“The Am Law 50 firm moved its headquarters to Philadelphia’s Cira Centre in 2005, taking advantage of a tax break program that Pennsylvania offers businesses to move into developments in formerly run-down areas. Since taking up residence in Cira Centre, Dechert’s paid virtually no state or local business taxes in exchange for Dechert’s role in making the area an attractive business destination,” notes Joe Patrice in Above the Law’s Biglaw.

“But the program expired in 2018, so when the Keystone Opportunity Zone program eyed a new tax-free area in Schuylkill Yards, Dechert walked up and asked to move there too.”

“There’s nothing in the law to say companies can’t hop from zone to zone to remain permanently tax-free, and when authorities denied Dechert’s request to continue not paying its taxes, the firm took the government to court.”

Read the article.

“Litigation has its place, but most in-house counsel agree: avoid it if at all possible. That’s why Chris Fairey is a proponent of arbitration clauses in his employee contracts. Fairey is General Counsel for American Residential Services (ARS), one of the nation’s largest residential and commercial heating, air-conditioning, and plumbing services companies. ARS earns approximately $1 billion dollars in revenue annually and has more than 6,000 employees across the country. Like any legal leader of a company that size, Fairey spends a lot of time thinking about risk,” discusses Mark P. Henriques in Womble Bond Dickinson’s Articles and Briefings.

“One of the big upsides to arbitration from Fairey’s point of view is that the process takes a lot of the emotion out of a dispute.  He points out that presenting a case to an experienced arbitrator, rather than a jury, removes many of the emotional elements that can go along with litigation, especially when employees or consumers are on the other side. A jury trial can be subject to grandstanding by plaintiff’s counsel, which is not the case in arbitration.”

Read the article.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP is pleased to announce that it has secured a favorable settlement agreement for its hospice provider client AseraCare with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) over a Qui Tam lawsuit that began in 2008.

Under terms of the agreement, AseraCare will pay $1 million to the DOJ, which had sought more than $200 million worth of claims under the False Claims Act.

“Our client AseraCare is very pleased with this settlement and the outcome of this case that provides benefit and clarity to the hospice industry over Medicare billing reimbursement, as well as some level of comfort and certainty to physicians who treat terminally ill patients,” said Bradley partner Jack W. Selden, who served as lead counsel in this case. “The existing law and the evidence that we presented clearly supported AseraCare’s position and helped us secure this settlement beneficial to our client.”

Bradley partner Kimberly B. Martin, chair of the firm’s Litigation Practice Group who also served as counsel to AseraCare in this matter, added, “This positive outcome also helps AseraCare continue its mission to provide vital hospice care and services to patients and their families with integrity and the utmost commitment to upholding ethics in the healthcare industry.”

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion issued Sept. 9, 2019, agreed with AseraCare and the District Court that a mere difference of reasonable physician’s opinions on a terminal patient’s prognosis will not constitute falsity under the False Claims Act. The Court of Appeals also clarified that any other evidence presented by the government in an effort to impose False Claims Act liability must be directly linked to the claim the government contends is false. Bradley partner Matt Lembke, who was a key member of the trial team and argued the case in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, noted that “The result provides additional clarity for hospice providers faced with claims under the False Claims Act.”

Other key members of the Bradley team included Nick Danella, Tiffany deGruy, Fritz Spainhour, and Erin Sullivan.

AseraCare is a leading provider of hospice services caring for 2,200 patients and families per day. The company operates 44 locations in 14 states. For more information about AseraCare, visit www.aseracare.com.

About Bradley
Bradley combines skilled legal counsel with exceptional client service and unwavering integrity to assist a diverse range of corporate and individual clients in achieving their business goals. With offices in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and the District of Columbia, the firm’s nearly 550 lawyers represent regional, national and international clients in various industries, including banking and financial services, construction, energy, healthcare, life sciences, manufacturing, real estate, and technology, among many others.

“Apple has tentatively agreed to a $500 million settlement after admitting to slowing down older phones. The deal would provide small payouts for many iPhone owners in the US, plus greater compensation for named class members and attorneys. It covers people who bought any product in the iPhone 6 and 7 lineup — which Apple secretly throttled to conserve battery life.” reports Adi Robertson in The Verge.

“As Bloomberg Law notes, the settlement was filed in a California court last Friday and is awaiting final court approval. The deal — which took months to negotiate — would resolve dozens of class action lawsuits that were filed between 2017 and 2018, then later consolidated into one complaint.”

Read the article.

“During Supreme Court oral arguments earlier this week, a Biglaw partner dropped a ‘damn’ to colorfully illustrate his point,” reports Kathryn Rubino in Above the Law’s Courts.

“It happened during the arguments in Opati v. Republic of Sudan. Sudan’s lawyer, White & Case’s Christopher Curran, was in an exchange with Justice Stephen Breyer when he argued SCOTUS had previously held the retroactive assessment of punitive damages was unfair and a ‘draconian step.’ That’s when the juiciness happened:”

“So before we attribute that intention to Congress, we’re going to ask Congress to say it pretty damn clearly.”

“Chief Justice William Rehnquist let it fly in arguments in Donnolley v. Dechristoforo (1974). In fact, according to Law.com, ‘damn’ has been said a handful of times during oral arguments from 1950-2015. However, the majority of the times it was used it was in quoting the record of the case. But at least one other advocate used ‘damn’ for emphasis:”

Read the article.

“Johnson & Johnson and other drug companies facing thousands of lawsuits over their role in the opioid epidemic have warned that settlement talks will be “severely” jeopardized if plaintiffs’ lawyers are allowed to assess a fee payment worth billions of dollars,” reports Tom Hals and Nate Raymond in Reuters Business News.

“Major distributors such as McKesson Corp and drugmakers including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd joined in the request that U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland, Ohio, reject a request by a committee of plaintiffs’ lawyers for a 7% fee assessed against any settlements. They filed their brief late Wednesday.”

“The request could amount to $3.3 billion, based on a $48 billion settlement proposal that five companies have been negotiating with various state attorneys general.”

“The drug companies noted that the attorneys would receive more money from the settlement than even some of the states they represent. Dozens of state attorneys general also opposed the request for the fee to the plaintiffs executive committee that is litigating thousands of lawsuits by towns, counties and tribal governments.”

Read the article.

“Sometimes appellate opinions are issued on a seemingly narrow subject matter that can apply to many other factual contexts.  In one such recent example, a Florida appellate court concluded that a security services provider could not be held responsible for allegedly failing to protect a person who was criminally attacked,” reports Matthew J. Meyer in Ansa | Assuncao’s News & Articles. “The reason for the appellate court’s decision is what is interesting, and could be applied well beyond the factual circumstances involved in the specific case:  the security provider’s contract with Miami-Dade County established the hours of service, and those hours of service ended at 7:00 pm each day, therefore the security provider had no legal duty to provide security to a person who was attacked at 8:00 pm. ”

“In reaching its decision, the appellate court discussed the concepts of ‘zone of risk’ and the corresponding legal duty for a security provider to ‘protect persons lawfully on defined premises.’  Importantly, however, the appellate court explained:  ‘Nonetheless, the extent of the undertaking as defined under the terms of the contract should define the scope of the duty.’ Applying this doctrine, the appellate court explained its conclusion that the responsibility to enact reasonable security measures was borne solely by the County.”

Read the article.

Read the article.

“Dentons says it will appeal a $32.3 million malpractice verdict based on its disqualification in a patent case because of work done by its Canadian branch.” reports Debra Cassens Weiss in ABA Journal’s Law Firms.

“Jurors in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, had found Dentons liable Feb. 13 in a suit by its former client, laser-inscribing company RevoLaze … The verdict is thought to be the largest legal malpractice judgment in Ohio’s history, according to a press release from RevoLaze’s law firm.”

“The suit had alleged that the booting of Dentons from the case forced RevoLaze to quickly find new lawyers and impacted its leverage in settlement negotiations.”

“The case highlights legal issues related to Dentons’ Swiss verein structure in which more than 10,000 lawyers are associated with the law firm.”

Read the article.

“Now more than a half a year into his house arrest, environmental attorney Steven Donziger received a passionate recommendation to receive his law license back on Monday from the officer presiding over his bar proceedings in New York. ” reports Adam Klasfeld in Courthouse News Service.

“My recommendation is that his interim suspension should be ended, and that he should be allowed to resume the practice of law,” bar referee John Horan declared.”

“For his role in obtaining a $9.8 billion judgment against Chevron, Donziger has faced the threat of financial ruin from enormous legal fees, criminal prosecution and the suspension of his law license. He has spent more than six months wearing an ankle bracelet in his apartment in New York’s Upper East Side, pursued for the better part of a decade by one of the world’s most powerful oil companies after zealous litigation that one judge labeled a fraud.”

Read the article.

“What makes an expert witness persuasive to a jury? Is it their background and training? The work that they did on the case? Their communication skills in teaching the jury?” asks Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm in the Persuasive Litigator.

“The research suggests that expert influence depends on a variety of factors, and a scale even exists to measure these factors: the Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) framework. That framework includes many of the variables that experts and the attorneys who sponsor them would expect: Foundation, Field, Specialty, Ability, Opinion, Support, Consistency, and Trustworthiness. Even as the items are potentially unsurprising, it is still helpful to keep the whole list in mind.”

“Recent research  shows that these factors matter, and also suggests that there may be a ‘Big 3’ in this list.”

Read the article.

“An Orange County lawyer who represents clients in criminal defense cases faces federal charges of her own after being accused of conspiring to sell firearms without serial numbers, also known as ‘ghost guns.'” reports Brandi Hitt in Eyewitness News ABC 7.

“Federal agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives say 41-year-old attorney Melinda Romines was allegedly trying to sell the guns by acting as a broker between black market dealers and customers.”

“The weapons are referred to as ‘ghost guns’ because it is difficult to trace them.”

Read the article.

“A Kansas law firm that claimed that a competitor was inflating client recoveries in its advertising won’t be able to pursue its lawsuit,” reports Debra Cassens Weiss in ABA Journal’s Law Firms.

“U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren of Wichita, Kansas, ruled against the Brave Law Firm in Feb. 12 decision dismissing his case.”

“The Brave Law Firm, a personal injury firm, had alleged that Brad Pistotnik Law and the Pistotnik-affiliated Truck Accident Lawyers Group were engaging in false and deceptive advertising by listing high-dollar recoveries.”

“Various amounts are listed on screen, including $9 million … The $9 million amount was also listed online and in print ads.”

Read the article.

“The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a summary judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles and two of its police officers in an action by a Century City entertainment lawyer who was handcuffed behind her back when arrested on a traffic warrant despite her protest that she had a severely injured shoulder that was “frozen” and that such positioning of her arms would result in extreme pain,” reports Metropolitan News-Enterprise.

“Among the allegations by plaintiff Marina Borawick are that, because the officers viewed her as belligerent, she was vindictively kept in handcuffs for about an hour, notwithstanding that she was in agony. Borawick charged that they acted despite a fear she expressed, after she was placed in a police car, that the experience—in light of her vascular disorder which had resulted in three bypass surgeries—could prove life-threatening to her.”

“A video recording of the encounter shows her exclaiming” she was afraid she was “going to have a heart attach.”: ‘I’m afraid I’m going to have a heart attack.”

Read the article.

“Michael Avenatti, the failed presidential candidate and lawyer who represented adult-film star Stormy Daniels in her suit against President Trump, was found guilty by a federal jury in New York on Friday of all three counts he faced over an attempt to extort Nike. The disgraced attorney could now spend a maximum of 20 years in prison, and his epic downfall hasn’t ended either, since additional trials await for other alleged crimes.” reports Chas Danner in the New York Intelligencer.

“Last March, federal prosecutors alleged that while Avenatti was representing a youth basketball coach, he and an associate threatened to publicly accuse Nike of illegally paying amateur basketball players if the company didn’t hand over millions of dollars. Avenatti was arrested in March after the FBI recorded him threatening Nike representatives.”

Read the article.

“Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal recently issued a decision that serves as a reminder not to take for granted a proposition that most practicing attorneys regularly encounter: a motion for summary judgment must be supported by competent evidence, and an affidavit that does little more than mimic the motion for summary judgment will not suffice.” write Dean A. Morande and Rachel A. Oostendorp in Carlton Fields Insights.

“In Rodriguez v. Avatar Property & Casualty Insurance Co., a plaintiff sued her insurer, alleging that it had breached her homeowners insurance contract by denying coverage for water damage. The trial court granted the insurer’s two separate motions for summary judgment” which the Second District reversed “concluding that the 37-page affidavit lacked sufficient information to demonstrate that the affiant possessed the competency or personal knowledge to testify on those matters, which ranged from contract interpretation to trade specialties of plumbing and contracting. ”

Further, “The affidavit failed to identify her title or corporate duties, did not state that it was made on personal knowledge, and did not set forth her relevant skill set or experience.”

Read the article for the three “musts”.

Eversheds Sutherland is pleased to announce that the TCPA litigation and counseling subgroup of the firm’s Litigation Practice Group has published its 6th annual REDIAL: 2019 TCPA Year-in-Review – Analysis of Critical Issues and Trends in TCPA Compliance and Litigation. REDIAL reflects the team’s thought leadership and in-depth analysis of significant Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) court cases, regulatory developments and compliance issues.

“In 2019, the insurance, financial services, energy and telecommunications sectors, among many others, were all uniquely affected by the TCPA,” said Lewis S. Wiener, US partner and leader of Eversheds Sutherland’s TCPA practice. “Keeping up with developments in the TCPA area has never been more important. At the start of 2019, there was no more TCPA plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction than the 11th Circuit. By the end of the year, the 11th Circuit had become the least plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction. As TCPA cases continue to be filed at a record rate, compliance becomes more important for businesses in every sector. REDIAL and Eversheds Sutherland’s continuing thought leadership in the TCPA area helps to highlight these developing trends and analyzes the key legal issues affecting these industries.”

Among other things, a few interesting facts within the publication include:

• The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association estimates that 6 billion texts are sent daily in the United States
• As many as 100,000 cell phone numbers are reassigned every day
• More than 3,000 TCPA lawsuits were filed in 2019

View the full 2019 TCPA Year-in-Review publication.

Eversheds Sutherland’s Litigation Practice Group, which includes more than 100 litigators, has tried and argued cases in the US Supreme Court, all 13 circuits of the US Court of Appeals, the Court of Federal Claims, the Tax Court, and hundreds of federal district and state trial and appellate courts across the country. The team represents regional, national and global clients from a broad range of industries, including financial services, securities, insurance, energy, construction, manufacturing, automotive, distribution, education, professional services, data privacy, electronics, technology and defense. The experienced team of TCPA and class action attorneys aggressively defends clients and counsels on how to set up and structure communication programs to comply with the TCPA and minimize litigation risks.

“A California lawyer practicing in Orange County was arrested today on a federal grand jury indictment charging her with conspiring to sell firearms without a license and distributing methamphetamine.” reports LawFuel.

“Melinda Romines, 41, of Anaheim, was taken into federal custody this morning. She is expected to make her initial court appearance this afternoon in United States District Court in Los Angeles.”

“Romines has been charged with one count of conspiracy to engage in the business of dealing in firearms without a license, one count of possession of an unregistered firearm, and two counts of distributing methamphetamine.”

Read the article.

“Bayer AG has asked a California appeals court to overturn an $86 million verdict that found it was responsible for a couple’s cancer caused by its glyphosate-based weed killer Roundup.” reports Tina Bellon in Reuter’s Environment News.

“Bayer in a statement on Monday said U.S. regulators had consistently found glyphosate to be non-carcinogenic and that the Pilliods’ lawyer during trial repeatedly violated court orders in an attempt to inflame jurors.”

“The company denies the allegations made by more than 42,700 plaintiffs in the United States, saying decades of studies have shown Roundup and glyphosate are safe for human use.”

Read the article.

“Most lawyers have a general understanding of the “no-contact rule”  — with a few exceptions, you can’t communicate directly on the subject of the representation with someone you know is represented by counsel.  But where does in-house counsel fit in?  Is in-house counsel “fair game” for ex parte contact by opposing counsel?” asks Karen Rubin in Thompson Hine’s Communication.

“Last month, the Virginia Supreme Court approved Legal Ethics Opinion 1890, and answered “Yes,” in an opinion that also covered some other issues of concern to in-house counsel.”

Read the article.