Tag: legal

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

Following the Recent Regulatory Trends, NLRB General Counsel Seeks to Limit Employers’ Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

On October 31, 2022, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released Memorandum GC 23-02 urging the Board to interpret existing Board law to adopt a new legal framework to find electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices illegal if such monitoring or management practices interfere with protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).  The Board’s General Counsel stated in the Memorandum that “[c]lose, constant surveillance and management through electronic means threaten employees’ basic ability to exercise their rights,” and urged the Board to find that an employer violates the Act where the employer’s electronic monitoring and management practices, when viewed as a whole, would tend to “interfere with or prevent a reasonable employee from engaging in activity protected by the Act.”  Given that position, it appears that the General Counsel believes that nearly all electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices violate the Act.

Under the General Counsel’s proposed framework, an employer can avoid a violation of the Act if it can demonstrate that its business needs require the electronic monitoring and management practices and the practices “outweigh” employees’ Section 7 rights.  Not only must the employer be able to make this showing, it must also demonstrate that it provided the employees advance notice of the technology used, the reason for its use, and how it uses the information obtained.  An employer is relieved of this obligation, according to the General Counsel, only if it can show “special circumstances” justifying “covert use” of the technology.

In GC 23-02, the General Counsel signaled to NLRB Regions that they should scrutinize a broad range of “automated management” and “algorithmic management” technologies, defined as “a diverse set of technological tools and techniques to remotely manage workforces, relying on data collection and surveillance of workers to enable automated or semi-automated decision-making.”  Technologies subject to this scrutiny include those used during working time, such as wearable devices, security cameras, and radio-frequency identification badges that record workers’ conversations and track the movements of employees, GPS tracking devices and cameras that keep track of the productivity and location of employees who are out on the road, and computer software that takes screenshots, webcam photos, or audio recordings.  Also subject to scrutiny are technologies employers may use to track employees while they are off duty, such as employer-issued phones and wearable devices, and applications installed on employees’ personal devices.  Finally, the General Counsel noted that an employer that uses such technologies to hire employees, such as online cognitive assessments and reviews of social media, “pry into job applicants’ private lives.”  Thus, these pre-hire practices may also violate of the Act.  Technologies such as resume readers and other automated selection tools used during hiring and promotion may also be subject to GC 23-02.

GC 23-02 follows the wave of recent federal guidance from the White House, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and local laws that attempt to define, regulate, and monitor the use of artificial intelligence in decision-making capacities.  Like these regulations and guidance, GC 23-02 raises more questions than it answers.  For example, GC 23-02 does not identify the standards for determining whether business needs “outweigh” employees’ Section 7 rights, or what constitutes “special circumstances” that an employer must show to avoid scrutiny under the Act.

While GC 23-02 sets forth the General Counsel’s proposal and thus is not legally binding, it does signal that there will likely be disputes in the future over artificial intelligence in the employment context.

Article By Steven M. Swirsky, Adam S. Forman, Nathaniel M. Glasser, Neresa A. De Biasi, and Ridhi D. Madia of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

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

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Latest I-9 Virtual Flexibility Guidance

On Oct. 11, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced an extension to compliance flexibilities governing Form I-9. The extension permits continued remote verification and additional Form I-9 flexibilities until July 31, 2023.

ICE initially implemented the policy in March 2020, presumably responding to increased remote employment due to COVID-19. These flexibilities were narrowly and exclusively applied to employers and workplaces that were 100 percent remote, reflecting the agency’s long-standing resistance to remote I-9 verification. ICE granted some discretion in the physical presence requirements associated with Form I-9, allowing employers to inspect documentation remotely. Employers were instructed to state “COVID-19” in Section 2 on Form I-9.

Many employers have since implemented telework arrangements to adapt to changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. ICE’s guidance since March 2020 has been revised to suggest that positions that are remote, even if other positions at the same employer are not remote, are eligible for remote I-9 verification. Further reflecting the changing nature of the workplace, on Aug. 18, 2022, DHS announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) intended to explore alternative regulatory options, including making some of the current pandemic-related flexibilities permanent.

The proposal includes a pilot program and framework allowing the DHS secretary to authorize optional alternative documentation examination procedures in the event of heightened security needs or a public health emergency. Moreover, DHS proposed adding boxes to Form I-9 that allow employers to report alternative procedures used to complete Section 2 or Section 3, as well as updates to form instructions to clarify the purposes of these boxes.

Importantly, this NPRM doesn’t itself adopt a specific remote I-9 procedure – it is intended to formalize DHS’ authority to make some form of remote I-9 verification permanent. Subsequent adoption of I-9 remote verification procedures would require separate rulemaking.

Article By Tejas Shah and Mandira Sethi of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

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

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Global Dispute Resolution: The Future of Virtual Legal Proceedings Is Shaped by Soaring Travel Costs

While we may have passed through the worst of the global pandemic, it has unquestionably left a deep and lasting impact on our personal and professional lives. Restrictions that left everyone housebound for months on end resulted in adaptations to daily behaviors and how we do business—some of which are here to stay.

Progress in the Form of Virtual Proceedings

During the pandemic, keeping businesses afloat was challenging across the board in all industries. Videoconferencing was often the only option to connect with colleagues or to participate in a meeting of any kind, and the use of platforms like Zoom skyrocketed. Like most other businesses and professional organizations, legal forums around the world were closed for a time. When they began to reopen, they discovered a new (virtual) operational environment that arose out of necessity.

International arbitration centers and courts across the globe followed suit, reopening with a mandate to conduct business remotely. While they had already developed protocols for using technology to increase accessibility and efficiency before 2020, the use of videoconferencing in international arbitration centers and courtrooms took off rapidly and pervasively once the pandemic hit. The ramped-up schedule of online proceedings continues in international arbitration centers and courts now that they are increasingly comfortable with the virtual format, and protocols have been developed and vetted.

 

 

 

Many believe that these recent technological developments were long overdue. The pandemic essentially propelled the justice system to modernize its administrative and operational policies. Remote Courts Worldwide (a website created during the pandemic to encourage the global community of justice workers to exchange ideas related to remote alternatives to traditional court proceedings) documents that virtual hearings, arbitrations, and court proceedings are embraced by stakeholders in many countries.1 The consensus is that smart, efficient, industry-disrupting change has brought the international justice system into the twenty-first century. Virtual proceedings are a welcome change for many reasons, not the least of which is the prohibitively high cost of in-person attendance.

International Travel Costs & Virtual Legal Proceedings

The cost of air travel has increased markedly in 2022. Demand issues, inflation, and high fuel costs have driven up per-person airfares. According to the 2022 Global Business Travel Association’s Business Travel Index Outlook – Annual Global Report and Forecast, total international business travel spending is downby 50% from pre-pandemic levels, but individual airfares are on track to rise nearly 50% this year over 2021 and are predicted to continue to rise in 2023.2

An intercontinental long-haul business class ticket from the United States will usually average between $3,000 and $5,000 roundtrip onboard major national carriers. Fares are often the highest on flights longer than twelve hours (i.e., to the Middle East, Australia, or Southeast Asia) and may range from $5,000 to $12,000.3

COMPARING COSTS FOR IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE

The following is an example of a business travel cost profile for an international arbitration hearing taking place in London and involving three US attorneys, two Paris attorneys, two local witnesses, and three litigation support personnel. The average business trip to London is 5.8 days4, during which these travelers will require accommodations for five nights, food for six days, and ground transportation for six days.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRAVEL EXPENSES & TRAVEL TIME TO LONDON FOR ONE LEGAL PROCEEDING

 

 

Person Traveling Number Originating City Airfare Travel Time Hotel Food Ground Total
US Lawyers 3 Chicago $3,079 $5,850 $2,200 $750 $400 $36,837
Paris Lawyers 2 Paris $325 $1,950 $2,200 $750 $400 $11,250
Witnesses 2 London $0 $0 $1,500 $350 $250 $4,200
Trial Consultant 1 New York $2,325 $2,400 $2,200 $750 $400 $8,075
Trial Presenter 1 Los Angeles $3,944 $3,300 $2,200 $750 $400 $10,594
Graphic Designer 1 Dallas $3,079 $3,000 $2,200 $750 $400 $9,429
Total In-Person Attendance               $80,385

 

Notes: Airfares based on Delta business class in November 2022. Travel time based on Chicago to London 9hr. x 2(RT) @$325/hr.; Paris to London 3hr. x 2(RT) @$325/hr.; NY to London 8hr. x 2(RT) @$150/hr.; LA to London 11hr. x 2(RT) @$150/hr.; Dallas to London 10hr. x 2(RT) @$150/hr. 

As demonstrated in the chart above, the cost of travel time can be as much or more than the cost of flights to attend an international arbitration or other legal hearing. Spending many hours traveling to and returning from the various steps of an international proceeding is not only an expense for a client, but productivity is also lost for the legal professionals involved.

If time is money, there could not be a more direct equivalency than the legal industry’s billable hour, and often lawyers apply the same hourly rate for travel hours as for work hours. When complex matters demand a legal team, these costs are multiplied. Then there is the issue of witnesses who would need to travel and perhaps wait around to testify, not to mention the time commitment and expenses related to other on-site billers and support staff. Add in the unpredictability of airline delays, and costs will continue to mount.

VIRTUAL HEARINGS SAVE MONEY (AND THEY’RE HERE TO STAY)

 

 

 

With the cost of international air travel rising sharply, remote hearings are a practical alternative to in-person proceedings. International travel is expensive, and the virtual option means that it is no longer necessary to count travel as a “cost of doing business” when pursuing an international dispute. The widespread use of technology in global dispute resolution proceedings gives attorneys and their clients the option to participate remotely, which is a compelling cost saver for all parties.

Industry news reports tell the story:

Technology has become ubiquitous in international arbitration.5 Japan expedites court proceedings with Microsoft Teams.6 Beijing’s “Internet Court” enables people to file lawsuits online.7 In India, 19.2 million cases have been heard virtually in the High Court and district courts.8

Such reports are convincing evidence of the commitment to the continuation of virtual proceedings in legal forums around the globe. Remote and hybrid proceedings in the international legal setting appear to have a very secure future.

Put Your Best Foot Forward in Virtual Legal Proceedings

Technology in the courtroom is not particularly a new concept, and international arbitration centers were working in the direction of modernizing when they had to fast-track guidelines to convert to primarily virtual hearings.9 The wholesale adoption of online proceedings may have caught some firms unprepared from a technical production standpoint.

References:

  1. See www.remotecourts.org.
  2. See gbta.org.
  3. Keyes, Scott. The Complete Guide to Business Class Flights. Scott’s Cheap Flights. April 28, 2022.
  4. Johnson, Georgia-Rose. Business Travel Statistics. Finder.com. February 18, 2021.
  5. Vishnyakov, Mikhail. CIArb Guidelines on the Use of Technology, The Law Society Gazette. March 18, 2021.
  6. Yates-Roberts, Elly. Japan expedites court proceedings with Microsoft Teams. Technology Record. February 4, 2020.
  7. China: Beijing’s ‘Internet Court’ enables people to file lawsuits online. Remote Courts Worldwide. September 20, 2022.
  8. Harris, Joanne. Access to justice: India leads post-Covid shift in courts’ use of technology. International Bar Association. October 12, 2022.
  9. Caroni, Barnardo. Fast Track Arbitration and Virtual Protocols in the COVID-19 ERA: Some Suggestions from Asia. October 20, 2022.

Article By 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.

Top Legal Industry Highlights for November 2022: Law Office Hiring and Expansion, Industry Awards and Recognition, and the Latest Updates in Diversity and Inclusion

Happy Holidays from the National Law Review! We hope you are remaining safe and healthy as Thanksgiving rolls around. Read more below for the latest in law firm hiring and expansion, noteworthy industry awards and recognitions, and the latest news in law firm diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

Additionally, please be sure to check out the latest Legal News Reach podcast episode from the NLR: “What’s New In Law Firm Thought Leadership? with Alistair Bone, Vice President for Passle.”

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP has added attorney Mark Nagumo as Of Counsel in the firm’s Chemical Patent Practice Group. Mr. Nagumo, who is a former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office administrative patent judge, has a great deal of experience in chemical research, particularly with regard to biomolecules, materials, and a wide range of other analytical techniques.

“We are thrilled to welcome Mark to our firm,” said Oblon Managing Partner Philippe Signore. “Mark is an extremely knowledgeable and respected chemical patent attorney whose many years of experience at the USPTO offers tremendous value and benefits to our clients. He is a great addition to our team.”

Polsinelli PC has appointed two new co-chairs of the firm’s Business Department: Jane Arnold and Kolin Holladay. Ms. Arnold, an experienced attorney in mergers and acquisitions, is based in the St. Louis office, where she currently serves as Office Managing Partner. Mr. Holladay, who also focuses his practice on mergers and acquisitions, is a Shareholder in the firm’s Nashville office.

“The selection of Arnold and Holladay as Business Department Co-Chairs reflects the firm’s long-standing commitment to inclusion, representation, and geographic diversity at every level,” said Chase Simmons, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Polsinelli. “Both are leaders who are highly respected within our firm and the industries in which they practice. Under their leadership, the Business Department will continue to create meaningful opportunities for our lawyers and clients, all consistent with our strategic priorities.”

James M. Tartaglia has rejoined Steptoe & Johnson PLLC as Of Counsel in the firm’s Charleston office. With a background in mineral title opinions and due diligence, Mr. Tartaglia joins the firm’s Energy Group , where he will focus his practice on energy contract law.

“We’re looking forward to having Jim back at the firm,” said Steptoe & Johnson CEO Christopher L. Slaughter. “His skill set and knowledge of the oil and gas industry strengthens our energy contracts practice and will be an asset to our clients.”

As of November 1st, 2022, Proskauer Rose LLP has promoted 33 of its attorneys – 25 to partner, and 8 to senior counsel. This class of promotions is the firm’s largest to date, and it includes attorneys from nine different offices around the world.

“We are delighted to promote this talented group of lawyers, whose values, entrepreneurial spirit and drive represent the best of the Firm,’” said Steven M. Ellis, Chairman of Proskauer. “We congratulate each of these new partners and senior counsel on this milestone and wish them continued success as they support our clients, secure historic victories, set precedents and serve as strategic partners.”

The following attorneys have been promoted to partner: Michelle Annese, Kimberly Braun, Ryan Carpenter, Aliza Cinamon, Grant Darwin, Christopher Elson, Nolan Goldberg, Laura Goldsmith, Oliver Howley, John Ingrassia, Philip Kaminski, Christine Lazatin, Shawn Ledingham, Matthew Levy, Stéphanie Martinier, Richard Miller, Bharat Moudgil, Adam Nelson, Caroline Robbins, Cameron Roper, Bradley Schecter, Adam Scoll, Sean Spence, Scott Patrick Thurman, and Harriet West.

The following attorneys have been promoted to senior counsel: Stephen Chuk, Pinchos Goldberg, Allison Lynn Martin, Jennifer Rigterink, Jurate Schwartz, Jennifer Yang, Edward Young, and Oleg Zakatov.

Frost Brown Todd has combined with California-based law firm Alvarado Smith, effective January 1, 2023. The combined firm will have more than 575 attorneys in 17 offices across nine states and Washington, D.C, with AlvaradoSmith’s addition providing strategic expansion into the Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Francisco markets.

“AlvaradoSmith is known for successfully taking on matters and clients often associated with big firms, while FBT has the resources of a large firm with the culture of a boutique shop,” said AlvaradoSmith Managing Shareholder Ruben Smith. “That’s why we’re confident this combination will be an excellent fit, allowing us to grow our capacity and resources while still retaining our deep connection to clients and community. We look forward to a very productive future with Frost Brown Todd.”

“This merger is a natural next step and tremendous growth opportunity for both Frost Brown Todd and AlvaradoSmith,” said FBT Chief Executive Officer Adam Hall. “As one of the largest and most influential economies in the world, California intersects with every one of Frost Brown Todd’s practice groups and many of our offices. We know our clients will benefit greatly from the extensive knowledge and relationships that AlvaradoSmith attorneys have cultivated throughout the state for decades. We look forward to working with them as we significantly expand our presence in California and strengthen Frost Brown Todd’s preeminent industry teams.”

Legal Industry Awards and Recognition

Ballard Spahr has received 26 National Tier 1 rankings in the 2023 Best Law Firms and a total of 160 rankings across all Best Law Firms categories. Best Law Firms rankings are gathered based on surveys from clients and professional references. To qualify, a law firm must have one attorney who is recognized in the current edition of Best Lawyers in a Best Law Firms-ranked practice area or metro area.

Ballard Spahr received National Tier 1 rankings in the following categories:

  • Banking and Finance Law
  • Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Copyright Law
  • Corporate Law
  • Criminal Defense: White-Collar
  • Employment Law – Management
  • Environmental Law
  • Labor Law – Management
  • Land Use & Zoning Law
  • Litigation – Banking & Finance
  • Litigation – Bankruptcy
  • Litigation – First Amendment
  • Litigation – Intellectual Property
  • Litigation – Labor & Employment
  • Litigation – Patent
  • Litigation – Real Estate
  • Media Law
  • Mergers & Acquisitions Law
  • Patent Law
  • Public Finance Law
  • Real Estate Law
  • Securities / Capital Markets Law
  • Securities Regulation
  • Trademark Law
  • Trusts & Estates Law

Lauren Wachtler, partner at Barclay Damon’s New York office, will be honored with the prestigious Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin Award for Excellence in the Courtroom by the New York State Bar Association’s Commercial & Federal Litigation Section. Ms. Watchler’s practice focuses on commercial and business litigation matters, and she advocates for women’s equality in the legal profession as well as mentoring and educating young attorneys.

The Scheindlin Award is presented annually on or around November 6, the date women were granted the right to vote in 1917 in New York state. “It is a true honor to receive the Scheindlin Award,” said Ms. Wachtler. “Judge Scheindlin was a gifted jurist and continues to be a role model for women in our profession.”

The award honors its namesake Shira A. Scheindlin, the Commercial & Federal Litigation Section’s former chair and former district judge for the Southern District of New York. Scheindlin said, “I extend my sincerest congratulations to Lauren for being selected to receive the Scheindlin Award. Her commitment to the legal profession and mentoring young women attorneys is truly inspiring and continues to grow year after year. Women litigators still face adversity in the courtroom; however, Lauren’s work will hopefully pave the way for future generations of women litigators.”

Foley & Lardner LLP has received the Corporate Citizen Award from the Three Harbors Boys Scouts of America Council, which seeks to honor a particular organization that exemplifies the Scout Law through community service and upstanding business practices. The award will be presented at the Distinguished Citizen Award Dinner in Milwaukee on November 17, 2022.

Foley was selected for its long-standing support of Scouting, as well as the firm’s significant pro bono support through Partner Peter Fetzer to Three Harbors Council. Mr. Fetzer is a partner in the firm’s Milwaukee office, where he focuses his practice on securities regulation, mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance and general corporate counseling to mutual funds, exchange traded funds, publicly traded investment advisers and public companies.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Legal Profession

Womble Bond Dickinson attorneys Britt Biles and Stephanie Yarbrough have been selected for inclusion on Women We Admire’s 2022 Top 50 Women Leaders in the Law list, which celebrates influential and successful women in the legal field.

Ms. Biles is a Litigation Group Partner who played a key role in the federal government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. After her time as Associate White House Counsel and SEC senior enforcer, Biles became Senior Counsel of the Small Business Administration, where she was principal legal advisor to the CARES Act Administrator and an active participant in drafting guidance for the Paycheck Protection Program. At Womble Bond Dickinson, she focuses her practice on business litigation and government investigations.

Ms. Yarbrough is a Womble Bond Dickinson Global Board Member and Economic Development Team Co-Chair who has spent her two-decade legal career aiding economic development in the southeastern United States by helping domestic and international companies expand their operations to Charleston and surrounding regions. Yarbrough’s role in creating thousands of new jobs and billions in investments has led her to become an industry thought leader, speaking at local and national events and appearing in a 2017 New York Times article about Charleston’s economy.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Partner Gary L. Howard has been selected to serve a one-year term as Vice Chair of the Defense Research Institute’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee. The Birmingham, Alabama attorney has been active with DRI for many years, previously serving as Diversity Expo Chair, Diversity for Success Seminar & Corporate Expo Program Chair, and Annual Meeting Steering Committee Member. Howard’s appointment comes on the heels of his 2021 Albert H. Parnell Outstanding Program Chair Award, which he received for creating engaging educational programming for DRI.

Mr. Howard’s 25-year legal career has seen him managing commercial litigation related to class actions, mass torts, contract disputes, insurance cases, and related matters. He has argued in state and federal courtrooms and is admitted to practice in more than ten states.

Moore & Van Allen have announced the creation of a new Civil Rights & Racial Equity Assessments Practice within their White Collar, Regulatory Defense & Investigation Practice. Fifteen of MVA’s most experienced investigative attorneys will harness the firm’s ESG, internal and cross-border probe, and human trafficking prevention expertise to conduct public-facing racial equity and civil rights audits. These reviews will assist businesses interested in improving their internal and external diversity practices.

Valecia M. McDowell, who will be leading the new practice, commented, “Our Civil Rights & Racial Equity Assessments Practice brings together our deep experience and bench strength in key areas to help our clients strategically assess their internal and external practices, programs, and policies to more thoroughly and thoughtfully address diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).”

Article By Chandler Ford, Shelby Garrett, and Crissonna Tennison 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

SEC Ramps Up Enforcement against Public Companies and Subsidiaries in FY 2022

The SEC imposed $2.8 billion in monetary settlements, the largest total in any fiscal year recorded in the Securities Enforcement Empirical Database.

New York—The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed 68 enforcement actions against public companies and subsidiaries in the first full fiscal year of Chair Gary Gensler’s tenure. Monetary settlements imposed in public company or subsidiary actions reached $2.8 billion, according to a report released today by the NYU Pollack Center for Law & Business and Cornerstone Research.

The report, SEC Enforcement Activity: Public Companies and Subsidiaries—Fiscal Year 2022 Update, analyzes information from the Securities Enforcement Empirical Database (SEED). The 68 enforcement actions in FY 2022, which ended September 30, reflected a 28% increase from the previous fiscal year.

The SEC imposed monetary settlements on 97% of the 75 public company and subsidiary defendants that settled in FY 2022. Both the dollar amount and the percentage were the largest of any fiscal year recorded in SEED, which covers actions beginning in FY 2010.

“The number of defendants that settled in FY 2022 with admissions of guilt increased substantially from the previous fiscal year. This was driven by actions involving Broker Dealer allegations brought by the SEC in September,” said Stephen Choi, the Bernard Petrie Professor of Law and Business at New York University School of Law and director of the Pollack Center for Law & Business. “The 16 defendants admitting guilt was double the largest number in any previous fiscal year in SEED.”

The $2.8 billion in monetary settlements imposed in public company or subsidiary enforcement actions in FY 2022 was $921 million more than in FY 2021 and $321 million more than in any other fiscal year in SEED. The median monetary settlement in FY 2022 was $9 million, the largest in SEED. The average settlement was $42 million.

“The increase in monetary settlements is consistent with the SEC’s public statements that ‘robust remedies’ are an enforcement priority,” said report coauthor Sara Gilley, a Cornerstone Research vice president. “The $1.2 billion in monetary settlements with 16 public broker-dealer subsidiaries for recordkeeping failures represents 44% of total monetary settlements in the fiscal year.”

Issuer Reporting and Disclosure continued to be the most common allegation type in FY 2022, accounting for 38% of actions. Allegations in the SEC’s Broker Dealer classification were the second most common for the first time since FY 2018. Nearly 70% of the 16 Broker Dealer actions were filed against financial institutions for recordkeeping failures.

Click here to read the full report from Cornerstone Research.

Article By Sara E. Gilley, Lindsay Schick, and Heather B. Lazur of Cornerstone Research

For more securities and SEC legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 Cornerstone Research

Colorado Legalizes Therapeutic Psychedelics – Now What?

Ten years after Coloradans voted for their state to be one of the first to legalize recreational cannabis, Colorado is again making history as the second state in the country to legalize therapeutic psychedelics for adults.

Colorado voters narrowly approved Proposition 122 with nearly 53% of the votes (as of the morning of November 14th 97% of the votes have been counted). Their vote thus enacted the Natural Medicine Health Act of 2022 (NMHA) which legalizes supervised or facilitated therapeutic sessions for adults twenty-one years and older using certain psychedelic plants and fungi. Click here for our initial takeaways and a high-level summary of key provisions of the NMHA.

Now that therapeutic psychedelics are legal in Colorado, what should be expected next? Below are key dates and next steps as Colorado navigates implementation of the NMHA.

  • The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) must establish the Natural Medicine Advisory Board (Board) and appoint initial members to the Board by January 31, 2023. The Board must have 15 members who will be appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Colorado Senate. The primary role of the Board is to advise DORA as to implementation of the NMHA program.
  • By September 30, 2023, and annually thereafter, the Board must make recommendations to DORA on certain areas related to natural medicine, such as recommendations related to product safety, herm reduction, and cultural responsibility, training programs, educational and experiential qualifications for facilitators, regulatory considerations for each type of natural medicine and the rules to be promulgated by DORA.
  •  DORA has until January 1, 2024 to adopt rules and establish the qualifications, education and training requirements that facilitators must meet prior to providing natural medicine services to participants.
  • By September 30, 2024, DORA must adopt rules to implement the NMHA program and begin accepting applications for licensure of facilitators, healing centers, entities to test natural medicines, and any categories of licensure as determined by DORA.
  • Once applications are accepted, DORA must make decisions on licensure applications within 60 days of receiving an application.
  • From the launch of the NMHA program until June 1, 2026, “natural medicines” are limited to psilocybin and psilocyn. After June 1, 2026, upon recommendation by the Board, DORA may add one of more of the following to types of natural medicines that can be provided under the NMHA program: dimethyltryptamine, Ibogaine, and Mescaline (excluding peyote).

A notable takeaway and something to watch for in the forthcoming rules is a focus on social equity. Seemingly applying lessons learned from the rollout of the state’s cannabis program, the NMHA expressly requires DORA to prioritize equity and inclusivity as it establishes rules to implement the NMHA program. Specifically, DORA is required to adopt rules which: (i) establish procedures, policies and programs to ensure the NMHA program is equitable and inclusive; (ii) promote the licensing of and provision of natural medicine services to (a) persons from communities that have been disproportionally harmed by high rates of controlled substances (including cannabis); (b) persons who face barriers to access to health care; (c) persons who have traditional or indigenous history with natural medicines; and (d) persons who are veterans by, offering, at a minimum reduced fees for licensure and training, incentivizing the provision of natural medicine services at a reduced cost to low income individuals, and incentivizing geographic and cultural diversity in licensing and the provision of and availability of natural medicine services.

In addition, DORA is prohibited from imposing unreasonable financial or logistical barriers that would prevent individuals with lower income from applying for a license and individuals are limited to having a financial interest in five healing centers. Currently, the definition of “individuals” does not include corporations. However, DORA could establish a rule which includes corporations in this limitation and would arguably level the playing field in this budding market.

We will continue to monitor developments and closely follow the rulemaking process as Colorado designs and implements this historical new program.

Article By Lauren P. Carboni of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more biotech, food, and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

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

What Brokers, Company Insiders, and Others Need to Know about Securities Litigation

Individuals, companies, and firms involved in all aspects of the securities industry face litigation risks daily. From whistleblower lawsuits and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement actions to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration and private-right-of-action cases under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, all types of securities litigation present risks for civil liability. In some cases, securities litigation can present risks for criminal penalties as well.

With this in mind, there is a lot that brokers, company insiders, investment advisers, and others need to know when targeted in lawsuits and investigations. When brokers, company insiders, and others make informed decisions based on the advice of experienced counsel, they can significantly mitigate their risk in both private and governmental securities litigation.

“Securities litigation can present substantial risks for individuals, companies, and firms. Whether facing allegations in civil litigation, SEC enforcement proceedings, or FINRA arbitration, the key to mitigating these risks is to build and execute a comprehensive, strategic and forward-thinking defense.” – Dr. Nick Oberheiden, Founding Attorney of Oberheiden P.C. law firms.

Answers to 10 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Securities Litigation

Here are answers to 10 frequently asked questions (FAQs) about securities litigation:

1. What Are Some of the Most Common Claims Against Brokers and Brokerage Firms in Securities Litigation?

Brokers and brokerage firms have faced a growing volume of litigation in recent years. This includes private litigation involving individual investors as well as litigation involving the SEC. Investigations, lawsuits, and arbitration filings targeting brokers and brokerage firms primarily focus on acts and omissions constituting investor fraud, though brokers and brokerage firms can face a variety of other claims in securities litigation as well.

Some examples of common claims against brokers and brokerage firms in securities litigation include:

  • Making unsuitable investment recommendations

  • Unauthorized trading and account churning

  • Charging excessive fees and commissions

  • Failing to disclose or misconstruing material information (especially in connection with structured products and other high-risk investments)

  • Failure to supervise or implement adequate internal controls

2. What Are Some of the Most Common Claims Against Company Insiders and Issuers in Securities Litigation?

Securities fraud lawsuits and enforcement actions targeting company insiders and securities issuers can also involve an extremely broad range of allegations. These cases are typically very different from those targeting brokers and brokerage firms; and, while both falls under the umbrella of “securities litigation,” the resemblances between the two categories are minimal. Some examples of common claims against company insiders and issuers in securities litigation include:

  • Accounting and recordkeeping violations

  • Submitting false SEC filings

  • Insider trading

  • Market manipulation

  • Selling unregistered securities and conducting unregistered IPOs

3. What Are Some of the Most Common Triggers for Securities Fraud Lawsuits and Investigations?

Many securities fraud lawsuits and investigations result from investor complaints. Typically, investors will have concerns about losses in their portfolios that they believe cannot be explained by ordinary market forces. These concerned investors will contact plaintiffs’ lawyers to help them file claims alleging fraud in federal courts, district courts or FINRA arbitration.

In some cases, concerned investors will file whistleblower claims with the SEC. The SEC has an obligation to investigate all whistleblower complaints that meet the basic filing requirements, and SEC whistleblowers can receive substantial compensation awards.

The SEC also initiates investigations on its own. Questionable EDGAR filings, market activity, media reports, and referrals from other federal law enforcement agencies can all trigger SEC investigations that may lead to civil or criminal enforcement action. The SEC also monitors activity on social media and other online platforms, and activity on these platforms is increasingly serving as the basis for SEC enforcement activity.

4. What Types of Claims Are Most Likely to Lead to Class Action Securities Litigation?

While all securities litigation presents liability risks for the individuals or entities targeted, companies and firms targeted in class action litigation face risk on an entirely different scale. Class action lawsuits lead to devastating liability that can threaten companies’ and firms’ viability as a going concern.

The types of claims that are most likely to lead to class action securities litigation are those that involve violations affecting large groups of investors. Inadequate brokerage controls that lead to systemic unsuitable investment recommendations, omitting material information from companies’ 10-K or 10-Q filings, mismanagement of investors’ funds, and market manipulation resulting in widespread losses are all examples of issues that can lead (and have led) to securities-related class action lawsuits.

5. How Does the SEC’s Whistleblower Program Work?

The SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower accepts tips from company employees, investors, and others who believe they have information about securities fraud. When a whistleblower complaint spurs enforcement action resulting in sanctions of $1 million or more, the whistleblower can receive between 10% and 30% of the amount collected.

As a result, individuals have a strong financial incentive to come forward and work with the SEC. Additionally, even if the SEC declines to pursue enforcement action based on a whistleblower’s tip, the whistleblower can still choose to pursue a claim directly, and whistleblower compensation awards are higher in these cases. Due to these incentives, whistleblower litigation is a key component of the SEC’s overall securities law enforcement strategy.

6. When Is It Advantageous to Settle a Securities Fraud Lawsuit or Arbitration Claim?

When facing substantiated allegations of securities fraud, settling will often prove to be the most cost-effective solution. However, targeted individuals and entities must be careful not to settle too soon, as there are numerous ways to fight securities fraud allegations even in scenarios that seem highly unfavorable (more on this below).

So, when is it advantageous to settle? Simply put, the costs of settling need to be less than the costs of any other alternative. This includes not only legal costs and any potential judgment liability, but reputational and administrative (i.e. suspension or debarment) costs as well.

7. When Can the U.S. Department of Justice Pursue Criminal Securities Fraud Litigation?

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) pursues criminal securities fraud litigation in cases involving intentional (or apparently intentional) securities law violations. According to the DOJ’s website, the Department’s Market Integrity and Major Frauds (MIMF) Unit, “focuses on the prosecution of complex securities, commodities, cryptocurrency, and other financial fraud and market manipulation cases.” In criminal securities fraud cases, the DOJ can seek penalties ranging from substantial fines to long-term imprisonment for company executives and other insiders.

8. What Remedies Can Investors Seek in Securities Litigation?

In private securities litigation and FINRA arbitration, retail investors can seek compensatory damages for their fraudulent investment losses. An investor’s losses may be deemed fraudulent if they result from either: (i) broker fraud or mismanagement (i.e., making unsuitable investment recommendations), or (ii) a drop in the value of their securities that is not attributable to ordinary market forces. Along with the recovery of their lost principal and investment earnings, investors can seek to recover interest, fees, and other costs as well.

9. What Remedies Can the SEC Seek in Securities Litigation?

When pursuing enforcement actions against brokers, brokerage firms, company insiders, and issuers, the SEC can seek a range of civil and administrative penalties. These include fines, disgorgement, and restitution as well as cease-and-desist orders, suspension, and debarment from the securities industry.

10. What Defenses Can Individuals, Companies, and Firms Use to Protect Themselves in Securities Litigation?

While securities litigation can involve a broad range of allegations and present substantial risk for liability and other penalties, targeted individuals and entities may be able to successfully defend themselves by several means. Whether securing a favorable result means avoiding liability entirely or negotiating a favorable settlement, the key to success is making informed decisions in light of the available opportunities.

For brokers and brokerage firms, some examples of potential defenses include:

  • Misguided Allegations – In many cases, investors (and their counsel) simply lack an adequate understanding of the law. Demonstrating that an investor’s allegations are misguided can serve as an efficient and complete defense against liability.

  • Investor Authorization – One particular area of confusion for many investors is the area of authorization (including discretionary authorization). If an investor is challenging a trade that he or she authorized, providing documentation of authorization can be sufficient to avoid liability.

  • Statutory and Regulatory Compliance – Brokers and brokerage firms will also be able to successfully defend against securities fraud allegations by demonstrating compliance with the relevant statutes, regulations, or FINRA rules.

For company insiders and issuers, some examples of potential defenses include:

  • Compliance with Pre-Arranged Trading Plans – In cases involving insider trading allegations, company insiders can avoid liability by demonstrating compliance with a pre-arranged trading plan.

  • Good-Faith Disclosure – Issuers accused of withholding material information or publishing incomplete or misleading information can often defend against fraud allegations by demonstrating good-faith efforts to maintain disclosure compliance.

  • Qualifying for a Registration Exemption – Issuers can qualify for registration exemptions in various scenarios. If security is exempt, then offering security without registration is 100% permissible.

The fact that these are just examples cannot be overemphasized. Securities litigation can involve an extraordinarily broad range of allegations under numerous laws, rules, and regulations. In many cases, targeted companies and individuals will be able to assert a successful defense by focusing on discrete elements of the plaintiff’s or SEC’s burden of proof. From asserting the applicable statute of limitations to preventing class certification, several technical defenses can prove highly effective in securities litigation as well. As with all types of litigation, the key is to explore all viable defenses, build a comprehensive and cohesive defense strategy, and then execute that strategy while remaining prepared to adapt as necessary.

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

For more securities and SEC legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2022

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