Julie Pettit, founder and managing partner of the Pettit Law Firm, is the recipient of the 2017 Outstanding Young Lawyer Award from the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers (DAYL).

The award is presented annually to an individual who exhibits exemplary service to the legal profession as well as to the community, and who has a reputation for the advancement of legal ethics and professional responsibility.

A civil trial lawyer focusing on real estate and litigation within the financial services industry, Pettit represents consumers and private real estate investors, as well as clients ranging from nonprofit organizations to large corporations, the firm said in a news release.

The release continues:

Ms. Pettit is a frequent speaker and author on issues surrounding the Dodd Frank Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), injunctive relief in federal and state courts, and foreclosure law. During the last two legislative sessions, she has spent time in Austin drafting bills and testifying on behalf of mortgage-related legislation.

In addition to DAYL, Ms. Pettit is active in several professional organizations including the Dallas Women Lawyer’s Association, where she has served on the board for two years, and the William “Mac” Taylor Inn of Court, where she is a Barrister. She is also a mentor with the West Dallas outreach and restoration organization, Mercy Street.

Ms. Pettit’s Outstanding Young Lawyer Award nomination was supported by noted Dallas attorneys and members of the judiciary, including the Hon. Martin Hoffman, Lisa Blue, Michael Hurst, Dennis Siaw-Lattey, Chad Ruback, Dena Stroh, Aaron Burke, Ayesha Rafi, Courtney Sauer and Chalon Clark.

“Julie is a lawyer who has initiative, persistence, and follows through to the end,” said Ms. Blue of Baron & Blue, in her letter of nomination. “Not only is she a good lawyer and an asset to the Dallas legal community, she is an entrepreneur. I look forward to continuing to watch her career flourish.”

Ms. Pettit was honored during the Dallas Bar Association’s annual Law Day Luncheon held May 5 at the Belo Mansion.

DLA Piper recently announced that Paul Wassgren has joined the firm’s Corporate practice as a partner in Los Angeles.

Wassgren advises a array of clients, from individual entrepreneurs to domestic companies to multinational and publically traded corporations on securities, project and real estate finance, mergers and acquisitions and general corporate matters.

“Paul’s impressive domestic and international experience and familiarity with corporate law across multiple jurisdictions will provide value to our clients,” said John Gilluly, DLA Piper’s US chair of the Corporate practice. “Paul is a great addition to our global platform, and given his work in Los Angeles over the past several years, he’ll also further strengthen our growing West Coast team.”

Prior to joining DLA Piper, Wassgren was a partner at Fox Rothschild LLP in Los Angeles, where he counseled clients doing business around the world, including China, Australia, Mexico, Belize and India, in a range of corporate matters. He also previously worked in business development for a biotechnology research and development company.

“Paul has developed an extensive network of relationships, in the Southern California region, as well as nationally and internationally, that will enable us to better serve clients in a wide range of industries and matters not only in Los Angeles but on our global platform,” said Perrie Weiner, co-managing partner of DLA Piper in Los Angeles. “We believe his background in biotechnology, real estate and securities, among others, not only complements our existing practice groups but will further enhance what is an already strong Corporate group in California.”

Wassgren’s arrival follows the additions of corporate partners Michael Brown (San Diego) and Brandee Fernandez (Silicon Valley) in California in the past several months.

Wassgren received his J.D. and M.B.A. from Oxford University, and his B.A. from Pepperdine University.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Blank Rome LLP announced that David J. Moise and Jill E. Misener have joined the firm in the Tax, Benefits, and Private Client group in New York.

Moise joins the firm as a partner with more than 30 years of experience and a federal, state, and local tax practice. Joining Blank Rome as of counsel, Misener also has experience in tax procedure and controversy. Both come to Blank Rome from Withers Bergman LLP.

“We’re thrilled that David and Jill have joined Blank Rome,” said Alan J. Hoffman, Chairman and Managing Partner of the Firm. “David’s team is well-known for its straightforward and honest approach to tax controversy. I know that our clients will appreciate David’s pragmatism as well as his understanding of the risks and rewards associated with our clients’ most sensitive tax issues.”

In a news release, the firm said:

Mr. Moise focuses on federal, state, and local tax examinations, appeals, and litigation matters, as well as federal and multi-state voluntary disclosures. He also has significant experience with tax collection procedures, including tax liens and levies, as well as collection administrative appeals, installment agreements, and offers in compromise. Further, he has extensive capabilities with regards to various treaty issues, such as disputes between the United States and the United Kingdom, resolving key issues and working with Competent Authority to avoid duplicative taxes.

“We’re excited to join Blank Rome,” said Mr. Moise. “Blank Rome has a terrific, national platform that will enable us to expand upon the work we do and the clients we serve, particularly as it relates to partnership and corporate controversy matters. With offices across the country and a wide range of practices that are challenged by tax issues, we’re eager to begin collaborating with our new colleagues at Blank Rome.”

Ms. Misener represents high-net-worth individuals and entities before federal and state tax authorities in controversy resolution matters, bringing her experience in examinations, administrative appeals, voluntary disclosures, and collection matters with her to Blank Rome. Ms. Misener has also advised and represented clients residing outside the United States with U.S. tax issues, and has guided numerous clients through the IRS’s various offshore voluntary disclosure programs.

“David and Jill will be great additions to the practice as they are respected attorneys who are extremely well-versed in tax law at both the federal and state levels,” said Cory G. Jacobs, Chair of the Tax, Benefits, and Private Client group. “On a daily basis, David and Jill handle tax issues that require interface with the IRS, and they know federal procedures inside and out. With tax reform forthcoming, David and Jill are well-positioned to help our clients navigate any future changes to U.S. tax policy.”

Mr. Moise received his B.A. from Syracuse University, his J.D. from Pace University Law School, and his LL.M. in Taxation from Boston University School of Law. He is a member of the American Bar Association Tax Section and the New York Bar Association Tax Section.

Ms. Misener received her B.S. from Washington & Lee University, her J.D. from the University of Kansas School of Law, and her LL.M. in Taxation from New York University School of Law. She is also a member of the American Bar Association Tax Section, the New York Bar Association, and the Federal Bar Association.

Arent Fox LLP has expanded its Complex Litigation practice with the addition of partner Linda M. Jackson and counsel Abram J. Pafford in the firm’s Washington, DC office.

Jackson is a first-chair trial attorney with experience representing clients before federal, state, and appellate courts, as well as before administrative agencies and in arbitration settings. Pafford has experience in government contracts, insurance coverage, and appeals, and routinely appears before appellate courts, trial courts, and administrative tribunals.

“We are excited to welcome Linda and Abe to the firm,” said Complex Litigation leader D. Jacques Smith. “Linda is exactly what we wanted to add to our group — an aggressive, talented, client-focused litigator with a proven track record. She is equally adept at pursuing pre-litigation and litigation strategies that help clients efficiently meet their goals. Abe is a key addition to our growing group and has extensive experience in appellate litigation and government contracts, particularly with cases involving the False Claims Act and the Contract Disputes Act.”

A news release from the firm continues:

Previously a partner at Littler Mendelson P.C., Ms. Jackson has a particular litigation focus in the Eastern District of Virginia, also known as the “Rocket Docket,” and the state trial courts in Northern Virginia, including Fairfax, Arlington, and Loudon counties. A determined litigator who focuses on her clients’ business objectives, Ms. Jackson’ practice includes non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure negotiation and litigation; civil business conspiracy and tortious interference; executive contracts and compensation; shareholder litigation; whistleblower and retaliation investigations and litigation; trade-secret disputes and wrongful discharge and discrimination matters.

A highly-regarded and well published attorney, Ms. Jackson has been recognized by Chambers USA and Washingtonian magazine as one of the top lawyers in her field. She earned her bachelor’s degree from Amherst College and her law degree from the College of William & Mary.

Mr. Pafford is an accomplished appellate advocate who has argued over two dozen cases in various state and federal courts of appeal. His clients range from Fortune 500 defense contractors and large commercial entities to technology startups and individuals facing white-collar investigations initiated by state and federal law enforcement and regulatory authorities. Mr. Pafford comes to Arent Fox after having operated a successful litigation boutique based in Virginia and Washington DC. Prior to forming his own law firm, he practiced commercial litigation for nearly 10 years with Fried Frank LLP and Covington & Burling LLP. Mr. Pafford also completed judicial clerkships on the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Liberty University, and his law degree from The George Washington University Law School.

Ms. Jackson and Mr. Pafford are the most recent additions to Arent Fox’s Complex Litigation practice, which has added highly-regarded commercial litigators Peter J. Most and John S. Purcell in Los Angeles and Brian P. Maschler in San Francisco.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

The National Association of Corporate Directors annually collaborates with its five strategic-content partners to provide guidance for boards of directors on a hot-button governance issue. This year’s topic is ESG, or environmental, social, and governance oversight — an issue that strongly impacts corporate sustainability.

The NACD has made the report available for downloading at no charge.

The report provides ESG guidance in order to help directors:

• ensure the board and executive team have the right skills for driving ESG performance;
• connect environmental and social issues to the company’s business mission;
• communicate the company’s environmental and social efforts to investors, and to stakeholders;
• understand the financial impact of climate risks and improve related disclosures; and
• link compensation to financial results and ESG factors.

Download the report.

Three Chinese stock traders were ordered to pay $8.9 million in fines and penalties for hacking into two law firms and stealing information on upcoming mergers and acquisitions and then leveraging the information to trade stocks, according to a Dark Reading report.

A federal court in New York found that the three hackers installed malware on the law firms’ computer networks, enabling them to view emails on mergers and acquisitions in which the firms were involved. Then they used that information to buy stock in at least three public companies prior to their merger announcements, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The firms aren’t identified in the complaints, but Law360 reports they appear to be Weil Gotshal & Manges and Cravath Swaine & Moore, based on information in charging documents.

Read the Dark Reading article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Image by Step

Generally speaking, law schools with low acceptance rates masterfully weathered the storm over the past decade, keeping their standards high, writes Staci Zaretsky for Above the Law.

This came during a time when applications plummeted and entering students’ qualifications sank, while law schools with high acceptance rates fared quite poorly, admitting almost anyone who applied in an effort to keep the lights on, she adds.

Her article covers the release of some data from U.S. News, which compiled statistics showing acceptance rates for American law schools.

The school with the lowest acceptance rate is Yale Law School, with 9.5 percent of its applicants gaining entry. At the other end of the list is Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School, which saw 85.8 percent of its applicants getting into class.

Read the Above the Law article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

The former chief financial officer of Dewey & LeBoeuf, once one of the nation’s largest law firms, has been convicted for hiding “severe financial challenges” that eventually led to the firm’s bankruptcy, reports The New York Times.

“A jury in Manhattan convicted Joel Sanders, the law firm’s former chief financial officer, on three criminal counts arising from what prosecutors said was a scheme to hide the firm’s failing finances from financial backers,” write Matthew Goldstein and Liz Moyer.

The jury acquitted the firm’s former executive director, Stephen DiCarmine, of the same charges.

Sanders’ guilty verdicts came on charges of securities fraud, scheme to defraud and conspiracy.

Read the NYT article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

In-house lawyers often are brought into a myriad of issues they may wish they had been left out of, points out Stephen R. Williams in a post on Above the Law.

He illustrates his point by describing a case he encountered in his role as in-house counsel with a multi-facility hospital network. An executive approached him and revealed that a well-known and well-liked employee was about to be fired.

“After asking a couple rather high-level and routine HR questions, I blessed the dismissal and took my leave only to bump into the employee in question a few steps down the hallway,” writes Williams. “While I was not bound by any form of attorney-client privilege at that point, I knew there was absolutely no way I could tell that employee they had better reconsider their summer vacation plans.”

He tells how he dealt with the situation during the next three weeks. He also discusses dealing with standard office gossip in an HR context.

Read the Above the Law article.

In Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Laboratories, Inc., Judge Mark Bennett of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa required both plaintiff and defense counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for discovery abuses based on the excessive use of “boilerplate” objections to discovery requests, according to E-Discovery Law Today.

Writing in the Jackson Lewis blog, Joshua Scott and Brett M. Anders explain that the issue arose when the court was reviewing a discovery dispute between the parties and noticed numerous objections that the court deemed to be improper “boilerplate objections.”

“The court subsequently required both parties to submit all of their written discovery responses for the court’s review,” the authors write. “The court also notified counsel of its intention to impose sanctions on every attorney who signed discovery responses it they were found to be improper or abusive. Based on its review of the discovery responses the court determined that numerous discovery responses, from both sides, were improper.”

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

When negotiating a construction contract with a general contractor, the owner/developer should be aware of, and address, a number of issues to attempt to mitigate or limit the risk of construction defect litigation for a residential project, including multi-family and for-rent residential apartment and senior housing projects, advises Rebecca W. Dow in Holland & Hart’s Construction Law Blog.

She explains that tandard forms of construction contract — such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA) or ConsensusDocs — are more beneficial to the contractor than the owner in many respects.

A construction contract will need to be reviewed thoroughly and revised to better protect the owner, and in the case of residential construction, should in particular, address 10 key issues.

She discusses those issues, which include: scope of work, change orders, indemnification, warranties, subcontracts, insurance, dispute resolution, compliance with laws/environmental matters, construction lender, damages/attorneys’ fees.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP will present a complimentary webinar titled “Effectively Using Offers of Judgment” on Thursday, May 18, at 11 a.m. Central time.

In the third webinar series of the year, Brittany Kirk will provide an introduction to Offers of Judgment, discussing how to leverage this risk-shifting tool to avoid litigation and its associated costs.

This presentation will discuss:

• When is the Offer of Judgment an effective litigation tool
• How to draft a precise Offer of Judgment
• Using Offers of Judgment to moot class actions after Campbell-Ewald
• State Offer of Judgment statutes

Anyone with questions may contact Missy Davis: melissa.davis@dinsmore.com

Register for the webinar.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Reuters is reporting that the U.S. Department of Justice has begun a criminal investigation into Uber Technologies Inc.’s use of a software tool that helped its drivers evade local transportation regulators, two sources familiar with the situation said.

Reporters Dan Levine and Joseph Menn write that Uber has acknowledged the software, known as “Greyball,” helped it identify and circumvent government officials who were trying to clamp down on Uber in areas where its service had not yet been approved, such as Portland, Oregon.

“The criminal probe could become a significant problem facing the company that is already struggling with an array of recent business and legal issues,” they explain.

Some Uber employees told Reuters that the Greyball technique was used against suspected local officials who could have been looking to fine drivers, impound cars or otherwise prevent Uber from operating.

Read the Reuters article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

A St. Louis jury has awarded a Virginia woman a record-setting $110.5 million in the latest lawsuit alleging that using Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused cancer, according to an Associated Press report.

The verdict for Lois Slemp comes after three previous St. Louis juries awarded a total of $197 million to plaintiffs who made similar claims. About 2,000 state and federal lawsuits are in courts across the country over concerns about health problems caused by prolonged talcum powder use.

“Slemp, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012, blames her illness on her use of the company’s talcum-containing products for more than 40 years,” the AP report says. “Her cancer has spread to her liver. Although she was too ill to attend the trial, an audiotape of her deposition testimony was played. In it she said: ‘I trusted Johnson & Johnson. Big mistake.'”

Read the AP article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Gustave Newman, a criminal defense lawyer in a host of headline-grabbing cases who genially cajoled skeptical juries and cowed hostile witnesses with his booming baritone, died on Monday in Manhattan at the age of 90, reports The New York Times.

“A lion of New York’s white-collar criminal defense bar, Mr. Newman achieved one of his greatest courtroom successes in 1993, when, after a contentious five-month trial, he managed to win the acquittal of Robert A. Altman, a Washington lawyer who, with Clark M. Clifford, a former defense secretary, had been accused in a scandal involving global money-laundering and illegal transfer of capital,” writes Sam Roberts. “The episode, involving the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, cost depositors an estimated $12 million.”

Newman is believed by some to have tried 400 cases, according to the report.

Read the NYT article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Andrew Eisenberg has joined the Michael Best firm as a partner in the Intellectual Property and Corporate Practice Groups in its Austin office.

Inn a release, the firm said Eisenberg has worked on the development of action plans, legal strategies, and intellectual property portfolios that are directly related to a company’s business goals. Eisenberg has experience in a broad range of matters, including trademarks, patents, corporate formations, licensing, as well as funding and securities issues. He has also worked with a range of companies, including single employee startups to fortune 500 companies.

The news release continues:

“We’re thrilled that Andrew is joining our practice here in Austin,” said Stephen Gigot, Chair of Michael Best’s Intellectual Property Practice. “His strategic thinking and depth of experience working in the startup ecosystem in Austin will enhance the scope of our intellectual property and corporate team, and further credential our firm in a region that is a hotbed for entrepreneurial activity.”

As a founder of the Small Business Festival and a former general counsel for an Austin-based medical startup, Eisenberg has personal experience and insight into issues and legal challenges facing entrepreneur, startups, and growth stage companies.

“The choice for me to join Michael Best was simple,” Eisenberg said. “The firm continues to penetrate new markets, and their intellectual property and corporate teams carry a tremendous reputation for client service that I’m excited to be a part of.”

Aside from his legal work, Eisenberg is an active volunteer and mentor in the Austin community. Among other things, he participates as a judge for the University of Texas – Texas Venture Labs Investment Competition, volunteers as a mentor with Profit Mover Team, and organizes “Startup Law Austin”, a monthly presentation series for inventors and entrepreneurs looking to start a company or protect their assets.

Eisenberg received his J.D. from the University of Notre Dame Law School and his B.S.E., cum laude, from the University of Michigan.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C. expanded its litigation team with the recent addition of three attorneys in the firm’s St. Louis office.

Katherine M. Fowler, Jonathan H. Garside and Erika N. Reynolds joined the firm May 1 as officers in the Litigation Practice Group. The three previously were partners at Fox Galvin in St. Louis, practicing in the areas of pharmaceutical, medical malpractice, environmental, class action and product liability litigation.

Fowler acts as lead trial counsel defending businesses in complex civil litigation, including pharmaceutical, high exposure birth injury and medical malpractice litigation, product liability, environmental and class action litigation. She has successfully defended hospitals, nurses and physicians in personal injury and wrongful death claims and has represented a major pharmaceutical company as regional counsel. She also is the founder of the Let’s Start Legal Clinic, which provides pro bono legal representation to women and families impacted by incarceration. Ms. Fowler earned her law degree from Saint Louis University Law School and her Bachelor of Arts from the University of Dayton.

Garside is a trial lawyer with experience handling product liability, medical malpractice, pharmaceutical and commercial litigation. In the area of product liability, he has successfully defended manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, construction and farm equipment and consumer products. In class actions, he has obtained dismissals and other favorable results for clients including an association of major health insurers, a nationally known hospital, an international automaker and drug manufacturers. In addition, he represents a major hospital system in complex medical malpractice cases. Mr. Garside earned his law degree from Washington University School of Law and his Bachelor of Arts from the University of California-Berkeley.

Reynolds represents businesses including large international companies in all phases of commercial litigation. She is experienced in mass tort, medical negligence defense, environmental, pharmaceutical and medical device litigation, as well as employment law matters. Her experience includes representing energy, health care and pharmaceutical companies. Her professional involvement has included the Defense Research Institute, Mound City Bar Association, Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers and the Society for Human Resource Management. Ms. Reynolds earned her law degree from the University of Virginia Law School and her Bachelor of Arts from the University of Dayton.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Kim Technologies has announced the launch of its Intelligent Legal Operations Platform, which allows in-house teams to automate various law department processes quickly and easily without the need for IT development or coding.

The award-winning Kim platform is already being used by a number of Global 100 companies for activities ranging from contract and in-life management, litigation and employment, to compliance, patents and property. More information can be found here.

Real world examples of how global law departments are using the technology will be demonstrated by in-house leaders at two sessions during the Corporate Legal Operations Consortium in Las Vegas May 9-11.

And the developer will present a complimentary forthcoming webinar at 11.30 ET on May 25: How Kim’s no-code AI platform is transforming legal departments around the globe.

See details of the new platform.

Courtesy of BP Public Affairs Staff, via BOEM.gov

A recent podcast from Columbia Energy Exchange features host Bill Loveless speaking with Tommy Beaudreau, a non-resident Fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy and partner in the Environment, Land & Resources Department of Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C.

The podcast series is presented by Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

In the podcast, the two discuss details of the latest executive order on offshore oil and gas drilling; what political and legal challenges the order will face; how the U.S. government have improved drilling and safety standards since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; and next steps in the offshore review process.

Listen to the podcast.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

“Class arbitration” — the utilization of a class action mechanism in an arbitration proceeding — is considered by some to be the unicorn of ADR; desirable but elusive, writes Gilbert Samberg on Mintz Levin’s blog, ADR: Advice from the Trenches.

“Another view is that it is the Frankenstein’s monster of ADR – an anomalous hybrid of disparate parts that comprise a disconcerting and ultimately nonviable creation,” he writes. “And so let us ask, is ‘class arbitration’ an oxymoron? Should it be viable given the essential nature of arbitration?  And whither the emperor’s jurisprudential clothes?”

The Mintz Levin post is one in a series of posts concerning the concept, its theoretical roots, the current state of the law, implementation of the mechanism, the significance and effects of a class arbitration award, etc.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group