Rudy Giuliani has tapped Miami-based veteran attorney Jon A. Sale, of counsel with Nelson Mullins, to represent him before the congressional inquiry into whether President Donald Trump improperly pressured Ukraine’s president for a political favor.

The Miami Herald reports that “Sale is also no stranger to navigating the ways of Washington, having served as an assistant special Watergate prosecutor looking into the secret White House tapes of President Richard M. Nixon. Sale worked under two special prosecutors — Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski.”

Giuliani and Sale are former classmates at New York University law school.

Read the Miami Herald article.

A California woman suffering from mesothelioma has prevailed in the latest talc trial against Johnson & Johnson, following six days of jury deliberation that ended Friday when the jury awarded her $40 million in damages.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers said Nancy Cabibi, 71, of Hasuer, Idaho, and her husband Phil sued Johnson & Johnson, makers of Johnson’s Baby Powder, following her pleural mesothelioma diagnosis in 2017. Since then, Cabibi has undergone a variety of medical procedures including radical surgical intervention, chemotherapy, radiation and immunotherapy.

Testing of her body tissue showed the presence of tremolite and anthophyllite asbestos, known contaminants of Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, both of which were manufactured by Johnson & Johnson and both of which Cabibi used.

The jury in the case found Johnson’s Baby Powder defective because it contained asbestos. It also found the powder caused Cabibi’s mesothelioma, which is an invariably fatal form of cancer, her lawyers said.

Johnson & Johnson argued Cabibi was exposed to asbestos through living in an area of Los Angeles home to industry, though she never worked in or even entered any facilities where she would have been exposed to asbestos.

“Nancy Cabibi is fighting to survive every single day because of asbestos in Johnson’s Baby Powder. While we are very pleased with this verdict, we know that we must continue to fight on behalf of the Cabibis and so many others who have been harmed,” said attorney David Greenstone of Simon Greenstone Panatier in Dallas, who along with firm attorneys Stuart Purdy and Marissa Langhoff represented the plaintiffs.

This is just the latest win for the law firm against Johnson & Johnson. Earlier this month, name partner Chris Panatier was one of several lawyers representing four people with mesothelioma who sued J&J in its home state of New Jersey. That jury found the four were exposed to asbestos from using the company’s baby powder and awarded $37.3 million.

And in May 2018, attorneys David Greenstone and Chris Panatier represented Joanne Anderson of Williams, Oregon who was on the receiving end of a $25.75 million verdict when another California jury found manufacturing and design defects in Johnson’s Baby Powder due to the presence of asbestos.

Simon Greenstone Panatier, P.C., is a nationally recognized trial law firm with a reputation for creative and aggressive representation of clients in a wide variety of catastrophic personal injury matters nationwide. For more information, visit http://www.sgptrial.com/.

Over the past few decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have increasingly leaned on deferred prosecution agreements in corporate criminal cases and non-prosecution agreements to settle allegations against corporations, according to a Washington Post report.

For example, JPMorgan Chase, the country’s largest bank, has repeatedly resolved federal investigations over the last eight years by striking a deal: It wouldn’t be prosecuted as long as it stayed out of trouble, writes the Post‘s Renae Merle.

“This comes at a time when the Trump administration is prosecuting fewer white-collar crimes,” she explains. “The number of cases brought against corporations fell to 99 last year, compared with 181 in 2015, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Most were against small companies, 62.9 percent employed fewer than 50 workers, the commission reported.”

Read the Post article.

The  Chicago Tribune reports that a Chicago law firm says it has settled lawsuits against Boeing on behalf of the families of 11 passengers killed in the crash of a Lion Air jet off the coast of Indonesia.

Boeing is facing dozens of lawsuits after the October 2018 accident and another crash, also involving a Boeing 737 Max jet, in March in Ethiopia.

Attorney Alexandra Wisner declined to discuss financial terms. She said her firm has six other lawsuits still pending.

Read the Tribune article.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that a subrogation waiver provision in a construction contract barred an association’s insurance company from seeking to recover from an allegedly negligent contractor, reports Daniel Miske in the Husch Blackwell Association Alert.

He describes the case of United National Insurance Company v. Peninsula Roofing Company, Inc., which involved $3 million in damages to a condominium complex caused  by a contractor’s generator. The association’s insurer sued the contractor for negligence, gross negligence, and breach of contract.

After detailing the appellate court’s ruling, Miske presents four lessons a practitioner can learn from the case.

Read the article.

St. Louis lawyer Chelsea Merta, who was found in contempt of court earlier this year, has been ordered to pay the Stange Law Firm more than $775,000 for copying thousands of client files a week before she resigned from the firm last year, reports the St. Louis P0st-Dispatch.

Tuesday’s order follows a July ruling that found Merta in contempt and ordered her to serve 48 hours in jail. The judge also required Merta to destroy all files in her possession or return them to the Stange Law Firm.

The order to pay $775,707 covers Stange Law Firm’s legal expenses toward months of investigating the case, a security firm’s forensic examination of Merta’s electronic devices and attorney fees, according to Post-Dispatch reporter Joel Currier.

Read the Post-Dispatch article.

A chance encounter with lawyer Roy Cohn in the 1970s proved to be fateful for future president Donald Trump, writes James D. Zirin in his new book “Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits.”

In an excerpt from the book at Slate, Zirin writes that Trump and his father, Fred, were dealing with clashes with the Open Housing Center, a local fair-housing group that was working with the Justice Department, as well as the New York City Human Rights Commission, which asked the government to investigate racial discrimination in the Trumps’ neighborhood housing. All the lawyers Trump approached advised him to settle.

But when Trump discussed the problem with Cohn, the lawyer told him, “Tell them to go to hell, and fight the thing in court.” Trump had found his lawyer and his approach to defending against all kinds of charges: go on the attack, bashing your enemies.

Read the Slate article.

Am ugly public fight inside the National Rifle Association has led to an exodus of high-level officials and warring accusations of financial impropriety. At the center of the fray is Brewer, a brash lawyer who has drawn ethics complaints and has a reputation for escalating disputes into pricey legal battles, according to a report in The Washington Post.

William Brewer III emerged as a top counselor to NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre and a victor — for now, at least — in a civil war that he helped set in motion and that is ripping apart the powerful gun lobby, write the Post‘s Carol D. Leonnig and Tom Hamburger.

They explain:

“Several NRA veterans accuse Brewer of instigating an almost Shakespearean feud to protect his bottom line and growing influence. According to internal board correspondence, his small law firm billed $24 million in fees in 13 months — leading top NRA board members to demand early this year that the organization stop paying until they could review the bills.”

Read the Post article.

Drinker Biddle & Reath’s The Restricting Covenant series takes a look at two states’ competing views on the enforceability of restrictive covenants and the critical importance of conducting a “choice of law” analysis to settle this feud.

Author Lawrence Del Rossi explains the backstory: “With respect to restrictive covenants, the conflict between Delaware, which is generally considered a ‘pro-enforcement’ jurisdiction, and California, which is generally considered an ‘anti-enforcement’ jurisdiction, definitely stands out in the crowd.”

The article compares freedom to contract versus freedom from restraints on trade and finds some common ground coast-to-coast.

Read the article.

A lawsuit alleges that the Sackler family that owns Purdue Pharma has been transferring billions of dollars from the company to personal accounts in an effort to protect funds from litigation, reports The Washington Post.

“Now, as the maker of OxyContin heads to bankruptcy court, those billions represent a central sticking point in the company’s plan to resolve thousands of lawsuits against it. Purdue asked the bankruptcy judge, Robert D. Drain, on Wednesday to take the unusual step of temporarily halting lawsuits against the Sackler family,” write the Post‘s Renae Merle and Lenny Bernstein.

The company said the Sackler family could back out of a settlement agreement with multiple states if it cannot get the protection it seeks.

Read the Post article.

Republican U.S. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana warned that he could oppose President Trump’s nominee for an influential appeals court, saying Steven Menashi wouldn’t answer questions during a hearing.

The Hill reports that Kennedy, when asked about Menashi’s nomination for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, warned, “I’m not going to vote for him until I understand how he approaches legal issues.”

Kennedy told HuffPost: “I’m real doubtful. My thought is, look, if he’ll treat a United States senator the way he treated us, I wonder how he would treat the people.”

Some other senators have expressed frustration with Menashi’s unwillingness to discuss his work for the Trump administration on immigration.

Read The Hill article.

A federal appeals court on Friday revived an ethics lawsuit against President Donald Trump that argues his business interests are conflicts of interest and violate the US Constitution, reports CNN.

Plaintiffs, including a hotel operator and a group of restaurants, claimed Trump’s “vast, complicated and secret” business arrangements violate a constitutional provision, the Emoluments Clause, which bars the president from accepting gifts from foreign governments without the permission of Congress, writes CNN’s Erica Orden.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that a lower-court judge improperly threw out the lawsuit in December 2017. Now, plaintiffs are hoping this victory will allow them to seek detailed records on Trump’s transactions with foreign officials, according to a Washington Post report.

Read the CNN article.

Bloomberg Law reports that LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. has been hit with a proposed class action alleging it unlawfully sold to law firms the personal information of drivers involved in car accidents.

Bloomberg’s Alexis Kramer explains:

“The data analytics company obtained names, addresses, and other data from thousands of motor vehicle records and sold that information to personal injury firms, plaintiff Jonathan Hatch alleged in a complaint filed Sept. 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.”

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

Charles Sartain, writing in Gray Reed’s Energy & the Law blog, tells the story of Town of Flower Mound v. Eagle Ridge Operating LLC, in which an operator’s injunction against enforcement of a local ordinance was dissolved.

EagleRidge operates gas wells in the Flower Mound. A town ordinance prohibits work on gas wells (other than drilling) at times other than between 7 a.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday and certain times on Saturday.

A court of appeals dissolved an injunction against the town, holding the trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because the ordinance is penal in nature, Sartain explains. (A violation is considered “unlawful” and is punishable by fine.)

Read the article.

The current, third quarter 2019 issue of the Defense Counsel Journal (DCJ), published by the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC), features numerous articles that highlight important trends in the law, as well as an introduction by newly elected IADC President Amy Sherry Fischer.

The quarterly DCJ spotlights the IADC’s defense bar leadership through its articles about legal development and reform issues, as well as the practice of law in general. DCJ articles are written by members of the IADC, which is a 2,500-member, invitation-only, worldwide organization that serves its members and their clients, as well as the civil justice system and the legal profession.

“The Defense Counsel Journal is a significant part of the contributions of the IADC during its history,” said Fischer, a shareholder at Foliart, Huff, Ottaway & Bottom in Oklahoma City, Okla.

DCJ editor and former IADC board member Kenneth R. Meyer added that the current DCJ edition includes “three exciting and helpful articles.” These articles cover several significant proposed changes to the Federal Rules, insurance coverage issues involving inverse condemnation and public water systems, and the impact of a recent Supreme Court decision on maritime jurisdiction over asbestos claims.

The IADC’s third-quarter 2019 DCJ is available for free and without a subscription via the IADC’s website.

Following are brief summaries of key articles included in the third-quarter 2019 issue of the DCJ:

“Federal Civil Rule Reform – An Update” by Christopher E. Appel, of counsel, and Mark A. Behrens, co-chair of the Public Policy Practice Group, both at Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. in Washington, D.C. This article outlines proposed major changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. If implemented, these changes could prove enormously consequential for all civil defendants.

“Insurance Coverage Rules for Inverse Condemnation Actions Involving Public Water Systems” by Paul Fuller, a director of the American Association of Water Distribution & Management and an insurance professional specializing in public water systems. This article encapsulates the problems owners of public water systems face from inverse condemnation – a topic at the crossroads of insurance and land use law. The article covers the legal theory’s underlying mechanics, available protections, and emerging areas of liability. The article also examines insurer defense and indemnity obligations for those insurance policies from which such action cloaks as a potential policyholder right.

“In the Wake of Devries: Revisiting the Extension of Maritime Jurisdiction Over Asbestos Claims” by Brian J. Schneider, a shareholder at Moran Reeves Conn PC in Richmond, Va. This article explores the impact of the recent Supreme Court decision in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries. The article examines admiralty law and its applicability to proof issues relating to equipment manufacturers’ liability for component parts.

About the International Association of Defense Counsel
The IADC is the preeminent invitation-only global legal organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance interests. Founded in 1920, the IADC’s members hail from six continents, 52 countries and territories, and all 50 U.S. states. The core purposes of the IADC are to enhance the development of skills, promote professionalism, and facilitate camaraderie among its members, their clients, as well as the broader civil justice community.

Senators from both parties criticized a nominee for a federal appeals court for declining to answer questions Wednesday about his work in the Trump White House and Education Department, according to an Associated Press report.

Trump has nominated Steven Menashi, an associate White House counsel, to a seat on the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Senators from both parties at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing complained as Menashi refused to answer questions about his work on immigration issues, including a policy to separate migrant children from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border.

“This isn’t supposed to be a game,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Menashi.

Read the AP report.

A federal court document filed by Jones Day and local counsel Gentry Locke appeared to contain many redactions to protect grand jury information in a criminal case against their pharmaceutical client, reports the ABA Journal.

When it was discovered that the redactions could be read by cutting and pasting the blacked-out sections into a new document, U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent ordered the law firms on Wednesday to show cause why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for the error.

The client is Indivior, a U.K.-based addiction-treatment company that makes an under-the-tongue form of the opioid dependence drug Suboxone.

Read the ABA Journal article.

Politico is reporting that Sen. Ted Cruz will oppose President Donald Trump’s nominee for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Halil Suleyman “Sul” Ozerden, a major setback for the embattled nomination.

The report says conservative opposition places in doubt the future of Ozerden, who is a close friend of acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and whose nomination Mulvaney pushed over the objections of the White House Counsel’s office.

“Unlike most other Trump judicial nominees, Ozerden lacks explicit backing from conservative judicial groups like the Judicial Crisis Network,” Politico reports. “Carrie Severino, the group’s chief counsel, wrote last year that ‘we could do better than Judge Ozerden’ in Mississippi.”

Read the Politico article.

The Washington Post reports that state attorneys general  are initiating sweeping antitrust investigations against Silicon Valley’s largest companies, probing whether they undermine rivals and harm consumers.

More than 40 attorneys general are expected to announce their plan to investigate Google, delivering a rare rebuke of the search-and-advertising giant — and its efforts to maintain that dominance — from the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, writes the Post‘s Tony Romm.

Romm explains that the states are potent actors in their own right, with the power to invoke local laws on antitrust and consumer-protection and to tap Washington’s antitrust statutes on behalf of their residents.

Read the  Post article.

The company that owns a scuba dive boat that caught fire and sank off California, killing 34 people, has sought to avoid liability by invoking a 19th-century law that has shielded vessel owners from costly disasters such as the sinking of the Titanic, according to reports from Reuters and the Los Angeles Times.

“Accidents that occur on land with a similar death toll could lead to more than $100 million in damages, lawyers said,” Reuters reports. “But on the water, maritime law applies, and any lawsuits will run up against the statute invoked late on Thursday by Truth Aquatics, which allows the owner of a vessel and its insurer to escape or severely limit its liability in certain cases.”

Owners of the boat have cited an 1851 statute in asking a judge to eliminate their financial liability or lower it to an amount equal to the post-fire value of the boat, or $0. The owner of the Titanic, which sank in 1912, limited its liability in lawsuits in the United States to $92,000, which was the value of the lifeboats that survived the accident.

Read the Reuters article.