POPULARITY
This Day in Legal History: Jack Ruby Convicted of Murder of Lee OswaldOn this day in legal history, March 14, 1964, marks a pivotal moment when nightclub owner Jack Ruby was convicted for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy. The event unfolded in Dallas, Texas, where Ruby, in a shocking act caught on live television, fatally shot Oswald just two days after Kennedy's assassination. This act catapulted Ruby from obscurity to infamy, intertwining his fate with one of the most significant and tragic events in American history.Ruby's conviction led to a death sentence, a verdict that ignited a storm of controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination. However, the legal saga did not conclude with this conviction. In October 1966, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned Ruby's conviction, citing errors in the admission of testimony and the selection of Dallas as the venue for the trial. The court's decision for a retrial aimed to address these procedural missteps, yet Ruby would never face his second day in court; he died in January 1967 from a pulmonary embolism while awaiting the new trial.This case also shone a spotlight on the workings of the American legal system and its challenges in high-profile cases. Notably, Ruby's 1964 testimony before the Warren Commission, which investigated President Kennedy's assassination, added layers to the public's understanding of the events leading to Kennedy's death. Arlen Specter, then Assistant Counsel for the Commission and later a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, played a significant role in questioning Ruby. Specter's involvement in the commission and his subsequent political career kept the Ruby case and the broader Kennedy assassination narrative in the public discourse for decades.Jack Ruby's conviction and the ensuing legal battles highlight the complexities of justice and the enduring quest for truth in the aftermath of national tragedy. The events of March 14, 1964, remain a critical chapter in the legal and historical examination of the Kennedy assassination, reflecting on the broader themes of law, politics, and society in America.Donald Trump's legal team is poised to request a federal judge in Fort Pierce, Florida, to dismiss a case accusing the former president of unlawfully retaining classified documents after his presidency. Scheduled for Thursday, this hearing is part of Trump's broader strategy to confront four criminal cases amidst his campaign against Joe Biden for the upcoming U.S. election. Trump, pleading not guilty, faces a 40-count indictment for keeping sensitive national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and obstructing efforts to reclaim them. His defense is expected to argue that he had the right to classify these documents as "personal," challenging the prosecution's stance that materials concerning nuclear capabilities and national defense cannot be deemed personal.Prosecutors, led by U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith, contest Trump's claim, emphasizing the illegality of his actions. The defense also plans to criticize the vagueness of the charges, especially regarding the illegal retention of national defense information, as it pertains to a former president. Additionally, Trump's team will present arguments on presidential immunity and the alleged selective prosecution compared to other officials who have retained classified records.Significant attention will focus on Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, and her response to these arguments, especially given her previous rulings in Trump's favor and subsequent criticism from a federal appeals court. The trial's timing is in flux, with discussions on postponing the scheduled May start, while Trump proposes a delay until after the November election, hinting at the potential to dismiss federal cases if re-elected.The outcome of this hearing could have substantial implications for Trump's legal battles, including other cases regarding election interference and the New York state charges involving payments to Stormy Daniels, further complicating his political and legal landscape.Trump to tell judge that keeping classified records was legal | ReutersDraftWise, a legal technology startup specializing in AI-powered contract tools for lawyers, announced a significant milestone in securing a $20 million Series A funding round led by Index Ventures. This latest financial infusion, with contributions from existing investors Y Combinator and Earlybird Digital East Ventures, underscores the burgeoning investor interest in AI applications within the legal sector. The New York-based company, founded by ex-Palantir engineers and a former Clifford Chance lawyer, has carved a niche in the legal tech market by enhancing contract drafting and negotiation processes with AI.Since its inception in the summer of 2020 as part of the Y Combinator startup incubator, DraftWise has distinguished itself by leveraging law firms' historical data and unique insights to refine contract customization. The company emphasizes a data-first approach over solely focusing on AI, which has allowed them to incorporate generative AI and large language models (LLMs) to further aid lawyers in their work. This strategy has enabled DraftWise to cater to notable law firm clients, including Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe and Mishcon de Reya, among others, reflecting its growing influence in the legal tech space.The cost of DraftWise's services varies depending on the size and needs of the law firm, offering a flexible solution to improve legal operations. As legal technology continues to evolve, DraftWise's successful funding round represents a key development in the industry's efforts to harness AI for enhancing legal expertise and efficiency. This trend is further evidenced by other legal tech companies, such as Spellbook and Robin AI, securing funding, highlighting the sector's rapid growth and the increasing value placed on AI-driven legal tools.Legal contracts company DraftWise raises $20 mln amid AI investment boom | ReutersMicrosoft has reached a settlement in a patent infringement lawsuit initiated by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) concerning Wi-Fi technology, a dispute that echoes a prior case where Caltech secured a billion-dollar jury verdict against Apple and Broadcom for infringing similar patents. The resolution was communicated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, with both parties requesting a pause in the proceedings to finalize their agreement. Specific details of the settlement are yet undisclosed, with Caltech and Microsoft maintaining silence on the matter.The lawsuit accused Microsoft of violating Caltech's patents through its Surface tablets and laptops, as well as Xbox video game systems, a claim Microsoft contested by denying the allegations, challenging the patent validity, and asserting existing licenses for the disputed technologies. This legal battle follows a notable 2020 verdict where Caltech was awarded $1.1 billion in damages from Apple and Broadcom for similar patent infringements, a decision later overturned by an appeals court mandating a new trial for damages assessment. Subsequently, Caltech settled its dispute with Apple and Broadcom last year.Moreover, Caltech has initiated lawsuits against other tech giants, including HP Inc and Dell, for infringing the same Wi-Fi patents, indicating a broader legal strategy to protect its intellectual property rights. These ongoing cases underscore the complexity and high stakes of patent litigation within the tech industry, particularly concerning foundational technologies like Wi-Fi. The Microsoft settlement marks the latest chapter in Caltech's assertive enforcement of its patent portfolio, reflecting both the value and contentious nature of intellectual property in the tech sector.Microsoft settles Caltech lawsuit over Wi-Fi technology | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) holds a lot of potential to transform law, upending everything from how lawyers do their daily work to how law firms and clients interact and conduct business. However, that begs the question: Where does the actual person fit into all of this? In the latest Thomson Reuters Institute Insights podcast, recorded live at the Generative AI & Emerging Technology Forum in New York City, the Thomson Reuters Institute's Zach Warren sat down with Wendy Butler Curtis, Chief Innovation Officer at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, to discuss why it's humans and AI rather than humans versus AI, how Orrick is working to prioritize mental health while introducing innovative technology, and where she sees generative AI actually making an impact in the future of the legal profession.
On this day, June 14th, in legal history, the Supreme Court issued its decision in West Virginia State Board v. Barnette, holding that students cannot be compelled to salute the American flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.When issues of compelled patriotism are discussed, advocates of compulsion generally frame these issues as unique “problems” of modernity. So you may be surprised to hear that the Barnette decision was handed down on this day in 1943. In the midst of World War II, no less.In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court made a significant ruling: they declared a compulsory flag salute law in public schools unconstitutional, affirming that students have First Amendment rights.The Court determined that mandatory flag salutes violated the First Amendment. The decision was made on Flag Day and overturned a previous case, Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940). The West Virginia statute in question imposed harsh penalties on children and their parents if the children refused to comply, including expulsion and fines of $50 or even imprisonment for parents.In the Gobitis case, two Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren were expelled for refusing to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court recognized the state's interest in promoting national cohesion and considered mandatory flag salutes as a permissible means of fostering patriotism.However, in Barnette, the Court shifted its focus. It highlighted that the central issue was not whether the children could be excused from the flag salute due to religious beliefs, as in Gobitis. Rather, it examined whether the state had the power to enforce the flag salute on all schoolchildren.The Court emphasized that the compulsory flag salute and pledge required an affirmation of belief and an attitude of mind. It noted that Congress had recently recognized the Pledge of Allegiance as voluntary, indicating that compulsory salutes were not necessarily the most effective way to cultivate patriotism.Justice Robert H. Jackson's opinion in Barnette reevaluated the role of public schools in educating young citizens. The Court asserted that public education should not stifle free thinking or teach youth to disregard essential principles of government as mere platitudes. Instead, education should enable students to make informed choices.The Court, echoing Congress, concluded that patriotism is strengthened through voluntary participation rather than compulsion. Justice Jackson emphasized that no official, regardless of their position, could dictate orthodoxy in matters of politics, nationalism, religion, or other opinions, or force citizens to confess their faith in those matters.This landmark ruling in Barnette established the principle that students possess First Amendment rights, including the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression, within the context of public schools.In the latest sign BigLaw is in a bit of a holding pattern, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, a San Francisco-based law firm, is laying off approximately 90 attorneys and staff members and delaying the start date for its incoming class due to reduced demand and market uncertainty. The layoffs will affect 40 associates and 50 staff members, amounting to around 6% of the firm's global workforce. The firm has decided to postpone the start date for its first-year class until January 16, 2024. Orrick will provide a $15,000 stipend and additional funds for health insurance to its class of 2023. The firm attributes these actions to reduced client demand in certain areas and the impact of technology and evolving work environments on the firm's operations. Orrick joins other prominent law firms such as Cooley, Gunderson Dettmer, Kirkland & Ellis, and Fenwick & West in implementing workforce reductions and start date delays in response to sluggish demand for legal services.Orrick Lays Off 90 Lawyers and Staff, Delays Start DatesA U.S. judge has granted the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) request to temporarily block Microsoft's acquisition of video game maker Activision Blizzard and scheduled a hearing for next week. The judge set a two-day evidentiary hearing on the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction for June 22-23 in San Francisco. Without a court order, Microsoft could have closed the $69 billion deal as early as Friday. The FTC had asked an administrative judge to block the transaction in December and an evidential hearing in the administrative proceeding is set to begin on August 2. The federal court will decide based on the late-June hearing whether a preliminary injunction is necessary during the administrative review of the case. Microsoft and Activision must submit legal arguments opposing the preliminary injunction by June 16, with the FTC's reply due on June 20. The FTC argues that the deal would give Microsoft's Xbox exclusive access to Activision games, potentially excluding Nintendo and Sony consoles. Microsoft has stated that accelerating the legal process will bring more choice and competition to the gaming market.US judge temporarily blocks Microsoft acquisition of Activision | ReutersAs the indictment is being reviewed and ingested, and experts are weighing in, it seems clear: Former U.S. President Donald Trump is facing significant challenges in defending himself against charges of illegally retaining top-secret documents after leaving the White House in 2021. Yesterday, Trump pleaded not guilty to the 37 counts, which include violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Experts noted that the indictment contains a wide range of evidence, such as documents, photos, text messages, audio recordings, and witness statements, making a strong case for the prosecution's allegations. The conspiracy to obstruct justice charges may pose the greatest risk for Trump, carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Legal experts believe the evidence suggests Trump knew about the documents and refused to turn them over, instructing his lawyers to mislead the FBI. Obstruction of justice is challenging to defend against and can have significant public backlash. Trump's alleged efforts to conceal documents over the years likely played a role in the decision to indict him. The classification status of the documents may be irrelevant, as the Espionage Act criminalizes the unauthorized retention of national defense information, regardless of classification. While Trump has potential defense strategies, such as challenging witness accounts or blaming others, the case could be delayed until after the 2024 election, and opinions vary on whether he could pardon himself if he wins.Here's what happens next in the case against Donald Trump. It could be a year or more before a trial takes place and all indications are Trump will continue to seek to win back the presidency. Federal prosecutors will begin handing over evidence to Trump's lawyers, including years of correspondence related to the documents in question. Trump's lawyers are expected to file a motion to dismiss the case, citing reasons such as his claim that he declassified the documents before taking them. However, motions to dismiss in criminal cases rarely succeed.The trial timeline will likely be extended as the parties review evidence and argue legal disputes. Trump testifying in the case would be his decision, but it is unlikely as defendants often choose not to testify. If Trump were to win the 2024 presidential election, it is unlikely that the prosecution would proceed due to the Department of Justice's policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents. However, in extraordinary circumstances, the policy can be deviated from with the approval of the U.S. attorney general. But that would almost certainly be Trump's attorney general. So it is clear to me, as it is probably clear to Trump, that his best chance at kicking this can down the road will be to delay the trial long enough to win back the presidency and pardon himself. 2024 is going to be a helluva year. Trump faces difficult odds in documents case | ReutersTrump documents case: what happens now that he pleaded not guilty? | ReutersIllinois has become the first state in the United States to pass a law aimed at curbing book bans in public libraries. The legislation comes in response to the growing trend of conservative efforts to suppress books addressing topics such as race, history, and LGBTQ issues. Governor J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, signed the law, which will go into effect on January 1, 2024. Under the new law, Illinois public libraries will only be eligible for state grants if they adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights, which prohibits the removal of materials due to partisan or doctrinal disapproval. The push to ban books has intensified during the 2021-2022 school year, particularly in conservative Republican-dominated states like Florida and Texas. According to the American Library Association, there were 67 attempts to ban books in Illinois alone in 2022, with many of the targeted books focusing on LGBTQ people or people of color. Critics of book bans argue that librarians should be the ones selecting books, not politicians, and that such bans infringe on freedom of expression. The Illinois law is seen as a step in the right direction by supporters who believe that books in libraries should be chosen by professionals, not extremist politicians.Illinois becomes first state to pass law curtailing book bans | ReutersThe European Commission, Europe's top antitrust regulator, has announced that it may pursue the breakup of Google's ad-tech business. The commission has charged Google with abusing its dominant position in the online advertising technology industry. It alleges that Google used its control over the buying and selling of online ads across third-party websites and apps to favor its own advertising auction house. The commission's preliminary view is that Google must divest parts of its ad-tech business to address the inherent conflicts of interest. Google will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint, and if found guilty, it could face a fine of up to 10% of its annual worldwide revenue. This move by the European Commission aligns with the ongoing antitrust scrutiny Google is facing in the United States and would mark a major sea change in the online advertising space. EU Says It May Seek Breakup of Google's Ad-Tech Business - WSJ Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Ralph Baxter spent nearly a quarter century as chairman and CEO of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, leading its growth from a regional San Francisco law firm specializing in municipal finance to one of the world’s largest firms with offices worldwide and a diverse array of practices. Along the way, both Baxter and Orrick earned kudos for their many innovations in the delivery and pricing of legal services and the staffing and structure of the firm. Now retired from Orrick, Baxter serves as an advisor and consultant devoted to inspiring positive transformation in the ways legal services are delivered globally. In particular, he believes that technology and process design enable legal services to be delivered better, faster and cheaper, and to be available at reasonable cost to all who need them, and his goal is to help make this happen. Baxter is also an advisor to a number of legal organizations. He was chairman of the advisory board of the Thomson Reuters Legal Executive Institute, is on the board of directors of Intapp, and is on the legal advisory board of LegalZoom. He was previously on the boards of directors of both Lex Machina and Ravel Law prior to their acquisitions by LexisNexis. He is a fellow and senior advisor to CodeX, the Stanford University Center for Law and Informatics, and is a member of the advisory boards of the Stanford Law School Center on the Legal Profession, the Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession, and the Georgetown Law School Center for the Study of the Legal Profession. Included in 2009 in the ABA Journal’s inaugural class of Legal Rebels, Baxter was an elementary school teacher before attending law school. Last year, he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat from West Virginia, losing in the primary. NEW: We are now on Patreon! Subscribe to our page to support the production, as well as access show transcripts and bonus content. Comment on this show: Record a voice comment on your mobile phone and send it to info@lawnext.com.
With over 15 years of in-house experience, Tracy Preston is General Counsel for Neiman Marcus in Dallas, Texas. Tracy emphasizes how important her relationships have been to the progression of her career. Specifically, Tracy talks about the mentorship and support she had from Judge Barbara Caulfield who she worked with before becoming partner at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe in the Bay Area. For Tracy, keeping an open mindset towards the changes in her legal career has been key.
When Ralph Baxter joined the inaugural class of Legal Rebels in 2009, he was the CEO and chairman of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. Just a year into the biggest recession since the Great Depression, he caught the ABA Journal’s attention through his initiatives that took Orrick from a domestic, California-based firm to an international heavyweight while navigating economic turbulence. Since leaving the firm in 2013—after 23 years as chairman–he has gone on to consult with law firms looking to improve their business and service models, sit on the board of LegalZoom and run for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat from West Virginia in 2018. In this episode, he speaks with the ABA Journal’s Jason Tashea about where the profession has been and where he thinks it’s headed. Special thanks to our sponsor, Answer1 and Thomson Reuters Westlaw Edge.
When Ralph Baxter joined the inaugural class of Legal Rebels in 2009, he was the CEO and chairman of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. Just a year into the biggest recession since the Great Depression, he caught the ABA Journal’s attention through his initiatives that took Orrick from a domestic, California-based firm to an international heavyweight while navigating economic turbulence. Since leaving the firm in 2013—after 23 years as chairman–he has gone on to consult with law firms looking to improve their business and service models, sit on the board of LegalZoom and run for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat from West Virginia in 2018. In this episode, he speaks with the ABA Journal’s Jason Tashea about where the profession has been and where he thinks it’s headed. Special thanks to our sponsor, Answer1 and Thomson Reuters Westlaw Edge.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
