Expert Analysis

• If Justices End Chevron Deference, Auer Could Be Next Target

  

  If the U.S. Supreme Court decides next term to overrule its Chevron v. NRDC decision, it may open the door for a similar review of the Auer deference — the principle that a government agency can interpret, through application, ambiguous agency regulations, says Sohan Dasgupta at Taft Stettinius.

• In-Office Engagement Is Essential To Associate Development

  

  As law firms develop return-to-office policies that allow hybrid work arrangements, they should incorporate the specific types of in-person engagement likely to help associates develop attributes common among successful firm leaders, says Liisa Thomas at Sheppard Mullin.

• Perspectives

  A Judge's Pitch To Revive The Jury Trial

  

  Ohio state Judge Pierre Bergeron explains how the decline of the jury trial threatens public confidence in the judiciary and even democracy as a whole, and he offers ideas to restore this sacred right.

• The Court's Likely Game Plan For TM Suit Against LIV Golf

  

  Joseph Walsh at Harness IP examines the key factors a New Jersey district court will likely consider in the trademark infringement suit Cool Brands v. LIV Golf, including the strength of the plaintiff's mark, whether the mark was adopted to intentionally compete and relative pricing of each product sold under their respective brands.

• How To Recognize And Recover From Lawyer Loneliness

  

  Law can be one of the loneliest professions, but there are practical steps that attorneys and their managers can take to help themselves and their peers improve their emotional health, strengthen their social bonds and protect their performance, says psychologist and attorney Traci Cipriano.

• Opinion

  Litigation Funding Disclosure Should Be Mandatory

  

  Despite the Appellate Rules Committee's recent deferral of the issue of requiring third-party litigation funding disclosure, such a mandate is necessary to ensure the even-handed administration of justice across all cases, says David Levitt at Hinshaw.

• Recalling USWNT's Legal PR Playbook Amid World Cup Bid

  

  As the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team strives to take home another World Cup trophy, their 2022 pay equity settlement with the U.S. Soccer Federation serves as a good reminder that winning in the court of public opinion can be more powerful than a victory inside the courtroom, says Hector Valle at Vianovo.

• Opinion

  Justices' Job Transfer Review Should Hold To Title VII Text

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis should hold that a job transfer can be an adverse employment action, and the analysis should be based on the straightforward language of Title VII rather than judicial activism, say Lynne Bernabei and Alan Kabat at Bernabei & Kabat.

• 11th Circ. Ruling May Impede Insurers' Defense Cost Recoup

  

  The Eleventh Circuit's recent Continental Casualty v. Winder Laboratories ruling that insurers cannot obtain reimbursement of defense costs from their insureds where the policy itself does not require such reimbursement is likely to be cited as persuasive authority in Georgia and other states without clear precedent on the issue, say Christy Maple and Robert Whitney at Phelps Dunbar.

• Indivior Ruling May Affect Rebate Wall Litigation

  

  A New Jersey federal court's recent decision in Indivior v. Alvogen, in which a claim that an alleged rebate wall anti-competitively blocked generic competition survived summary judgment, may provide a blueprint for successfully challenging other drug rebating practices, say Peter Herrick and Monsura Sirajee at O'Melveny.

• Immigration Program Pitfalls Exacerbate Physician Shortages

  

  Eliminating shortcomings from U.S. immigration regulations and policies could help mitigate the national shortage of physicians by encouraging foreign physicians to work in medically underserved areas, but progress has been halted by partisan gridlock, say Alison Hitz and Dana Schwarz at Clark Hill.

• Perspectives

  Mallory Gives Plaintiffs A Better Shot At Justice

  

  Critics of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern claim it opens the door to litigation tourism, but the ruling simply gives plaintiffs more options — enabling them to seek justice against major corporations in the best possible court, say Rayna Kessler and Ethan Seidenberg at Robins Kaplan.

• FLSA Collective Actions: Are Courts Still Dancing The 2-Step?

  

  In the absence of amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act, courts have filled in some of the statute's gaps and established a two-step framework for conditional certification of a class, but recent rulings show signs that courts are ready to hold party plaintiffs to a higher standard if they want to recruit others to join their lawsuits, says Allison Powers at Barack Ferrazzano.

• Opinion

  When Corporate Self-Disclosure Threatens Individuals' Rights

  

  The prosecution of former Cognizant executives in New Jersey federal court demonstrates how the U.S. Department of Justice’s corporate enforcement policy can contravene the constitutional rights of individual defendants who are employed by cooperating companies, says Gideon Mark at the University of Maryland.

• Courts Can Overturn Deficient State Regulations, Too

  

  While suits challenging federal regulations have become commonplace, such cases against state agencies are virtually nonexistent, but many states have provisions that allow litigants to bring suit for regulations with inadequate cost-benefit analyses, says Reeve Bull at the Virginia Office of Regulatory Management.