“Five former Nixon Peabody partners allege that their former law firm tried to punish them for jumping to DLA Piper by trying to claw back bonuses and withholding money in support of the effort,” summarizes Debra Cassens Weiss in ABA Journal’s Law Firms.

“Their mediation petition, filed Tuesday in New York state court, claims that Nixon Peabody’s bonus clawback provision restricts partners from practicing law where they choose. As a result, the provision is unenforceable under New York law, the petition says.”

“The partners resigned from Nixon Peabody in June 2019, the same month their bonuses for fiscal year 2018 were paid in full, the petition says. The partners each were awarded a bonus of $100,000 or more for fiscal year 2018, which ended Jan. 31, 2019. Nixon Peabody did not allow the partners to begin work at their new firm until July 16, 2019, according to the petition.”

Read the article.

“The Eleventh Circuit has clarified the scope of the ‘local event exception’ to the federal-court jurisdiction over ‘mass actions’ conferred by the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), holding that claims by former foundry employees against manufacturers and distributors of products used at the foundry are not within the exception,” posted Valerie Sanders in Eversheds Sutherland’s 11 Circuit Business Blog.

“The plaintiffs in the case are 230 former workers at a now-closed Alabama foundry.  They worked in different jobs at different times, but all claim that they were harmed by exposure to hazardous chemicals during their employment.  The defendants are unrelated companies that manufactured (and in some cases distributed) chemical products used at the foundry, including sands, resins, gases, and other substances of various formulations.  The plaintiffs’ complaint, originally filed in state court, includes several claims, all arising from the allegation that the ‘normal and foreseeable’ use of the defendants’ products at the foundry caused the ‘formation and release of hazardous and carcinogenic chemical substances,’ which harmed them.”

Read the article.

“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.

“Legal technologies promise to flourish in the coming decade, and although it is not possible to predict all the innovations that are likely to become mainstream, the use of smart contracts appears to be on the rise. A typical smart contract uses computers and code to automate performance of some or all of the parties’ obligations. However, the legal terms of the contract are likely to remain in written form in a contract that people can read. If a dispute arises, the parties may prefer arbitration as an alternative to court, but arbitration doesn’t happen on its own – it typically requires a properly drafted arbitration clause.”

Steven K. Davidson, Michael J. Baratz, Jared R. Butcher and Molly Bruder Fox provide some tips in Steptoe’s News/Publications to keep in mind when considering how to draft these clauses.

Read the article.

“Let’s assume the mediator sticks his head into your room with a grin at 8pm after an exhaustive day when your client is still upset he made the 8^th counteroffer and the Mediator says: “Great news! Counter-offer accepted! We have a deal!” Wonderful, right? Even though your client was pushed way past what he came ready to do that day, you have a deal. So what mistakes are made when it comes to confirming the long sought, hard fought deal?” asks David K. Taylor in Buildsmart Mediation.

“This post is a continuation of the 10 most horrible, terrible, no good, “bang your head against the door” mistakes that I have seen lawyers make before, during and after mediations in which I was the mediator. As stated in previous posts, it takes more than throwing together a mediation statement at the last second and showing up at the mediation. Doing it right requires the same kind of due diligence and work that goes into preparing for a key deposition or even trial. Great “mediation” lawyering is essential and is the best way to get to an acceptable deal.”

Read the Top 10 mistakes made in mediations.

Holland & Knight offers some tips for preparing a memorandum of understanding or similar agreement executed at the conclusion of the mediation.

Authors Gregory R. Meeder and Lisa M. Kpor explain:

“An agreement reached at the conclusion of a mediation session typically represents an abbreviated version of a formal settlement agreement that will be entered into by the parties at a later date. Occasionally, however, parties are unable to finalize the comprehensive settlement agreement, and the terms of the memorandum of understanding become vital to resolving related disputes.”

The discuss seven important points to cover in drafting the memorandum.

Read the article.