Expert Analysis

• 1st Gender Care Ban Provides Context For High Court Case

  

  The history of Arkansas' ban on gender-affirming medical care — the first such legislation in the U.S. — provides important insight into the far-reaching ramifications that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti next term will have on transgender healthcare, says Tyler Saenz at Baker Donelson.

• Texas Ethics Opinion Flags Hazards Of Unauthorized Practice

  

  The Texas Professional Ethics Committee's recently issued proposed opinion finding that in-house counsel providing legal services to the company's clients constitutes the unauthorized practice of law is a valuable clarification given that a UPL violation — a misdemeanor in most states — carries high stakes, say Hilary Gerzhoy and Julienne Pasichow at HWG.

• 6 Lessons From DOJ's 1st Controlled Drug Case In Telehealth

  

  Following the U.S. Department of Justice’s first-ever criminal prosecution over telehealth-prescribed controlled substances in U.S. v. Ruthia He, healthcare providers should be mindful of the risks associated with restricting the physician-patient relationship when crafting new business models, says Jonathan Porter at Husch Blackwell.

• 2 Options For Sackler Family After High Court Purdue Ruling

  

  After the U.S. Supreme Court recently blocked Purdue Pharma's plan to shield the family that owns the company from bankruptcy lawsuits, the Sacklers face the choice to either continue litigation, or return to the bargaining table for a settlement that doesn't eliminate creditor claims, says Gregory Germain at Syracuse University.

• In Memoriam: The Modern Administrative State

  

  On June 28, the modern administrative state, where courts deferred to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, died when the U.S. Supreme Court overruled its previous decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council — but it is survived by many cases decided under the Chevron framework, say Joseph Schaeffer and Jessica Deyoe at Babst Calland.

• Revisiting Scalia's 'What's It To You?' After Kaiser Ruling

  

  While the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser allows insurers to be considered "parties in interest" in Chapter 11 cases, they still need to show they would face an injury in fact, answering the late Justice Antonin Scalia's "what's it to you?" question, say Brent Weisenberg and Jeff Prol at Lowenstein Sandler.

• How To Clean Up Your Generative AI-Produced Legal Drafts

  

  As law firms increasingly rely on generative artificial intelligence tools to produce legal text, attorneys should be on guard for the overuse of cohesive devices in initial drafts, and consider a few editing pointers to clean up AI’s repetitive and choppy outputs, says Ivy Grey at WordRake.

• Calif. Ruling Heightens Medical Product Maker Liability

  

  The California Supreme Court's decision in Himes v. Somatics last month articulates a new causation standard for medical product manufacturer liability that may lead to stronger product disclosures nationwide and greater friction between manufacturers and physicians, say attorneys at Cooley.

• Series

  Boxing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Boxing has influenced my legal work by enabling me to confidently hone the skills I've learned from the sport, like the ability to remain calm under pressure, evaluate an opponent's weaknesses and recognize when to seize an important opportunity, says Kirsten Soto at Clyde & Co.

• Purdue Ch. 11 Ruling Reinforces Importance Of D&O Coverage

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, holding that a Chapter 11 reorganization cannot discharge claims against a nondebtor without affected claimants' consent, will open new litigation pathways surrounding corporate insolvency and increase the importance of robust directors and officers insurance, says Evan Bolla at Harris St. Laurent.

• Opinion

  Industry Self-Regulation Will Shine Post-Chevron

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's Loper decision will shape the contours of industry self-regulation in the years to come, providing opportunities for this often-misunderstood practice, says Eric Reicin at BBB National Programs.

• 3 Ways Agencies Will Keep Making Law After Chevron

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court clearly thinks it has done something big in overturning the Chevron precedent that had given deference to agencies' statutory interpretations, but regulated parties have to consider how agencies retain significant power to shape the law and its meaning, say attorneys at K&L Gates.

• Opinion

  Atty Well-Being Efforts Ignore Root Causes Of The Problem

  

  The legal industry is engaged in a critical conversation about lawyers' mental health, but current attorney well-being programs primarily focus on helping lawyers cope with the stress of excessive workloads, instead of examining whether this work culture is even fundamentally compatible with lawyer well-being, says Jonathan Baum at Avenir Guild.

• Parsing Justices' Toss Of Purdue's Controversial Ch. 11 Plan

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent nixing of OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma's Chapter 11 proposal prevents the Sackler family from settling thousands of civil opioid lawsuits without the consent of all of the plaintiffs, and holds profound implications for bankruptcy cases, say attorneys at MoloLamken.

• Calif. Long-Tail Ruling Continues Policyholder-Friendly Trend

  

  The California Supreme Court's recent ruling in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum, rejecting horizontal policy exhaustion, was the latest in a string of its decisions involving insurance coverage for continuous or progressive injury claims that favor policyholders, say Billie Mandelbaum and David Goodwin at Covington.