July 2007

Letter from the Online Editor

Welcome to the July, 2007, issue of Litigation News Online! Almost one-third of this issue is devoted to recent developments in the business of law. Our lead story on page reports on a recent survey conducted by the American Corporate Counsel Association reflecting in-house corporate counsels’ pervasive dissatisfaction with the outside firms they use. A second article summarizes recent bar association ethics opinions authorizing foreign outsourcing of legal services. Another piece, prompted by an ABA survey of women attorneys of color, reports that their levels of progress and promotion at law firms throughout the country lags far behind that of their peers. We have an ethics feature that summarizes a recent decision (that is consistent with prior rulings) prohibiting counsel from ghostwriting pleadings for pro se litigants without due disclosure.

Three articles discuss emergent federal procedural issues, including one summarizing recent decisions expanding the availability of U.S. discovery procedures for use in foreign legal proceedings. We report on a recent case where the court held, on the basis of the “common interest doctrine,” that the attorney-client privilege was not waived by a corporation’s disclosure of confidential documents to the SEC. Another story marshals the federal appellate courts’ varying rules as to whether pre-2007 unpublished opinions may be cited in briefs.

Five stories cover recent decisions of national and regional import: we report on a Supreme Court decision holding that EPA is authorized to regulate greenhouse gases; An en banc Ninth Circuit opinion, holding that crime victims may garnish a criminal defendant’s retirement funds pursuant to a restitution order; and an article on a recent appellate decision in Maryland that rejects the majority rule in the U.S. and finds actionable unmanifested product defect claims, even absent personal injury. We cover a recent decision in New Jersey holding that a litigant, in the punitive damages phase of a trial, may offer evidence of no insurance coverage to the jury. Rounding out our nationwide update, we report on a recent California appellate decision finding that employers’ payments to settle employees’ wage and hour claims may be covered by insurance.

Finally, the “Young Lawyers’ Corner,” features an article on jury confusion regarding the critical phrase, “reasonable doubt,” and ways to clarify it.

As always, we provide hyperlinks within the stories to facilitate further reading on the topic. You will also find additional hyperlinks at the end of some articles to aid in further study and research. We hope you enjoy our July issue, and we welcome invite your comments and suggestions.

Chuck Fax
Online Editor
Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC