Because there is no single definition of what circumstances are force majeure, parties to a contract must agree upon what will be considered force majeure for purposes of that contract, advises Elizabeth A. Whitman for Whitman Legal Solutions, LLC.

Writing in the Whitman blog, she says that the parties should work with their attorneys to determine what types of circumstances should be listed given the nature of the specific contract.

“Parties to a contract generally agree that it isn’t fair to require performance of a contract in accordance with its terms if certain uncontrollable or extraordinary situations arise.  Therefore, many contracts include in them what are known as ‘force majeure clauses,’ which relieve all parties to a contract from performing under certain extraordinary circumstances,” she explains.

She lists some examples of conditions that might be included in a definition of force majeure.

Read the article.

Above the Law reports on the possibility — really speculation — that  special counsel Robert Mueller could be looking into connections between Squire Patton Boggs and Donald Trump’s lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen.

Editor Kathryn Rubino points out that the firm has distanced itself from Cohen, saying that he “maintained his independence, was not an employee of the firm, and did not maintain files or bill clients through the firm.”

“But the revelations that have come to light about Cohen’s shell company, Essential Consultants, and the money collected from big-name companies for access and insights into the Trump administration have cast a pall on the Biglaw firm,” she writes.

Leading the speculation is Stormy Daniels lawyer Michael Avenatti, who has said that the apparent reason the firm cultivated a relationship with Cohen was to supplement its lobbying business.

Read the Above the Law article.

The new director of the Federal Trade Commission’s consumer protection unit, a watchdog with broad investigative powers over private companies, stands out even in an administration prone to turning over regulatory authority to pro-industry players, reports The New York Times.

Andrew M. Smith was part of the legal team that in 2012 defended AMG Services, the payday lender founded by the convicted racketeer Scott Tucker, whose predatory practices against impoverished borrowers eventually led to a $1.3 billion court-ordered settlement, the biggest in the commission’s history, , according to reporters Glenn Thrush and Jack Nicas.

Because of his representation of companies like Facebook, Uber and Equifax, banks, lenders and credit-reporting agencies — all companies with matters before the commission — he will have to recuse himself from dozens of cases.

Read the Times article.

The New York lawyer caught yelling racist comments at Spanish-speaking restaurant workers in a viral video was treated like a pariah by fellow attorneys at a Queens court Thursday, lawyers there told The New York Post.

And Aaron Schlossberg will have to find a new place to work because his landlord kicked him out of his office space after the video went public.

Schlossberg was in court Thursday representing Queens medical center Aimes Enterprises Inc. — a day after footage emerged of the lawyer threatening to have workers at a Manhattan eatery “kicked out of my country.”

The NY Post article quotes two lawyers who were in court that day: ““I was taken aback that he would have the balls to come to court in front of all of his colleagues after his crazy outburst.” And: “Why would he do that? His reputation will be shot. What a dope!”

Read the NY Post article.

A lack of familiarity with advertising rules can lead to a firm or an individual lawyer having their ad, website, etc., labeled as “noncompliant” by the State Bar of Texas Advertising Review Department, warns Bruce Vincent of Muse Communications.

That department reviews lawyer advertising for violations under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Those who fail to remedy noncompliant communications may be the subject of an official complaint filed with the Bar’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel.

Vincent interviewed Gene Major, director of the State Bar Advertising Review Department and director of the Bar’s Attorney Compliance Division, about the state’s lawyer advertising landscape and the common mistakes that can lead to violations.

Major discussed some of the most common mistakes and violations he sees, possible penalties, and the use of mailing lists for marketing.

Read the article.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court played the right card for sports gamblers as it ruled that a federal gambling statute known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, also called the commandeering clause. As explained in a post on the website of Androvett Legal Media & Marketing, the decision gives states the authority to pass their own laws with regard to sports betting.

So what does the ruling mean for the future? Constitutional law attorney David Coale places his bet.

“There will be a lot of issues about the intellectual property of sports leagues and teams,” said Coale of the Dallas law firm Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst. “For example, a gambling company will naturally want to put the Cowboys logo in its ads; the Cowboys will want to stop that without control over the conditions of use and payment of a proper fee.”

Lex Machina, a LexisNexis company and creator of the award-winning Legal Analytics platform, announced the addition of new remedies analytics content for the platform.

The company said the new feature reveals grant and deny rates for permanent injunctions, preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by specific judges or in specific districts for antitrust, commercial, copyright, employment, patent, securities and trademark litigation. The feature also adds new case timing data to the Legal Analytics platform, providing insights into the length of time it takes for judges to reach grant or deny decisions for these remedies. Armed with this information, attorneys can employ more effective legal strategies, reduce unnecessary legal spend and gain competitive advantage.

The addition of remedies analytics is the latest in a series of innovations and product enhancements that Lex Machina has introduced in recent months. Legal Analytics has been expanded to cover District Court bankruptcy appeals and product liability cases, as well as Delaware Court of Chancery litigation. The recently introduced Expert Witness Explorer app sorts and compares expert witness data and testimonial outcomes in product liability cases. The Legal Analytics platform now supports ten federal and state practice areas and eight Legal Analytics apps.

“The addition of remedies data is another enhancement to our Legal Analytics platform’s rapidly expanding scope and functionality, and makes the platform even more of a ‘must-have’ tool for both in-house law departments and law firms,” said Owen Byrd, General Counsel and Chief Evangelist at Lex Machina. “Deeper remedies analytics and insights has been one of the most requested features by our users. We’re pleased to be able to address this feedback with remedies analytics and help our customers make more informed, data-driven business and legal decisions.”

In Lex Machina’s database of more than 1 million federal district court cases, there are 27,500 cases containing orders on motions for permanent injunctions, preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders. For these cases, Lex Machina data shows that permanent injunctions are granted in 88% and denied in 12% of cases when ruled on the merits. The trend varies, however, by practice area, with trademark cases seeing 91% of permanent injunctions granted when there is a judgment on the merits versus 86% of patent and 79% of employment cases.

In a release, the company said Legal Analytics users can gain even deeper insights by applying filters for specific judges or jurisdictions, and then use the results to better predict outcomes and develop winning legal strategies. Case filters for case type, case tags and time ranges may also be used to analyze remedies analytics for a specified group of cases.

Legal Analytics also contains data about other specific remedies pertaining to employment, antitrust, commercial and trademark litigation. The employment-specific remedies data includes reinstatement and promotion; antitrust remedies data includes divestiture; commercial remedies data includes replevin and specific performance; and trademark remedies data includes relinquish domain name and termination of mark. By using Legal Analytics’ built-in filters, lawyers can now uncover data-driven insights to answer questions such as: Has any employee successfully obtained restatement in the Northern District of Florida? How can I find recent commercial cases in which my judge granted specific performance?

Employment and labor law firm Littler has released the results of its seventh annual survey, completed by 1,111 in-house counsel, human resources professionals and C-suite executives. The Littler Annual Employer Survey, 2018 analyzes the impact that sweeping regulatory changes and other factors, including the #MeToo movement, are having on employers.

The firm summarized its findings:

Following a year that brought several changes to workplace policy, the survey shows employers feeling some regulatory relief with the change in administration, while cautiously anticipating less of an impact from key regulatory issues over the next year. The portion of respondents expecting a significant impact from the Affordable Care Act dropped from 33 percent in the 2017 survey to 15 percent in 2018, with similar drops in significant concern around enforcement by the U.S. Department of Labor (25 percent to 16 percent) and the National Labor Relations Board (13 percent to 8 percent).

At the same time, employers feel buffeted by the burdens created by abrupt and dramatic regulatory changes, slow-moving confirmations to key government agency positions and the growing patchwork of state and local labor and employment requirements. The majority of respondents (64 percent) said that reversals of workplace policies and regulations between presidential administrations put a strain on their businesses and 75 percent said they faced challenges as states and localities work to fill perceived policy vacuums at the federal level.

“Companies want certainty more than anything,” said Michael Lotito, co-chair of Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute. “The vast majority of employers want to comply with the law and the continuous reversals of federal workplace policy, as well as the increasingly fragmented and sometimes contradictory rules at the state and local level, is an enormous distraction for them. Uncertainty means inability to plan, budget and anticipate, and it requires constantly retraining employees and reformulating employment policies.”

Of the changes that occurred during the first year of the Trump administration, respondents identified the rollback of wage-and-hour policies (62 percent) and the new tax bill (62 percent) as the areas that have most significantly impacted their businesses.

Immigration Reform Focuses on Visas and Enforcement

Amid tightening regulation and enforcement of both legal and illegal immigration, employers expect a range of immigration-related changes to significantly impact their workplaces over the next year.

Tighter restrictions on visa adjudications, such as those for employees with specialized skills and temporary workers, was the top concern selected by 48 percent of respondents. More than a third (36 percent) expressed concern with increased workplace immigration enforcement by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and associated agencies.

“It’s not surprising that the visa process and immigration enforcement emerged as employers’ top concerns,” said Jorge Lopez, chair of Littler’s Global Mobility and Immigration Practice Group. “The increased scrutiny being applied to employment visas and rule changes impacting visa programs, which often come mid-stream and without prior warning, make it difficult for employers to plan ahead and manage their workforces. In addition, the increase in worksite enforcement and raids have naturally heightened employers’ focus on worksite compliance issues and properly addressing those concerns.”

Continued Workplace Discrimination Enforcement Expected Amid Focus on Harassment

The survey showed virtually no change in the impact employers anticipate from enforcement by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over the next year, with 76 percent anticipating an impact in the 2017 survey and 77 percent in 2018. This aligns with a key finding from Littler’s Annual Report on EEOC Developments – that the Commission actually filed more lawsuits in fiscal year 2017 than it has since 2011.

Employers surveyed expect the EEOC’s top enforcement priorities in the near-term to be harassment claims (64 percent), hiring practices (53 percent) and retaliation against employees who file discrimination or harassment claims (48 percent).

“Employers are right to expect the EEOC to continue to vigorously investigate workplace discrimination claims, particularly harassment claims and other EEOC priorities, regardless of upcoming changes at the Commission with an expected new chair, commissioner and general counsel,” said Barry Hartstein, co-chair of Littler’s EEO & Diversity Practice Group. “With the #MeToo movement and the EEOC’s focus on stemming the tide of harassment in the workplace, taking steps to minimize the risk of harassment claims should be a top priority for employers. We also should expect an active plaintiffs’ bar threatening and initiating private lawsuits during the coming year based on these developments.”

Sexual Harassment and Pay Equity Rank as Top Concerns for Employers

Among the many headline-grabbing issues swirling through the workplace, the majority of survey respondents (66 percent) ranked sexual harassment as the most or second-most concerning issue on their radar.

In the wake of the cultural shift sparked by the #MeToo movement, 55 percent of respondents have added training for supervisors and employees, and 38 percent have updated human resource policies or handbooks. However, only 13 percent have implemented new tools or investigation procedures to manage employee complaints and 24 percent have not made any changes over the past year.

“No company can afford to ignore this issue, and while many already have a good foundation, the past several months have shown the importance of reevaluating and reinforcing policies and procedures,” said Helene Wasserman, co-chair of Littler’s Litigation and Trials Practice Group. “While the law governing harassment in the workplace hasn’t changed much, employee expectations have. In addition to providing training and updating policies, it’s critical that companies have effective complaint procedures in place and that employees feel confident that reports of potential misconduct will be taken seriously and acted upon.”

Gender pay equity followed sexual harassment as the second-most concerning issue in the headlines for employers, with 41 percent placing it among their top two concerns. Companies reported taking action as a result, including conducting audits of current pay practices and salary data (61 percent) and revising hiring practices, such as updating job applications and ceasing the practice of asking candidates about prior salaries (34 percent). However, only 14 percent have modified compensation policies or taken steps to facilitate advancement of female and minority employees.

“Conducting audits is a critical first step to identifying pay disparities among employees, but with continued attention to this issue and an evolving legal landscape, an audit is just the beginning of addressing pay equity in the workplace,” said Denise Visconti, a shareholder heading the Littler Pay Equity Assessment. “As time goes on, pay disparities only become more intractable, so proactively addressing this issue helps companies mitigate risk and reinforce their commitments to treating employees equally and fairly.”

Employers Start to Embrace Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence

Recruiting and hiring is the most common use of advanced data analytics and artificial intelligence, adopted by 49 percent of survey respondents. Employers also said they were using big data to guide HR strategy and employee management decisions (31 percent), analyze workplace policies (24 percent) and automate tasks previously performed by humans (22 percent). The smallest group of participants (5 percent) are using advanced analytics to guide litigation strategy.

“It is encouraging to see employers starting to embrace the many benefits provided by big data in helping manage their most important asset, their people,” said Aaron Crews, Littler’s Chief Data Analytics Officer. “However, it appears that many employers are not aware of the significant potential to use advanced data techniques to guide litigation strategy. The ability to leverage data early in a case, to tease out insights before you ever take a deposition or begin evaluating the credibility of witnesses, is revolutionary.”

The survey results are being released at Littler’s 35th annual Executive Employer Conference taking place May 2-4, 2018, in Phoenix, Arizona.

In an important new en banc opinion, the Fifth Circuit has abandoned its historic criteria for determining whether a contract relating to servicing oil or gas drilling on navigable waters is controlled by maritime law in favor of a “simpler, more straightforward test,” reports Duane Morris LLP.

Jospeh J. Pangaro writes that courts in the Fifth Circuit historically applied a six-factor test to determine whether a contract is governed by maritime law, as articulated in Davis & Sons, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corp..

“Taking the lead from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14 (2004), the Fifth Circuit departed from the six-factor test used in cases like Davis & Sons in favor of a new, stream-lined two-pronged test to determine whether a contract like the one at issue was maritime in nature,” Pangaro writes.

In his article, the author discusses the new test.

Read the article.

Lisa M. Gingerich has joined Michael Best‘s Transactional Practice Group as a partner. Gingerich will be based in the firm’s Milwaukee office, focusing her practice on healthcare law.

In a release, the firm said Gingerich represents a variety of clients in the healthcare industry including hospitals, religious and charitable organizations, physician groups, ancillary providers, and suppliers. Gingerich works on transactions, strategic opportunities, and implementation and corporate compliance. She has successfully negotiated and completed numerous acquisitions, reorganizations, mergers, divestitures, and joint ventures, according to the release.

“Lisa’s impressive background and her breadth of experience will add great value to our clients in the healthcare space,” said David Krutz, firm Managing Partner. “Her industry-leading knowledge and her reputation will be a tremendous asset in our growing healthcare practice.”

“The firm’s priority in expanding its work in the healthcare industry, combined with the growth and all-encompassing talent of the Michael Best Strategies’ healthcare team, will allow me to expand my service offerings to my clients,” said Gingerich. “I’m looking forward to joining the firm and working alongside my new colleagues.”

Prior to joining Michael Best, Gingerich was a shareholder at a large Wisconsin-based law firm. She started her legal career at Legal Action of Wisconsin, representing low income clients in Southeastern Wisconsin. Gingerich is frequently a speaker on physician practice management, compensation and leasing arrangements, development of strategic alliances, mergers and acquisitions and physician practice models topics. She has also been recognized as AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rated by Martindale Hubbell® and listed in The Best Lawyers in America® in Health Care Law.

Gingerich received her J.D., Dean’s Scholar, from California Western and her B.A., Chancellor’s Scholar, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Dallas attorney, ADR authority, and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Deborah Hankinson has been selected to D Magazine’s listing of the Best Lawyers in Dallas for appellate law.

Hankinson is the founder of Hankinson LLP.

In 2016, Hankinson was selected to The National Law Journal’s inaugural ADR Champions list, recognizing trailblazers from across the nation. She serves on the board of directors of the American Arbitration Association. She is a Fellow of the College of Commercial Arbitrators and the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers.

In addition to earning D Magazine honors, Hankinson has received recognition from The Best Lawyers in America, Chambers USA, Texas Super Lawyers, Benchmark Appellate, Texas Lawyer, Dallas Business Journal, Martindale-Hubbell and Lawdragon. She also was honored as a Texas Trial Legend by the Dallas Bar Association.

The Best Lawyers in Dallas listing is based on a thorough review of peer nominations by D Magazine editors and an anonymous panel of the city’s most respected attorneys.

Akerman LLP has added 13 labor and employment lawyers to its Labor and Employment Practice Group in seven months. Those include partners Zachary Bulthuis from Huntington Legal Solutions, Michelle Lee Flores from Cozen O’Connor and Jeffrey Horton Thomas from Thomas Employment Law, all of whom join the Los Angeles office, in addition to Jeffrey Kimmel from Meister Seelig & Fein LLP in New York and Jessica Travers from Littler Mendelson P.C. in Jacksonville, Fla.

In a release, the firm said that, since 2016, the team’s headcount has more than doubled in size from 21 to 50 lawyers in Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, Texas, Washington, D.C. and across Florida.

The release continues:

“We are dedicated to growing our capabilities for clients in areas where they need us most,” said Eric Gordon, chair of the Labor and Employment Practice Group. “Employers today are faced with a new set of uncertainties brought on by significant shifts in U.S. employment and immigration policies. The expansion of our team in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and across Florida advances our ability to problem-solve on the ground with our clients while serving their interests nationally.”

Zachary Bulthuis
A versatile lawyer with experience litigating employment, commercial and intellectual property disputes, Bulthuis focuses his practice on representing management in labor and employment disputes. His clientele is diverse, ranging from Fortune 500 companies to local businesses and individuals.

Bulthuis has extensive courtroom experience, and has obtained success for his clients in both alternative dispute resolution and trial settings. His work includes litigation of, and advice on, wage and hour, California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), trade secret, reimbursement and unfair competition claims arising from employment relationships. Bulthuis frequently provides outside general counsel services on myriad legal and business issues, including advising on licensing and employment policies and disputes, and advice and preparation of a wide range of contracts.

Michelle Lee Flores
Lee Flores is an employment litigation and consulting lawyer with deep experience handling jury and bench trials, arbitration, mediation and pre-litigation negotiations involving sex, race, religion, age and disability harassment and discrimination, and wage and hour violations, including class actions and wrongful termination. Lee Flores, a nationally recognized employment advisor, counsels clients on employment compliance, internal investigations, discipline, terminations, reductions in force, wage and hour matters and cannabis in the workplace. She formulates and guides clients on workplace policies and procedures manuals, drug testing policies, employment contracts and separation agreements, and harassment and discrimination prevention policies, including preventive counseling and in-house training. Regarded as a thought leader on employment matters, Lee Flores has been quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, The Economist, Variety, Fast Company, Corporate Counsel, SHRM and Law360, among others. Lee Flores has received many honors and recognitions, most recently she was voted for the fifth year in a row as a Southern California Super Lawyer.

Active in the community and across prominent professional organizations, Lee Flores also leads the efforts of several business and civic institutions. Those include her involvement as trustee of the boards of the Mexican American Bar Foundation and the University of California Press Foundation, among many others.

Jeffrey Horton Thomas
From Fortune 500 corporations to mid-market employers, Horton Thomas focuses his practice on representing employers and management in all aspects of California and federal employment law before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. He regularly defends employers on issues involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, disability accommodation, wage and hour, and PAGA lawsuits and administrative actions. His clients span various sectors including hospitality, technology, retail, professional services, manufacturing and apparel. Clients value his aggressive approach and mature judgment in defending litigation.

On the thought leadership front, Horton Thomas also has served as a contributing employment law editor to Modern Restaurant Management magazine and is a regular legal guest on KABC Talk Radio’s “So, What’s Your Problem.”

Jeffrey Kimmel
With a diverse national practice focusing on employment law and complex commercial litigation, Kimmel represents clients in federal and state courts, as well as in various arbitration forums and before federal, state and local administrative bodies. His clients operate across multiple sectors, including technology, entertainment, hospitality, real estate, insurance and financial services and range in size from small, closely held companies to publicly traded corporations with thousands of employees. Kimmel routinely represents management in matters relating to wage and hour violations, wrongful termination and anti-discrimination and regularly counsels employers on day-to-day human resources and legal compliance issues.

Kimmel represents high level executives in connection with the negotiation of employment contracts and compensation packages. Kimmell also works with many high net worth and high profile individuals on employment related matters to limit personal exposure arising from their direct or indirect employment relationships.

Jessica Travers
Travers focuses her practice on helping large and small employers avoid and resolve conflicts with employees. She is an experienced litigator handling a variety of intricate employment issues, including overtime and minimum wage, discrimination and retaliation, whistleblowing, workplace harassment, employee leave and reasonable accommodations, employee class and collective actions, and non-compete and breach of contract claims. Her clients span various industries, including the hospitality, retail, transportation and energy sectors.

Travers’ representation of employers occurs before federal and state agencies, state and federal courts, the courts of appeal and arbitral forums. Whether the matter is small or complex, she brings the same amount of subject-matter expertise, efficiency, tenacity and experience to reach the best resolution for the client. Travers understands litigation can be costly and burdensome for companies. Thus, she believes litigation avoidance is key to her clients’ overall success and uses her extensive litigation experience to counsel employers on implementing lawful policies, handling workplace conflicts within the law and mitigating workforce risks. Travers is also a frequent speaker on these topics.

Akerman’s Labor and Employment Practice Group also has recently welcomed associates Zoe Bekas and Steven Gallagher from Thomas Employment Law and Jade Brewster from Constangy, Brooks, Smith and Prophete LLP in Los Angeles, Chris Eby from Semple, Farrington & Everall P.C. in Denver, Tiffany Hendricks from Perlman, Bajandas, Yevoli & Albright P.L. in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Melissa Overbeck from Bracewell LLP in New York, Sasha Segall from Loeb & Loeb LLP in West Palm Beach, Fla. and Paul Rutigliano from Meister, Seelig & Fein in New York. They bring experience in employment litigation and counseling for employers.

Exterro has published “A GDPR Road Map” that discusses best practices and techniques for ensuring e-discovery processes are compliant with the EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation.

The complimentary report can be downloaded from Exterro’s website.

The report includes:

• Practical explanations of the requirements of GDPR and their implications for e-discovery
• Workflows to meet the needs of several key components of GDPR
• Change management tips organizations can use as they adapt to post-GDPR life

Download the report.

The Association of Corporate Counsel will hold the 4th annual ACC Legal Operations conference in Chicago on June 11-13, 2018, at the Hyatt Regency McCormick Place.

On its website, the ACC says the conference offers members a unique opportunity to learn about the latest trends and advancements in a peer-rich environment, while also collaborating to address shared issues and opportunities.

The program will feature:

• Sessions on AI, blockchain, and so much more
• Multiple workshops and expert-led roundtables
• Benchmarking metrics
• Takeaway tools you can use right away
• A workshop with an organizational development expert on “Leading Yourself and Others (Including Your GC.) Through Change”

Register or get more information.

The Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis announced Wednesday that a top lawyer who co-signed a $1.2 million contract to hire President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen will step down in June, reports The Washington Post.

Reporter Carolyn Y. Johnson writes that Felix R. Ehrat, group general counsel of Novartis, is retiring “in the context of discussions surrounding Novartis’ former agreement with Essential Consultants, owned by Michael Cohen,” the company said.

Joseph Jimenez, former Novartis chief executive, initiated the contract and co-signed it with Ehrat. Jimenez stepped down as chief executive in late January.

The announcement comes days after AT&T chief executive Randall Stephenson said the top official in the company’s Washington office was leaving over a consulting deal with Cohen.

Read the Post article.

The Associated Press is reporting that lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s decision to join President Donald Trump’s legal team could backfire on the former New York mayor if potential clients of his international consulting business view him as too erratic and go elsewhere for representation, according to legal experts.

Reporter Richard Lardner quotes Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis: “Giuliani’s television appearances do not inspire confidence in his ability as a lawyer or as a public relations professional.”  She said she could understand why the powerhouse law firm Greenberg Traurig, where Giuliani worked until last week, “would want to distance itself” from Giuliani’s on-air performance.

Norm Eisen, who chairs the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, commented: “It could be good for Giuliani’s consulting and legal work if he were doing a better job. But no clients are going to be won over by the fact that he’s implicated Trump.”

Read the AP article.

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. on Monday reached a confidential settlement with a former employee, rather than face punitive damages for wrongfully firing her in January 2015 from the the restaurant she once managed, reports The Fresno Bee.

A Fresno jury last Thursday awarded Jeanette Ortiz $7.9 million in her wrongful termination civil case for loss of past and future wages and emotional distress against the fast-foot giant, a company that is worth about $1.3 billion, according to reporter Pablo Lopez.

Instead of letting the jury decide punitive damages, which could have been as much as nine times the original award, Chipotle’s lawyers settled with Ortiz and her lawyers for an undisclosed sum.

“In its verdict, the jury of four men and eight women ruled that Oritz was not a thief, but was a victim of a scheme to fire and defame her for filing a worker’s compensation claim for a job-related injury to her wrist caused by carpal tunnel syndrome,” writes Lopez.

Read the Fresno Bee article.

Venerable Fort Lauderdale law firm Conrad & Scherer is under siege, reports the Miami Herald.

The firm is bitterly fighting a former client, prominent investor Douglas Von Allmen, who claims the firm stiffed him on a $25 million loan that financed costly efforts to recover losses from from a Ponzi scheme, explains reporter Jay Weaver.

And the firm also is fighting on another front, against major Alabama-based energy firm Drummond Company. Drummond has accused the law firm and a former partner of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to witnesses to bolster their human-rights abuse cases against the corporation.

“The law firm lost the litigation with Drummond, and it is now facing a defamation case that gained significant momentum last week in a key ruling by an appeals court in Atlanta,” writes Weaver.

Read the Miami Herald article.

In a post at Construction Law Musings, Melissa Dewey Brumback writes about updates to the American Institute of Architects standard form contract documents.

Dewey, a construction law attorney with Ragsdale Liggett in Raleigh, North Carolina, discusses the top 10 changes.

Those changes include differing site conditions, owner’s right to carry out the work, direct communication between the owner and contractor, contractor’s means and methods, notice provisions, notice related to evidence of owner’s financial arrangements, liquidated damages, dates of commencement and substantial completion, termination for convenience, digital data, and insurance

Read the article.

Contracting in the context of subcontractors, outsourcing, and privacy and security laws can be fast-paced, complex, and onerous, warns Katila Howard in Foster Swift Collins & Smith’s Biztech Law Blog.

“Like most contracts, complications do not typically arise until there is a breach. Furthermore, in the context of cybersecurity and outsourcing, the cost of a contractual breach can increase drastically depending on whether the incident occurred in the context of a security breach and the associated reporting requirements,” she writes. “Accordingly, drafting your own checklist and standard provisions that satisfy your company’s privacy and security requirements in advance can save time and money in the future.”

She provides a list of recommended subjects to cover in vendor agreements.

Read the article.