Podcast appearances and mentions of lewis brisbois

Live from Albany Law School, the first-ever Lawyers in the Making Live Podcast! This live Podcast Panel includes 3 wonderful Panelists, who brought forth their wisdom and experiences through their unique journeys to the Law and Law School. Nolan is an Albany Law Graduate and currently works as a Partner at Wilson Elser. He has held past positions as a partner at Lewis Brisbois and as an Assistant Corporation Counsel at the New York City Law Department. Lorena Diaz-Germes is a current 2L at Albany Law and currently works as a Legal Intern at Brown & Weinraub. She has held past positions as a Legal Intern for the Center for NYC Neighborhoods and as a Claims Initiation Agent at Falcon Risk Services. Judge Rivera is an Albany Law graduate and currently works as a Justice of the Supreme Court and as a Statewide Coordinating Judge for Family Court Matters at the New York State Unified Court System. He has held past positions as a Support Magistrate at the Albany County Family Court and as an Assistant County Attorney at the Albany County Department of Law. Be sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System™ Recorded Course - This course is for ambitious law students who want a proven, simple system to learn every topic in their classes to excel in class and on exams. Go to www.lisablasser.com, check out the student tab with course offerings, and use code LSOSNATE10 at checkout for 10% off Lisa's recorded course!Start LSAT - Founded by former guest and 21-year-old super-star, Alden Spratt, Start LSAT was built upon breaking down barriers, allowing anyone access to high-quality LSAT Prep. For $110 you get yourself the Start LSAT self-paced course, and using code LITM10 you get 10% off the self-paced course! Check out Alden and Start LSAT at startlsat.com and use code LITM10 for 10% off the self-paced course!Lawyers in the Making Podcast is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Lawyers in the Making Podcast at lawyersinthemaking.substack.com/subscribe

On this day in legal history, September 27, 1964, the Warren Commission released its report on the Kennedy assassination, concluding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the plot.The Warren Commission report, released after a thorough 10-month investigation, aimed to provide definitive answers regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Headed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, the commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted as a lone gunman, dismissing any theories of domestic or international conspiracy in the assassination. The report also addressed the role of Jack Ruby, a nightclub owner who killed Oswald on live television. It found that Ruby had no prior interactions with Oswald, thereby ruling out any coordinated effort between the two.The commission's findings detailed the sequence of events on that fateful day, stating that Oswald fired three shots from a rifle. These shots were taken from a window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and were responsible for both killing President Kennedy and injuring Texas Governor John Connally. The report went to great lengths to describe various aspects of Oswald's life, including his time spent in the Soviet Union. However, it notably refrained from delving into Oswald's motives for the assassination.While the Warren Commission report has been the subject of scrutiny and debate, it remains a seminal document in the study of President Kennedy's assassination. Its conclusions have been both supported and challenged by subsequent investigations, but the report itself stands as a comprehensive governmental response to one of the most shocking and tragic events in American history.O'Hagan Meyer, a Chicago-based boutique law firm, has significantly expanded its labor practice in California, thanks to the downfall of Daugherty Lordan, a firm that emerged from a mass departure from Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith. Between May 1 and September 16, O'Hagan Meyer hired 75 attorneys, ranking fourth in hiring among U.S. law firms, according to data from Firm Prospects. The firm even outpaced hiring at some of the country's 20 largest firms. The collapse of Daugherty Lordan, marred by controversial emails from its founders, provided O'Hagan Meyer with a unique opportunity to absorb more than 50 attorneys from the defunct firm.Within six days of Daugherty Lordan's closure, O'Hagan Meyer announced the opening of a new office in Los Angeles, expanding its presence in the city. Nearly 20 of the firm's attorneys in this new office are former employees of Lewis Brisbois, Barber Ranen, or Daugherty Lordan. The firm also opened an office in Sacramento and expanded its San Francisco office, bringing in key personnel from the closed firms.California's complex labor laws make it a crucial market for employment law, a fact acknowledged by O'Hagan Meyer in a statement. The firm said it was thrilled to add almost 80 employment attorneys in California. The state has seen a surge in the hiring of labor and employment lawyers due to ongoing changes in workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, as well as unionization efforts and salary disclosure regulations.Lewis Brisbois Defector Firm's Flop Is Boon for Labor BoutiqueThe U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a ruling requiring Alabama to create a second congressional district with a near-majority of Black voters. This decision rejects Alabama's latest attempt to reinstate a Republican-drawn voting map. The high court's order came without public comment or dissent, reinforcing its previous ruling on June 8, which found the Republican map to be discriminatory. That June ruling had upheld a decision by a three-judge federal court panel mandating a second majority-Black district.Alabama had argued that the Supreme Court's June decision allowed for the state to redraw its map without necessarily creating a second majority-Black district. However, the lower court struck down this new map as well. The panel expressed deep concern that Alabama had enacted a map that did not meet the federal requirements specified.The case has been under close scrutiny because similar redistricting battles are taking place in Louisiana, Texas, and Georgia. These cases could influence the control of the U.S. House of Representatives. If Alabama's request had been approved, it would have almost assured that the Republican-drawn map would be used in the 2024 elections.Democrats and civil rights activists argue that the Voting Rights Act necessitates Alabama to create a second district where Black voters have enough numbers to elect their preferred candidate. Alabama has seven U.S. congressional seats and a Black population constituting 27% of the state. The state had asked the Supreme Court to block the lower court's ruling while it pursued an appeal, but this request was denied. The case is captioned as Allen v. Milligan.Alabama Again Rejected by Supreme Court on GOP-Drawn Voting MapA New York judge, Justice Arthur Engoron, has found former U.S. President Donald Trump and his family business liable for fraud, stating that they inflated the value of their properties and assets. This ruling could significantly impact Trump's ability to conduct business in New York. The decision also paves the way for New York State Attorney General Letitia James to establish damages in a trial scheduled for October 2. Engoron ordered the cancellation of business certificates for some of Trump's enterprises, including the Trump Organization, and appointed a receiver to manage their dissolution.The judge criticized Trump and his adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, for fabricating valuations to suit their business needs. The court also sanctioned the defendants' lawyers for making "preposterous" legal arguments. Trump and his legal team plan to appeal the decision, calling it a "miscarriage of justice."The case has garnered attention as Trump is seeking the Republican presidential nomination for 2024, despite facing multiple criminal charges. In response to the ruling, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to denounce the judge and the case as a "witch hunt."The lawsuit, initiated by James in September 2022, accused Trump and his organization of lying about asset values to defraud banks and insurers. The judge stated that Trump had overstated his net worth by between $812 million and $2.2 billion, including significant overvaluations of his Mar-a-Lago estate and Manhattan penthouse.This ruling comes after an appeals court had dismissed some of James' claims due to expired statutes of limitations. However, Engoron rejected Trump's argument that this weakened James' lawsuit. The appeals court is expected to rule on a request for a delay in the trial this week.Donald Trump found liable for fraud in New York civil case | ReutersAs the U.S. Supreme Court gears up for its new nine-month term, public attention is not just on the significant cases it will handle but also on the ethical conduct of the justices themselves. The court has been under scrutiny for months due to revelations about some justices' relationships with wealthy and influential individuals, including private jet trips and luxury vacations. Specifically, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are facing questions about whether they should recuse themselves from two pending cases due to personal ties to parties involved.Legal experts suggest that these ethical concerns are unlikely to dissipate, even as the court takes on cases that could expand gun rights and limit the powers of federal agencies. This focus on ethics is unusual for the beginning of a term and adds pressure to a court already facing declining public approval. Recent rulings by the court's conservative majority, such as ending the constitutional right to abortion and rejecting affirmative action in college admissions, have contributed to this decline.Public opinion of the court has dropped, with an August Reuters/Ipsos poll showing only 39% of U.S. adults holding a positive view, down from 52% in June 2022. Some conservatives argue that the ethical concerns are being exaggerated by liberals unhappy with the court's conservative tilt. However, media reports have detailed luxury trips and real estate transactions involving both conservative and liberal justices, raising questions about impartiality.The court's lack of a binding ethics code has led to calls for greater regulation to ensure fairness and impartiality. Legal scholars argue that Supreme Court justices should be held to the same ethical standards as other federal judges. The absence of such a code continues to fuel doubts about the court's integrity, whether those doubts are warranted or not.US Supreme Court prepares for new term under ethics cloud | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week's episode features an interview with Law.com business of law reporters Justin Henry and Jessie Yount, who break down the rise and fall of Lewis Brisbois spinoff firm Daugherty Lordan They also weigh in on what the legal industry should take away from the whole saga.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), recently saw one of its major agency efforts that placed severe limits on the Maine lobster fishing industry in the name of protecting right whales from being entangled in fishing gear rejected by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The far-reaching impact of NMFS's rule on the Maine $1.5 billion dollar lobster fishing industry was widely reported, resulting in multiple lawsuits, and congressional action before it was rejected by the appeals court, who chided the federal agency for being “egregiously wrong” about its authority and assessments.NMFS's efforts to restrict the lobster fishing industry through the enactment of rules under both the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act is part of a larger trend. NMFS is also considering putting a speed limit on recreational boats in the Florida gulf to protect Rice's whales, and another proposal to impose a speed limit across nearly the entirety of the Eastern seaboard, which coastal communities, boaters and fishermen claim will shut down harmless boating activity and place boaters in danger by demanding they travel at the speeds that make boat travel impossible. Environmental groups argue that these rules are necessary to protect a species that hangs on the brink of extinction.Join us for a lively and engaging discussion surrounding the recent decision, and the legality and constitutionality of NMFS's regulatory efforts. This will be a discussion between Jane Luxton, the Managing Partner of the DC office of Lewis Brisbois, one of the attorneys on the briefs for Maine Lobstermen's Association, and a former General Counsel of NOAA, and Braden H. Boucek, Director of Litigation at Southeastern Legal Foundation who recently filed comments in opposition to the proposal to impose a speed limit in the Florida gulf.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Warning: This story is terrible on many levels. It's terrible because of the horrible behavior but it is also terrible that the behavior only surfaced after two rainmakers left and their former firm mysteriously "found" the emails that unearthed the behavior. Dave Lorenzo and Nicola Gelormino discuss this ridiculous sequence of events.Summary:The named partners at a U.S. law firm called Barber Ranen have quit their jobs. Their old law firm, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, found many emails where these lawyers used racist, homophobic, and antisemitic language.John Barber and Jeffrey Ranen were forced to resign. Barber, who was a top partner at Barber Ranen, and Ranen, who was in charge of the firm's finances, issues an apology."The last three days have been the toughest in our lives. We've had to face those emails," they said. "They don't show our real feelings or our true values."Barber and Ranen started the new firm with over 100 lawyers from Lewis Brisbois. Ranen worked in Los Angeles and Barber worked in Newport Beach, California.Lewis Brisbois stated that they didn't know about the emails and started looking into them after an anonymous complaint about the lawyers. Many of their emails, some from as long ago as 2008, were first reported by the New York Post.Chapters00:00 Emails Reveal Shocking Behavior by Lawyers00:30 The Story01:13 The "Toughest Day???!!"01:29 The Implications of This Scandal02:20 Anonymous Complaint Lead to Email Discovery04:30 Dave Reveals the Firm that Tolerated This Behavior for YearsAbout Inside BS Show with The Godfather and Nicki GThe Inside BS Show with the Godfather and Nicki G provides business leaders with inside business secrets to help them make a great living and live a great life.Since its inception in 2020, the show has been a valuable resource for CEOs and business leaders seeking the personal and professional knowledge they need to take their businesses to the next level while making the journey more rewarding. Dave Lorenzo and Nicola Gelormino have the unique ability to get their guests to share the insider secrets that have helped them dominate their industries. A new episode is released at 8 AM each business day.

On this day in history, in 1787, the Congress of the Confederation, the body operating under the Articles of Confederation and precursor to the United States Congress, passed the Northwest Ordinance. The Northwest Ordinance, officially titled "An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio," was an act passed by the Confederation Congress of the United States on July 13, 1787. This legislative act created a structured process for territories to evolve into states, outlining the path from political wilderness to full statehood. The ordinance addressed the territories that had been obtained from Great Britain after the Revolutionary War through the 1783 Treaty of Paris, namely the region north of the Ohio River, east of the Mississippi River, and south of the Great Lakes.On July 13, 1787, the Confederation Congress established this ordinance which served as a prototype for the incorporation of future U.S. territories. The Northwest Ordinance is considered one of the most impactful elements of the Articles of Confederation era because it set forth a policy for the orderly expansion of the United States across North America.The ordinance provided for the political and civil rights of the inhabitants and banned slavery in the territories. Additionally, it declared that the new states would enter the Union "on an equal footing with the original States," which was a profound statement of democratic principle – if you view the democratic distribution of someone else's land as true democracy. The ordinance led to the creation of five states: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Thus, the Northwest Ordinance was a foundational policy that shaped the way the U.S. grew and expanded in its early years.Northwest Ordinance (1787) | National ArchivesDaugherty Lordan, a law firm established after a mass departure from Lewis Brisbois, has been facing a series of exits after its leaders were removed due to past racist, sexist, and antisemitic emails. Over 30 people, including a name partner Joseph Lordan, have left the firm. Lordan has joined O'Hagan Meyer as co-managing partner of the San Francisco office, and five other former partners and twenty employees from Daugherty Lordan have also shifted to O'Hagan Meyer.The situation at Daugherty Lordan echoes the turbulence that occurred at Lewis Brisbois when nearly 140 attorneys left to form the new firm. These changes have led to questions about Daugherty Lordan's future and the need for possible rebranding. The firm had already undergone a name change in June after co-founders John Barber and Jeff Ranen were ousted when their inappropriate emails were released.Lewis Brisbois disclosed the offending emails, some dating back more than a decade, sent from Barber and Ranen's work accounts. Additional exits include attorneys shifting to Freeman Mathis & Gary, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, and Ogletree Deakins. Lewis Brisbois has noted some attorneys have returned to the firm but declined to provide specific numbers.Lewis Brisbois Defector Firm Sees Exits After Racist Emails (1)Elon Musk's recent lawsuit against law firm Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz over the Twitter Inc. acquisition brings to light the increasing use of success fees by law firms for handling critical deals. Wachtell, known for its handling of transactions and litigation like an investment bank, is being sued by Twitter's parent company, X Corp, for an alleged "unjust enrichment" through a $90 million payment. Musk's lawsuit, filed on July 5 in the San Francisco Superior Court, seeks restitution of these funds.Success fees, which are increasingly favored by clients wary of law firms overcharging or unnecessarily expanding work, are growing in popularity in the legal industry. Such a fee model has been especially adopted by large corporations and major companies disillusioned with hourly billings. Wachtell is renowned for its pioneering use of success fees, having one of the highest profits per equity partner in the industry and often linking its fees to the success of the deals it handles.The suit highlights Wachtell's billing practices, with the firm often receiving fees comparable to 60-80% of those paid to investment advisors. Despite the $90 million fee being a minute fraction of the $44 billion Musk paid for Twitter, Bruce MacEwen, a law firm consultant, argues that the value provided was reasonable. Wachtell has faced similar litigation in the past, but has maintained its stance that in certain cases, charging by the hour makes little sense and that their fees are not necessarily based on the amount involved in a matter.Musk Suit Against Wachtell Hits Pioneering Use of Success FeesThe U.S. Senate has confirmed Tiffany Cartwright, a civil rights lawyer, as one of the country's youngest federal judges. Born in 1985, Cartwright will join the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, a position left vacant by Judge Benjamin Hale who semi-retired in 2020. This confirmation, along with that of Kymberly Evanson, means President Joe Biden has now appointed all active judges in the Western District. Including Cartwright, Biden has appointed several judges under 40 years old. Some critics, largely Republicans, have expressed concerns over the age and limited legal experience of Biden's appointees.Cartwright, a civil rights lawyer and former public defender, has had a different career path to the judiciary than many others. Several groups have endorsed her nomination, emphasizing her diverse experiences and commendable litigation and trial skills. Also, Myong Joun, a Boston municipal court Judge, was up for a vote of confirmation. If confirmed, he would be the first Asian-American man to serve as a federal judge in Massachusetts. The Congressional Black Caucus expressed concerns over the nomination of two other candidates, Brandon Long and Jerry Edwards, criticizing a lack of meaningful participation in the selection process.Senate Confirms One of Judiciary's Youngest Trial Court JudgesU.S. prosecutors and IRS agents are pursuing investigations into wealthy individuals suspected of illicitly exploiting Puerto Rico's tax breaks. The island has used significant incentives to attract wealthy Americans over the past decade, but authorities are now scrutinizing whether individuals have falsified their residency duration and income sources. Professionals who promoted the tax program are also under investigation. Prosecutors are considering charges of conspiracy and wire fraud, and two criminal investigations could result in charges soon.Since 2012, over 5,000 Americans have qualified for incentives that exempt them from federal income tax and taxes on dividends, interest, and capital gains. Yet, lawyers indicate that the residency requirements are stringent, leading some to cheat. To qualify, individuals must stay on the island at least 183 days a year and demonstrate a closer connection to Puerto Rico than the U.S.The tax incentives have attracted many investors, including those from the crypto sector. However, local residents argue that these wealthy Americans are escalating real estate prices and paying fewer taxes than native Puerto Ricans. As a result, local legislation is underway that could revamp the incentives.IRS Preparing Criminal Cases Against Tax Cheats in Puerto Rico Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We have a this day in history from north of our border here in the United States. On this day, July 7th, in legal history, Canada enacted the Official Languages Act which made French equal to English as an official language of the state.The Official Languages Act of 1969 was a significant piece of legislation in Canada. It declared English and French as the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the Parliament and Government. The Act mandated that all rules, regulations, and proclamations of the Parliament of Canada be published in both official languages. It also established the position of the Commissioner of Official Languages, who was responsible for overseeing the application of the Act and investigating complaints.The Act outlined the duties of government departments and authorities in relation to official languages and provided a framework for the creation of federal bilingual districts. It defined the role, powers, and status of the Commissioner of Official Languages, including the procedure for citizens to make complaints and the Commissioner's authority to make recommendations. The Act also included provisions for the orderly adaptation to its requirements and the gradual alignment of personnel appointments and advancement with the Act.Although the federal political parties supported the Act, the response from the provinces varied. New Brunswick passed its own Official Languages Act in 1969, embracing bilingualism, while Ontario provided French-language services in limited areas. In 1979, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Manitoba, which had been primarily English-speaking, had to comply with the Act. In 1988, the Official Languages Act of 1969 was replaced with a new Act that focused on promoting the rights of linguistic minorities in line with evolving language policies in Canada.Official Languages Act (1969) | The Canadian EncyclopediaLewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, a US law firm with approximately 1,600 attorneys, has experienced a wave of departures in 2023. The recent exodus includes three senior lawyers: Chris White, former managing partner of the Dallas office; Eric Neiman, former managing partner of the Portland office; and Walter "Pete" Swayze, co-chair of the firm's life sciences practice. White and three other attorneys joined Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, while Neiman and two others joined Epstein Becker & Green. The firm had previously witnessed over 100 lawyers leaving in May, including practice leaders John Barber and Jeff Ranen, who launched their own firm but later resigned after Lewis Brisbois exposed emails revealing their exchange of racist, sexist, and antisemitic messages. Nichol Bunn and George Pitcher have assumed the roles of managing partners for the Dallas and Portland offices, respectively. Lewis Brisbois expressed excitement about new additions to its leadership team and the prospect of hiring top-tier lawyers in the future.Lewis Brisbois Loses Eight Lawyers After Mass Exit, Email ScrapStill lamenting the ground lost for justice by the Supreme Court this term? Buck up, for it is already time to begin worrying about next term!The U.S. Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, is set to hear a major gun control case in its next term. The case involves Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man convicted under a federal law that bars individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. Rahimi challenged the law, arguing that it violated the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms," and he won. The Biden administration has appealed the decision. The court's ruling, expected by June 2024, will have significant implications for gun control measures in the country. Gun violence prevention groups and supporters of the law argue that domestic abusers should not have the constitutional right to possess firearms. On the other hand, the court's conservative majority has taken a broad interpretation of Second Amendment rights in previous rulings.Key gun control measure in the crosshairs at US Supreme Court | ReutersWalt Nauta, an aide to former U.S. President Donald Trump, pleaded not guilty to charges of helping Trump hide top-secret documents that he took when leaving the White House in 2021. Nauta faces six counts related to conspiracy to obstruct justice, false statements, and withholding and concealing documents. Prosecutors allege that Nauta hid boxes of documents from Trump's lawyers who were searching Mar-a-Lago, Trump's Florida resort, for classified material. He is also accused of lying to investigators during an interview. Nauta's arraignment had been postponed twice due to the lack of a lawyer licensed to practice in Florida. Trump, who is facing criminal charges in federal and state courts, has pleaded not guilty and denies any wrongdoing. The trial for both Trump and Nauta has been delayed, with prosecutors requesting a trial date in December 2023.Trump aide Walt Nauta pleads not guilty in Mar-a-Lago documents case | ReutersThe State Bar of California has proposed fee increases for law graduates and attorneys seeking licensure in an effort to address a budget shortfall. The proposal includes a 26% increase in the cost of registering for and taking the California bar exam, raising it from $796 to $1,000 for law students. Attorneys licensed in another jurisdiction would see a 50% increase, from $1,197 to $1,800. The moral character determination fee, which covers the review of applicants' past conduct, would also increase by 32% for law students and 54% for attorneys seeking licensure in the state. The State Bar cites increased costs of administering the exam, including venue rentals, staff salaries, and inflation, as reasons for the fee hikes. The State Bar's admissions functions are projected to operate at a $7 million deficit this year, with a reserve of $4 million. To cut costs, the State Bar also plans to reduce the number of bar exam sites from 14-16 to six, with three "very large" test sites in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Ontario. The proposed fee increases and cost reductions require approval from state lawmakers.Amid budget crunch, California seeks to raise bar exam fees by 26% | ReutersElon Musk's lawyer has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Meta, accusing the company of hiring former Twitter employees to create a rival social media app called Threads. The letter alleges that Meta hired dozens of ex-Twitter employees who may have access to Twitter's trade secrets and confidential information. It claims that Meta engaged in the unlawful misappropriation of Twitter's intellectual property. However, Meta's communications director has stated that none of the employees working on Threads are former Twitter employees. Musk had previously fired a significant portion of Twitter's staff, laying off almost half of the company's employees, which led to criticism. Meta launched Threads, a text-based app that quickly gained 30 million sign-ups. Elon Musk fired most of Twitter's staff and said their talents will be of 'great use elsewhere.' Twitter's now threatening to sue Meta, accusing the company of hiring former employees to create a 'copycat' app. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this day, June 27th, in legal history, the Federal Housing Administration came into being. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was established in 1934 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal program during the Great Depression. On June 27, 1934, the National Housing Act was passed which functionally created the FHA. The primary goal of the FHA was to stabilize the housing market and increase homeownership opportunities for Americans. It did so by providing mortgage insurance to lenders, enabling them to offer loans with lower down payments and longer repayment terms if those loans complied with certain underwriting conditions.The FHA played a significant role in expanding homeownership, particularly for low-income and first-time homebuyers who were previously unable to secure traditional mortgages. It introduced standardized underwriting guidelines, making it easier for lenders to assess borrower creditworthiness. Additionally, the FHA established regulations for home construction and safety standards to improve housing conditions.During its early years, the FHA primarily facilitated the construction of single-family homes. However, after World War II, it expanded its programs to include multi-family housing, aiding the construction of rental properties and helping address housing shortages.Over time, the FHA's role evolved, and it became a vital institution in the mortgage market, ensuring the availability of affordable home loans. However, it faced criticism for some of its practices, including redlining, a discriminatory practice that disproportionately affected minority communities by denying them access to mortgage loans.Despite its shortcomings, the FHA continues to operate today as part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), supporting affordable housing initiatives and promoting access to mortgage financing for a wide range of borrowers.KPMG LLP, one of the Big Four accounting firms, is planning to lay off nearly 5% of its US workforce, amounting to approximately 2,000 positions, citing challenging economic conditions and low turnover rates. This marks the second round of layoffs for the firm in 2023 and deviates from its earlier strategy of offering incentives to retain employees during the "Great Resignation" trend. The job cuts are expected to be completed by late summer, and affected employees will receive severance packages and access to career services and healthcare benefits. KPMG's decision aligns with similar actions taken by competitors like Deloitte, Ernst & Young, and Grant Thornton, who have also reduced their consulting businesses due to declining demand. Despite the layoffs, KPMG reported a 14% increase in revenue for its US affiliate in the previous year and expressed optimism about future growth opportunities. The firm's leaders noted a significant disparity between workforce size and the resources required to deliver services, citing economic headwinds and low attrition rates as contributing factors. While staff in tax and audit practices received immediate notifications, professionals in the advisory business and other areas were told they would have to wait until later in the summer to learn their fate. Unlike its counterparts, PwC has not announced any layoffs driven by market conditions but instead informed its staff to expect bonus pay and merit raises, with increased in-office presence.KPMG Cutting US Workforce 5% in Second Round of 2023 Layoffs (1)The County of Los Angeles has severed ties with law firm Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith following the release of racist, sexist, and antisemitic emails by two former senior partners. The county will no longer assign new matters to the firm and will review existing cases to determine if they should be transferred to other outside lawyers on a case-by-case basis. County counsel Dawyn Harrison emphasized the importance of promoting inclusion, diversity, equity, and anti-racism in law firms contracted by the county. The LA County counsel's office assigns cases to contract law firms for various government departments and has an apportioned budget of around $186 million for the current fiscal year. Lewis Brisbois has represented clients such as the LA County's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Sheriff's Department, and Board of Supervisors. The firm is currently in discussions with the county but declined to provide further comment. This development follows the departure of leaders from Lewis Brisbois' labor and employment group, who left to launch a competing firm and subsequently prompted the release of offensive emails. Lewis Brisbois, known for its work in insurance defense, has undergone leadership changes and is now led by managing partner Gregory Katz.LA County Cuts Ties With Lewis Brisbois After Racist Emails (1)Rite Aid, the drugstore chain burdened by a $2.9 billion debt, has ended its relationships with two law firms, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings and Littler Mendelson, due to personal connections between their partners and Rite Aid's former and current senior executives. The decision was made to ensure that "related persons" do not have a significant interest in the company's legal matters. Rite Aid cited the presence of the sister of its former chief legal officer at Bradley, which represented the company in opioid-related litigation, and a Littler partner who is the brother of Rite Aid's chief financial officer. The company did not disclose the names of the lawyers involved. Rite Aid recently appointed Christin Bassett as its acting legal chief following the departure of its former chief legal officer, Paul Gilbert. Thomas Sabatino Jr., previously the top lawyer at Tenneco Inc., will succeed Gilbert as the legal group leader. Rite Aid is currently dealing with various legal issues, including opioid litigation and a growing debt load. Bondholders have engaged Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison as they prepare for discussions on restructuring the company's debt.Rite Aid Cuts Loose Law Firms With Personal Ties to ExecutivesThe U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed a Republican appeal to defend a Louisiana electoral map that was challenged as discriminatory. The map, drawn by the Republican-led state legislature, was accused of unlawfully discriminating based on race. A federal judge had ordered the creation of two congressional districts where Black voters would be the majority, potentially benefiting Democratic chances in the upcoming elections. The Supreme Court's dismissal allows the case to proceed before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans for review before the 2024 congressional elections in Louisiana. Black voters and civil rights groups had sued, claiming that the map disenfranchised and discriminated against Black Louisianans by packing them into one district and diluting their voting power in others. The ruling follows a similar decision in an Alabama case, where the Supreme Court found that the Republican-drawn map violated the Voting Rights Act by diminishing the voting power of Black Alabamians.US Supreme Court tosses race-based dispute over Louisiana electoral map | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an inventor's bid to challenge a patent ruling based on the grounds that one of the judges involved is facing a competency probe. Inventor Franz Wakefield argued that the investigation into Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit raised concerns about due process and warranted a new hearing. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition without providing a written opinion. Wakefield had sued several tech companies for patent infringement, but the patent was invalidated in 2021 by a Delaware federal court and affirmed by a three-judge panel at the Federal Circuit that included Judge Newman. Wakefield claimed that the presence of a judge with a mental disability on the panel undermined the principle of a fair and impartial hearing. Judge Newman, who is 96 years old, has denied the claims and filed a lawsuit to halt the competency probe.US Supreme Court won't reconsider ruling by judge facing competency probe | ReutersIn this week's column, I lay out and compare some tax rates in the United States and Norway, pointing out that the top federal tax bracket in the US for 2023 is 37%, while in Norway, it reaches 55.8% – but the top US rate in 1944 was a staggering 94%, applied to income over $200,000 (equivalent to $3.45 million today). I acknowledge that advocating for such a high rate would be difficult. Instead, I propose a compromise: maintaining the current rate structure but adding a 100% tax rate for individuals earning over $1 billion.The proposed tax would apply to both income and capital gains, without any loopholes or exceptions. At the outset I acknowledge the complexity of implementing such a tax, given the intricacies of the US tax code, but I'd argue that the lack of proper regulation ensuring billionaires pay their fair share is a result of political unwillingness rather than administrative obstacles.There are a limited number of billionaires who earn over $1 billion per year in income, it is an elite group, and taxing just this elite group would generate relatively modest revenue (that is, approximately $6 billion per year). However, there are massive unrealized gains held by billionaires, which amount to around $2.7 trillion in the US. I thus suggest implementing a mark-to-market tax, requiring billionaires to recognize gains and losses on their investments at the end of each tax year.By applying a mark-to-market tax rate of 100% on gains and income above $1 billion, I argue that it would prevent the further growth of billionaires' wealth and could generate significant revenue. For example, if the year ended today, it could raise around $335 billion from the top billionaires alone. I conclude by highlighting the ease of administering such a targeted tax due to the relatively small number of billionaires in the US (724). That said, the main obstacle to implementing a 100% tax rate is not administrative feasibility but rather the political challenges and resistance from a nation that aspires to wealth. It's Time to Slap America's Billionaires With a 100% Tax Bracket Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Dan Schorr and Madison Bolotin discuss the decision by law firm Lewis Brisbois to publicly release offensive emails written by two ex-partners who were seeking to form their own firm (Episode 92)

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showWe got a lot of listener feedback about last week's episode, especially about Kenny Raincloud's take on how Judge Aileen Cannon could tank the government's case against Donald Trump if she cares to. This week, for paying subscribers, Ken responds to a lot of that feedback — getting especially specific about the attorney-client privilege issues that are likeliest to trip up the government, and how the government could (maybe) get an appeals court to remove Cannon from the case. We also talked (for all subscribers) about Trump's arraignment, and the especially lenient conditions of release that were offered to the former president.Plus, for paying subscribers: drama between the large law firm Lewis Brisbois and a pretty large new firm founded by 140 (!) attorneys who simultaneously left Louis Brisbois. No one looks good. And we have an update on the ChatGPT case, where attorneys Steven A. Schwartz and Peter LoDuca have been in the unfortunate position of pleading stupidity to a federal judge.Visit serioustrouble.show to become a paying subscriber ($6/month or $60/year) and unlock all of our episodes.

The bitter legal dispute that has swallowed up the golf world for the past year vanished in a flash this week, as the PGA Tour and its Saudi-backed rival LIV Golf rolled out a blockbuster agreement to join forces. The union would create a new golf organization, the exact shape of which is still taking place. Those particulars will be crucial, as any arrangement between the former competitors is likely to get a long look from antitrust watchdogs and national security regulators. This week on Pro Say we break down what the deal means for the legal fracas and the blowback over the PGA Tour's new close ties with the Saudi government and its litany of alleged human rights abuses. Also this week, the law firm founded by a former Lewis Brisbois team has effectively collapsed after a month following the revelation of racist and sexist emails from its named partners, and parents fighting Florida's ban on medical care for transgender adolescents get an initial win. Finally, a New York attorney is indicted for a scheme to steal 250,000 pairs of pants.

In this week's episode, Law.com business of law reporter Justin Henry breaks down the twists and turns of the shake-up, including the leaked emails.

On this day in legal history the Securities and Exchange Commission was established.During the 1920s, the United States experienced a period of economic growth known as the "Roaring 20s," characterized by prosperity, consumerism, and increased debt. Many people invested in the stock market, taking huge risks without federal oversight. However, on October 29, 1929, known as "Black Tuesday," the stock market crashed, causing widespread losses and a loss of public confidence. This crash led to the closure of thousands of banks, bankruptcies, high unemployment rates, wage cuts, and homelessness, ultimately triggering the Great Depression.In response to the stock market crash and to prevent future crises, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee conducted hearings in 1932, known as the Pecora hearings. These hearings revealed widespread misconduct in the financial industry, including misleading investors, irresponsible behavior, and insider trading. As a result, the Securities Act of 1933 was passed, requiring registration of most securities sales and aiming to prevent fraud by ensuring investors received truthful financial information.The Glass-Steagall Act, also a response to the Pecora hearings, was passed in 1933. It separated investment banking from commercial banking and established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to oversee banks, protect consumers' deposits, and handle consumer complaints.To further regulate the securities industry, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Securities Exchange Act in 1934, on this day in fact, creating the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC was granted extensive powers to regulate the securities industry, including the New York Stock Exchange, and had the authority to bring civil charges against violators of securities laws. Joseph P. Kennedy, a Wall Street investor and businessman, was appointed as the first chairman of the SEC by President Roosevelt.It is also obviously the anniversary of the Normandy landings – while not explicitly a day in legal history, it is safe to say the second half of the 20th century in American jurisprudence might have transpired differently had the invasion gone differently. The SEC is busy on its birthday. Today, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit against Coinbase Inc, the largest cryptocurrency asset trading platform in the United States. The SEC accused Coinbase of operating illegally without registering with the regulatory agency. According to the complaint, Coinbase has been functioning as an unregistered broker since at least 2019, conducting cryptocurrency transactions and evading disclosure requirements designed to protect investors. The SEC further stated that Coinbase Prime, a service that directs orders to Coinbase's platform and other platforms, as well as Coinbase Wallet, which enables investors to access liquidity outside of Coinbase's platform, also operated as unregistered brokers. Gary Gensler, the Chair of the SEC, expressed via Twitter that Coinbase's alleged failures deprived investors of crucial protections against fraud, manipulation, conflicts of interest, and routine inspection.Coinbase's stock experienced a 15.9% decline in premarket trading following the filing of the lawsuit, and the company did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This SEC lawsuit against Coinbase came just one day after the regulator had filed a separate lawsuit against Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, and its founder, Changpeng Zhao. The lawsuit against Coinbase was submitted in Manhattan federal court. This development adds to the regulatory scrutiny faced by major cryptocurrency platforms, highlighting concerns over compliance and investor protection.By way of additional background on the aforementioned Binance suit, the SEC alleges that Binance and Zhao engaged in deceptive practices, conflicts of interest, lack of disclosure, and evasion of the law. They are accused of secretly allowing high-value U.S. customers to trade on the Binance.com platform while publicly claiming to restrict them. Additionally, the SEC claims that Binance.US, which was presented as an independent platform for U.S. investors, was actually controlled by Zhao and Binance behind the scenes.The SEC also alleges that Zhao and Binance had control over customer assets, permitting commingling and diversion of funds, including to an entity owned by Zhao called Sigma Chain. Furthermore, the SEC asserts that Binance and BAM Trading operated as unregistered national securities exchanges, broker-dealers, and clearing agencies. They are charged with offering and selling their own crypto assets, including BNB and BUSD, without proper registration. Zhao is held responsible as a control person for these violations.SEC Chair Gary Gensler emphasized the extensive deception and evasion of regulations by Zhao and Binance. He cautioned the public against investing with or on these unlawful platforms. The complaint filed by the SEC seeks accountability for the alleged violations of securities laws and investor protection.US SEC sues Coinbase, one day after suing Binance | ReutersSEC Files 13 Charges Against Binance Entities and Founder Changpeng ZhaoTwo former partners of Lewis Brisbois were forced out of the boutique they had started after their former firm released a collection of racist, sexist, and antisemitic emails they had written while employed there. You will remember we previously reported on their spin-off firm, when they were able to convince more than a hundred Lewis Brisbois attorneys to follow them. The remaining leaders of the spin-off boutique, which was formed by John Barber and Jeff Ranen, will establish a new firm. The partners' former firm, Lewis Brisbois, shared a series of emails spanning more than a decade that revealed disparaging remarks made by Barber and Ranen about female associates, clients, and others, as well as their use of racist, antisemitic, and anti-LGBTQ slurs. Following the release of the emails, Barber and Ranen resigned from Barber Ranen, expressing their remorse and apologizing for their words.The exposure of these emails could negatively impact recruitment efforts for both Lewis Brisbois and the new boutique. It may also result in client losses for the firms. The incident has drawn attention to the need for a more inclusive and respectful culture in the legal profession. The former partners have stated that they will take time away from the legal business to reflect on their actions and explore ways to demonstrate their contrition and commitment to a more inclusive world. The release of these emails has prompted discussions about the need for ethical training and quality control in the legal profession.Ex-Lewis Brisbois Partners Ousted Over Racist, Sexist Emails (1)Texas has emerged victorious in its antitrust lawsuit against Google as a U.S. judicial panel has ordered the case to be returned to federal court in Texas. Initially, Google had succeeded in moving the lawsuit to a federal court in New York upon its request, where other advertising technology cases were being heard. However, Texas sought to have the case moved back after the U.S. Congress passed the Venue Act in 2022, granting state attorneys general the right to choose the jurisdiction for litigating antitrust lawsuits. The Texas lawsuit accuses Google of violating the law by exerting control over the process used by advertisers to place online ads, resulting in reduced revenues for website publishers. Google has expressed its disagreement with the decision, asserting that the Texas Attorney General's case is flawed in terms of both facts and law. The case will now be heard in the eastern district of Texas, known for its efficiency in handling cases. Google is facing antitrust lawsuits globally, with allegations of abuse of dominance in various areas of its businesses. Apart from the Texas lawsuit, Google is also battling the U.S. federal government in two separate antitrust lawsuits related to search dominance and advertising technology, while states led by Utah have accused the company of violating antitrust laws in its management of the app store.Texas wins round against Google as antitrust lawsuit returned to Lone Star state | ReutersHey, looky here – its Column Tuesday again!This week I wrote about the Texas tax on electric vehicles and its overall wrongheadedness. I tried to give credit where credit was due, Texas has it partially right—the state is just taxing the wrong thing, at the wrong time, with the wrong rate, and for the wrong reasons. Other than that, the EV tax is a great idea.About that tax: starting from September, Texas will impose a $400 initial registration fee and a $200 annual renewal fee for EV owners. The rationale behind the fee is to offset the portion of the gas tax that goes towards infrastructure and road maintenance, which EVs do not contribute to. However, I argue that the bill is more about protecting the oil and gas industry and winning a culture war than about effective policy. The bill excludes hybrid vehicles and other small electric vehicles from the tax, leading to logical inconsistencies.An alternative approach I suggest is to implement a tax based on the kilowatt hours used at public chargers. This would more accurately reflect the use of infrastructure by EVs and could fund public charging infrastructure. The tax could also be adjusted based on income to address regressiveness. However, if the goal of the tax is to offset wear and tear on roads and bridges, hybrid vehicles, which have higher fuel efficiency than traditional gasoline-powered cars, should also be subject to such a tax.The new EV tax in Texas results in EV drivers paying more for road maintenance compared to gas-powered car drivers.While there may be a need for a tax on EVs in the future when they become more prevalent, it should be implemented with careful consideration and for the right reasons. The current EV tax in Texas is misguided and poorly designed.Texas' New EV Tax Should Fix the Bridges, Not ‘Own the Libs' Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

When you list all of the revelations of the past month, it's impressive. Since we last chatted about Clarence Thomas facing an intractable ethics scandal... more stuff happened! We learned that he also got private school tuition off a donor, that Ginni was getting paid by FedSoc Prime (Leonard Leo) under the table, and that the courts were asked to deal with all of this over a decade ago and declined. Meanwhile, Lewis Brisbois faced a massive defection with upwards of 150 attorneys bolting for a boutique and prompting a leadership change. Still, with over a thousand attorneys how much does it really matter to shed a few hundred? Finally, Florida passed a new piece of performative racism legislation targeting permits for undocumented workers including DACA participants... and this places Dreamer attorneys in jeopardy of losing their licenses.

When you list all of the revelations of the past month, it's impressive. Since we last chatted about Clarence Thomas facing an intractable ethics scandal... more stuff happened! We learned that he also got private school tuition off a donor, that Ginni was getting paid by FedSoc Prime (Leonard Leo) under the table, and that the courts were asked to deal with all of this over a decade ago and declined. Meanwhile, Lewis Brisbois faced a massive defection with upwards of 150 attorneys bolting for a boutique and prompting a leadership change. Still, with over a thousand attorneys how much does it really matter to shed a few hundred? Finally, Florida passed a new piece of performative racism legislation targeting permits for undocumented workers including DACA participants... and this places Dreamer attorneys in jeopardy of losing their licenses.

Episode 18 of Season 5 on the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast with Jeremy Evans, interviewing Gregg Clifton, law partner in the Phoenix office of Lewis Brisbois and chair of the Collegiate & Professional Sports Law Practice, discussing NCAA conferences and professional franchises on labor and employment issues. Copyright © 2023.  California Sports Lawyer®.  All Rights Reserved. (www.CSLlegal.com).

The US Supreme Court is set to clarify the burden-shifting framework for whistleblowers in a case involving a former UBS Securities research strategist. The case hinges on whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires whistleblowers to show that their former employer fired them with retaliatory intent or if it is sufficient to prove that the protected disclosure was a contributing factor to the decision. Requiring proof of retaliatory intent would make it almost impossible for whistleblowers to pursue Sarbanes-Oxley retaliation claims, and the Supreme Court is expected to undercut the legal safeguards for corporate whistleblowers if it upholds the decision. The Tenth, Ninth, Fifth, and Fourth circuits instead have applied the contributing factor test. The decision could have a domino effect on anti-retaliation protections for corporate whistleblowers in other industries. The case could also impact federal whistleblower protection statutes that have virtually identical legal burdens, and there are concerns that the decision could reduce the number of whistleblower cases that otherwise would've survived the summary judgment stage or resulted in a verdict after trial.UBS Whistleblower Case Creates Avenue to Upend Retaliation TestSenators Richard Blumenthal and Ron Johnson are investigating KPMG's relationship with three recently failed banks, requesting a wide range of documents as part of their initial inquiry. The senators have requested "all communications," records related to the firm's audits and advisory work, and a complete list of all advisory work between KPMG and Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank. The inquiry comes as part of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. KPMG has faced scrutiny for issuing clean audits of all three banks shortly before they collapsed. The senators have also asked KPMG for "all documentation" detailing the firm's policies and practices for any non-audit services, as well as "a complete list" of the firm's employees, contractors, and subcontractors employed by any of the banks after their affiliation with KPMG. They have requested the firm to send the documents as they become available to expedite the subcommittee's review. KPMG has not yet provided a comment on the investigation.Big Minimum Competence fans will remember this was a subject I covered in a past column and corresponding Column Tuesday segment. I argued on April 4th that the recent collapses of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and the near miss at First Republic Bank, all point to the culpability of the Big Four accounting firms that had signed off on the banks' financial statements. I metaphorized the legal concept in torts called res ipsa loquitur, which means "the thing speaks for itself" in Latin, and suggested that something is amiss in the audit opinions provided by KPMG on these banks' fundamentals. The revolving door of personnel between accounting firms and the banks they purport to audit is also part of the problem. Banks with high average deposits and relatively few depositors are especially at risk, as they may be vulnerable to losing their deposit base if there are potential risks in their books. My conclusion was there needs to be liability placed on the accounting firm tasked with acting on behalf of a regulator when that organization fails to identify indicia of questionable financial health. Moreover, consultants who work for accounting firms should not wear auditor hats. It seems there may be some political will to make one or both of those solutions a reality. Senators Open Probe Into KPMG's Relationships With Failed BanksBig Four Auditors and Consultants Need Liability—And a DivorceAnd remember when we reported on Lewis Brisbois having a 100+ attorney walk-out? Well, the founding partner the firm, Robert Lewis, has stepped down from his role as chairman after the departure of at least 110 lawyers to a new firm this week. Lewis helped start the Los Angeles-founded firm in 1979, which has grown to around 1,700 lawyers. Lewis Brisbois will dissolve its executive committee effective immediately, and a newly expanded 13-member management committee will oversee the firm. The firm will hold elections on May 9 to add five new members to the management committee, which will then name a managing partner and other top leaders.Lewis Brisbois chair, executive committee are out after lawyer exodus | ReutersFour members of the Proud Boys far-right militia group, including its former leader Enrique Tarrio, have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, which is kind of like treason's little brother and entails a plot to oppose the government with force, under a Civil War-era law. The conviction carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. The jury found they had plotted to attack the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in a failed bid to block Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's election victory. The verdicts after a trial lasting nearly four months in federal court in Washington were another victory for the US Justice Department, which Attorney General Merrick Garland said has secured the convictions of more than 600 people related to the Capitol rampage by supporters of then-President Donald Trump. The rampage occurred on the day when Congress was voting on formally certifying Biden's victory in the November 2020 election, with rioters attacking police with a variety of weapons. Five people including a police officer died during or shortly after the riot. More than 140 police officers were injured.Jury convicts Proud Boys members of seditious conspiracy in US Capitol attack | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Chevron doctrine is a legal principle that has been in place since a Supreme Court decision in 1984. It states, in sum, that when Congress passes a law that is unclear or ambiguous, the courts should defer to the interpretation of that law made by the relevant federal agency responsible for administering it. The doctrine has been used in countless cases and has provided support for agencies to make decisions on complex issues without explicit instructions from Congress. Now, the US Supreme Court has agreed to review the Chevron doctrine. The doctrine has been criticized by conservatives as fuelling government overreach. The case taken up by the Supreme Court, Loper Bright v. Raimondo, centers on the requirement by the National Marine Fisheries Service that certain vessels fishing for herring off the Atlantic coast must hire monitors for conservation and management purposes. The challenge is being mounted by four New Jersey fishing companies, who want the rule invalidated and Chevron pared back. Conservative groups are organizing against the doctrine, with the case described as a “textbook example of the conservative legal movement ‘manufacturing' a case”.Supreme Court's Chevron Review Caps Years-Long Conservative PushThe US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has adopted a new filing deadline of 5 p.m., effective from July 1, despite opposition from a group of 43 appellate lawyers who stated that the new deadline was "undesirable and counterproductive." The deadline change applies to documents filed after the initiation of a proceeding in the court but not to documents initiating an appeal or other proceedings. The court said the move was aimed at improving work-life balance and avoiding late-night filings that deprive opponents of hours to consider and formulate responses. The new rule ends a practice by some of intentional late-night filings.Third Circuit Adopts Early Filing Deadline Despite Dissent (1)At least 125 lawyers from Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith are leaving the firm to join a new offshoot boutique, Barber Ranen, which has been launched by former leaders of its employment practice. Barber Ranen's founders, John Barber and Jeff Ranen, said they were yearning for an opportunity to build something on their own. The majority of the departures are California-based labor and employment attorneys. The mass exodus roughly halves the size of the firm's employment group, which had about 200 attorneys nationally.100-Plus Lewis Brisbois Lawyers Exit for New Employment Firm (1)A federal judge in Detroit has reversed a jury verdict that ordered Ford Motor Co to pay Versata Software $104.6m for breaching a licensing contract and misappropriating trade secrets. The judge said Versata had offered sufficient evidence of a contract breach, but not enough to let jurors calculate damages accurately. The jury had no basis to determine how long Ford would have needed to develop three trade secrets it allegedly stole, so the damages award was voided. The judge ordered Ford to pay Versata $3 for breach of contract. The $104.6 million award was about 85% of what Versata had sought. $3 is … less. Ford wins reversal of $105 million trade-secrets verdict | ReutersThe trial of Nathaniel Chastain, a former product manager at OpenSea, the world's largest NFT marketplace, began with jury deliberations. He is accused of making more than $50,000 in illegal profits by buying NFTs before featuring them on OpenSea's website, and then selling them when their value rose. Prosecutors have charged him with one count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering, alleging that he traded on inside information to profit. This case is the first insider trading case in digital assets, and its outcome could have broad implications for assets that don't fit into existing regulations. Legal experts said the case could affect investment advisers, brokers, and others trading on material nonpublic information. Chastain's attorney argued that the trades did not break OpenSea's rules and that the case was about whether Chastain intended to defraud OpenSea.Jury starts deliberating in ex-OpenSea manager's NFT insider trading case | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Tune in as Gregg Clifton, a partner in the Phoenix office of Lewis Brisbois, a chair of the Collegiate & Professional Sports Law Practice, and a member of the Entertainment, Media & Sports Practice, discusses a recent blog post, “Was Kyrie Irving's Suspension From The Nets A Violation Of Labor Law?” authored by SLA's NextGen Committee Member, Lauren Mattice, 1L at USC. Hosted by NextGen Committee Member Landis Barber, Associate Attorney at the Safran Law Offices. Our guests delve into the interplay of the National Labor Relations Board and the National Labor Relations Act and other relevant topics correlated with this blog article.

SO...MUCH...ADDED...VALUE!!! The guys were joined this week by Sean Healy (this was Sean overload!), an equity partner at Lewis Brisbois and the Administrative Partner of the Phoenix, Arizona office. His practice includes litigating and defending professional liability, general liability, and product liability matters. He is a former prosecutor and current member of ABOTA who has tried 46 jury trials, 126 bench trials, and numerous arbitrations. Some of the topics discussed include challenges of being a prosecuting vs defense attorney, importance of contracts, litigating for/with licensed professionals, E&O insurance, expert witnesses, best advice for professional service providers, far out laws that exist in the US and being thrown to the wolves. Abraham Lincoln was quoted. Music by KISS!!!

Welcome to Reimagining Company Culture, a series discussing emerging trends and priorities shaping the future of workplace culture and employee wellbeing. We highlight thought leaders who are constantly evolving their strategy and can provide insight to folks about how to address new business challenges.  AllVoices is on a mission to create safe, happy, and healthy workplaces for all, and we're excited to learn from experts who share our mission. In this episode of Reimagining Company Culture, we're chatting with Rima Badawiya, Partner and Chief Diversity Partner at Lewis Brisbois.  Rima has experience investigating and resolving high-profile cases before they become lawsuits.Tune in to learn Rima's thoughts on the role of affinity groups in DEI, ownership mentality, measuring progress around DEIB initiatives, and more!About AllVoices In today's workforce, people often don't feel empowered to speak up and voice their opinions about workplace issues, including harassment, bias, and other culture issues. This prevents company leadership from making necessary changes, and prevents people from feeling fulfilled, recognized, and included at work. At AllVoices, we want to change that by providing a completely safe, anonymous way for people to report issues directly to company leaders. This allows company leadership real transparency into what's happening in their companies—and the motivation to address issues quickly. Our goal is to help create safer, more inclusive companies.Thanks for listening! Follow us on LinkedIn @AllVoices, to join our community of listeners.

During the 1970s, after the United States relaxed immigration restrictions, more Koreans began to settle in what became Los Angeles's 2.7-mile neighborhood of Koreatown. Over time, this enclave of Korean immigrants has become a hotbed of Korean culture – from Korean BBQ to K-Pop – making a significant impact on the culture and economy of our region. As CivitasLA celebrates Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, we are joined by three community and civic leaders, Janet Burt, Director of Diversity and Business Development, Lewis Brisbois; Alexander Kim, CEO, Three Kings Public Affairs; and OG Chino, Owner, Escala K-Town as we discuss the history of this neighborhood, the evolution of Korean American civic and political participation in our community, and the economic and cultural impacts on our region. To learn more about CivitasLA, we invite you to visit www.CivitasLA.com. And we hope you'll rate and review our show; and connect with us on Facebook (@CivitasLA), Instagram (@Civitas_LA) and Twitter (@Civitas_LA).

In this episode Jacob Wells interviews Josh Curry of Lewis Brisbois. He discusses patent intellectual property and technology litigation and how having a background in physics has helped him along the way.

In this episode Jacob Wells interviews Josh Curry of Lewis Brisbois. He discusses patent intellectual property and technology litigation and how having a background in physics has helped him along the way.

Trucking defense attorney Sophia Bernard of Lewis Brisbois in Tampa joins the podcast to talk about transportation and trucking litigation and her process on handling catastrophic cases. She discusses the difficulties of dealing with the emotion of the driver and the importance of recognizing and addressing the trauma the driver is experiencing due to the accident and having to relive it during deposition and at trial. Sophia also shares her thoughts on how to avoid creating opportunities for Reptile attorneys at deposition, life care plans, surveillance video, and the challenge with being a black female attorney in the trucking and transportation industry. Watch the video of this episode here: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/gVV

In this episode of CHATTINN CYBER, Marc Schein interviews Sean Hoar, of Lewis Brisbois and chair of the Data Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice. He has extensive experience managing responses to digital crises and effectively marshaling resources to contain and remediate information security incidents. He served as the lead cyber attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oregon, and he worked closely with the Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section in Washington D.C. He holds the Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), the Global Information Security Professional (GISP), and the Certified Information Privacy Professional/United States (CIPP/US. Sean served in the US Attorney’s Office for many years where he handled career cases that exposed him to the digital world of electronic surveillance. He believes that cyber hackers have evolved fast and have become more sophisticated over the years, leveraging the systems and applications. Sean explains that as long as cybercriminals are able to monetize data; ransom and other exploits are going to continue, the most dangerous of which right now is extortion. Sean explains how he advises his clients to give information to the FBI who gather evidence across the country and attribute each case to malicious actors, they hold them accountable, and criminally charge them. Sean explains why security starts with setting up foundational basics in an organization. He also describes the criteria they use to ensure advanced cybersecurity for their clients: they make sure the internal teams understand what they’re supposed to do, and the external teams stay in touch with their obligations. Companies need to put cyber procedures in place to avoid financial consequences in the long run if they are not proactive. “But for me, it’s a matter of helping them really visualize what it will look like, and until they understand that, it’s going to be hard to get them to take action.” Companies that carry cyber insurance are well educated and have immediate attention and deployment of resources they need to go from one side to the other, which limits the expense and the impact of the attack. Companies without insurance, on the other hand, struggle on who they should call because they don’t have the education and systems in place to go from one side to the other. They contact the wrong people which results in more confusion and expenses. What You Will Learn: The danger of cyber ransom exploits and extortion in risking data privacy online. Why cybercrimes are only going to increase in the future and become more dangerous How Sean helps his clients visualize their cyber exposure procedure as a long-term financial investment. The difference between companies that carry cyber insurance and those who don’t. The tools that Sean created to deal with information security control assessments and response planning for the private sector. The power of building a stable effective team with the right attitude.

Michael J. Grace of Lewis Brisbois returns to discuss the CARES Act provisions for the Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loans for businesses affected by COVID-19 shutdowns.

Michael J. Grace of Lewis Brisbois returns to discuss the CARES Act provisions for the Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loans for businesses affected by COVID-19 shutdowns.

Brian and Shant speak with renowned defense attorneys Dana Fox and Eddie Ward. They discuss the defense perspective on trials, civility, and moving cases along current COVID-19 crisis. Dana Fox and Eddie Ward are partners at Lewis Brisbois. Dana Fox has a reputation as the “go-to” attorney in high profile, high exposure catastrophic accident, police use of force, premises and product liability, public entity, and general liability cases. Edward Ward has tried multiple high exposure cases to verdict, including cases involving wrongful death, catastrophic injury, premises liability and employment matters.

Lewis Brisbois partner Michael J. Grace explains the CARES Act provisions for individual stimulus payments and unemployment benefits for those impacted by COVID-19. Sources and Links: Parker Poe (components of CARES Act) CNN Business (# of unemployment claims) Tax Foundation (CARES Act unemployment benefits) American Dental Association (Date of CARES Act passage) Wall Street Journal (# of States in Shutdown) Ohio History Central (facts about the Great Depression)

Lewis Brisbois partner Michael J. Grace explains the CARES Act provisions for individual stimulus payments and unemployment benefits for those impacted by COVID-19. Sources and Links: Parker Poe (components of CARES Act) CNN Business (# of unemployment claims) Tax Foundation (CARES Act unemployment benefits) American Dental Association (Date of CARES Act passage) Wall Street Journal (# of States in Shutdown) Ohio History Central (facts about the Great Depression)

First Healthcare Compliance hosts C. Trey Scott, an associate attorney in the Dallas office of Lewis Brisbois and a member of the Healthcare Practice, for an interactive discussion on “I Fought The Law: What To Do When Facing A Potential/Actual Lawsuit.” The presentation will help healthcare organizations understand important actions that happen when facing a The post I Fought The Law: What To Do When Facing A Potential/Actual Lawsuit appeared first on First Healthcare Compliance.

Click to Watch or Listen

Having a safe space for your attorneys to share their mental health challenges should be a priority for law firms. Tom Regan, partner with Lewis Brisbois, explains to Mark Yacano why this is important by sharing his experiences as a practice leader and lawyer.

John talks with former AUSA Christopher Tauro about the ongoing college-admissions scandal and the criminal implications. Chris is the managing partner of the Boston and Hartford offices of Lewis Brisbois (https://lewisbrisbois.com/). Please share and subscribe - People, keep on learning!

As your firm grows and expands, what type of ethics issues might you encounter during this time of change? From effective waivers during mergers to managing client relationships, my guest Jessica Beckwith joins me to share her insight on how solo and small firms can grow and expand ethically. Jessica is a partner in the Los Angeles and Phoenix offices of Lewis Brisbois and a member of the Real Estate & Environmental Practice as well as the Professional Liability Practice. Her practice is focused on environmental law and attorney regulation and ethics.  What We Discuss in this Episode: Why are there so few ethics attorneys given the amount of lawyers there are in the U.S.? What types of conflicts do big law firms encounter? As a small firm begins to grow, what should the lawyer-owner pay attention to? How effective is your firm’s waiver? Is it complete enough? When it comes to disclosures and conflicts of interests, what type of information must be disclosed? What two ethics rules govern imputation? Multi-jurisdictional practices and what specific issues they entail If you’re licensed in more than one state, what type of disclosures should you make to your clients? What to do when there are no ethics rules directly on point with an action you’re hoping to take as you expand? Resources Mentioned: Sheppard Mullin’s Undisclosed Conflict case California's Rules of Professional Conduct 1.10 and 1.8.11 Contact Information: Lewis Brisbois attorney profile Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday. If you enjoyed this episode, please help me get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, Google Play, and Tunein and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Be sure to connect with me and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email me at megan[at]zaviehlaw[dot]com This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

Today on the show I am talking with Sharon Peters. Sharon is a partner in the Portland office of Lewis Brisbois and is a member of the firm’s Healthcare and Labor and Employment practices. Sharon and I are talking about the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB).  The NPDB is a web-based repository of reports containing information on medical malpractice payments and certain adverse actions related to health care practitioners, providers, and suppliers. Established by Congress in 1986, it is a workforce tool that prevents practitioners from moving state to state without disclosure or discovery of potentially damaging performance issues. With the increasing focus on quality care and patient safety I think this is a very timely topic and Sharon provides some great insights. Sharon can be reached at: Sharon.Peters@lewisbrisbois.com  Podcast website: www.compliancemastermind.com  Rebekah can be reached at: compliancemastermind@gmail.com Remember to subscribe to the show! Disclaimer: On this podcast I speak only for myself and what I share are the opinions of me alone. My guests also speak for themselves only and do not represent the opinions of their firms or organizations. All content provided on this podcast is for information purposes only. Neither I or my guests make any representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on the podcast or in the show notes. This podcast should not be used in any legal capacity whatsoever. Please consult a qualified attorney before taking any action that could have legal implications to you or your business.

For those who work at Planned Parenthood, there is increased risk of assault and harassment within the workplace, but if employees are attacked are they covered by workers’ compensation? In this episode of Workers Comp Matters, host Alan Pierce talks to Kyle Black about what is legally considered a hate crime and the various factors and risks that affect whether or not a hate crime case meets the criteria for compensability. They also discuss a Pennsylvania statute and the significant difference the varied interpretations, whether “reasons personal” is personal to the assailant or victim, really makes. Kyle Black is an associate in the Pittsburgh office of Lewis Brisbois and a member of the commercial litigation, data privacy & cybersecurity, general liability, and employment & labor practices. Special thanks to our sponsors, Casepacer and PInow.

Listen to Karl Schieneman, Founder and President of Review Less, an innovator in E-Discovery and the Hon. John Facciola, former United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and well known E-Discovery thought leader talk with their guests Gordon Calhoun, head of eDiscovery at the national law firm Lewis Brisbois and based in Los Angeles, Sean Byrne head of ediscovery at Nuix and based in Chicago, and Jacques Nack Ngue, President, Founder and Chief Scientist at JNN Group based in Los Angeles about Dark Data and its implications for e-discovery. This is an emerging issue in E-Discovery and we look forward to a no holds barred discussion on what lawyers, judges and technologists think about what happens when the technology tools canâ??t read the data the companies are using to make their business decisions. For more information about ESIBytes, to present future podcast ideas, or just to ask what I do at Review Less, please email me at kas (AT)reviewless.com. To limit spam email, I substituted (AT) for the @ symbol in my email address. Please update the address accordingly when contacting me via email.

Michael Platner serves as Chair of Lewis Brisbois' Corporate Practice Group. Michael also has founded or been an early stage investor in several businesses, particularly in software, internet infrastructure and cloud computing. Empathizing with the role of the client, he believes that a transactional lawyer adds the most value by fully understanding the business strategy … Continue reading Michael Platner – M&A Lawyer →