As a national trial consulting firm, we are often asked to assist with jury selection in jurisdictions where lead counsel has been admitted pro hac vice and may not be closely familiar with the standards and procedures for jury selection in the trial jurisdiction. Although local counsel can be a great resource for obtaining more information about jurisdictional rules and individual judges’ preferences, there is also a wealth of information available in online publications to help you prepare for what to expect in most trial venues.

Rules of Civil Procedure

The vast majority of states outline their procedures for jury selection, including standards for hardship and cause, within their Rules (or Codes) of Civil Procedure. These days, many states post their statutory Rules of Civil Procedure directly on the court’s website. It may take a little fishing, but a search for the “[State] Rules of Civil Procedure” on any major search engine will often yield a link directly to the table of contents, where you can then locate the sections pertaining to jury selection.

For example, California’s Code of Civil Procedure Sections 190-237 on Trial Jury Selection and Management provides detailed guidance to judges and attorneys regarding juror questionnaires, mini-openings, breadth and scope of voir dire, and the processes and standards for exercising challenges, among other things. Though less detailed than California, Virginia’s standards and procedures are also online. As another example, the Louisiana Legislature posts its Code of Civil Procedure online, with the procedures and standards for jury selection beginning with Article 1751.

Of course, this information can also be obtained through subscription services like Westlaw and LexisNexis, but if you need to access the statutory language quickly from a tablet or cell phone in court, it is wise not to discount these shortcuts.

Handbooks and Articles

Other valuable resources for trial attorneys include handbooks and articles that summarize the pertinent information. These handbooks are sometimes published by the courts themselves, such as New York’s Implementing New York’s Civil Voir Dire Laws and Rules. This 32-page handbook is especially helpful since, in this jurisdiction, voir dire and jury selection is conducted almost entirely outside the judge’s presence and there are bound to be disagreements between the parties. The handbook is written in common vernacular and includes a helpful table of contents for quick reference, along with citations (and corresponding links) to supporting statutory language from the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules.

Many bar associations also publish articles that summarize the applicable statutes, as well as the subsequent case law, that further define the scope of voir dire in these jurisdictions. For example, this article on the law of jury selection in Missouri state courts, published in the Journal of the Missouri Bar, discusses limits that the court has imposed on the scope and manner of jury selection, including the incorporation of jury instructions, previewing case facts, seeking commitments and rehabilitation—to name a few. It also includes a lengthy explanation of how the courts deal with juror non-disclosure in this jurisdiction.

While we always recommend that counsel review and Shepardize or KeyCite any case law they find in articles such as these, they can be a valuable first step in identifying the important rulings that may be at issue during jury selection in any given jurisdiction.

Incorporate Cause Standard into Voir Dire Questions

Some of the most important pieces of information to know in advance of voir dire are the court’s standards for securing cause challenges. While each judge may have their own “magic words,” incorporating the statutory language into your cause sequence and rehabilitation efforts can be a powerful tool for gaining an edge over opposing counsel.

For example, knowing whether the statute references words such as “fair,” “impartial,” “bias,” “unequivocal,” “assurance,” or “leaning” should guide the language you use when questioning the jurors. Then, when cause challenges are argued before the judge, we advise counsel to first cite the statutory language, followed by the quotes from jurors that mirror such language. While this is not a fool-proof technique—judges can always exercise their discretion—it will be difficult for any judge to deny a challenge that directly reflects the legal standard.

Similarly, if opposing counsel fails to get jurors to echo the statutory language, you can argue that they have failed to meet the requisite cause standards, increasing the odds that their challenges will be denied.

Prepare for Jury Selection

We recommend researching the applicable rules or code in advance of jury selection and printing them, so they are readily available to cite or hand over to the judge when appropriate. It is also helpful to know your judge’s procedures for jury selection. (Some important questions to ask local counsel can be found in this article.)

Though most jury consultants are not lawyers, selecting a jury consultant with experience in your trial jurisdiction is an important consideration. Your consultant may be able to help you prepare for jury selection by identifying what information you will need to gather in advance and helping you find it quickly.

Article By Christina Marinakis, JD, PsyD of IMS Consulting & Expert Services

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2002-2022 IMS Consulting & Expert Services, All Rights Reserved.