Keep your finger on the legal world's pulse

DLA Piper Vice Chair Loren Brown has outlined his strategy for adopting artificial intelligence (AI). Brown believes that AI will transform the business models of law firms, making them more efficient and shifting towards value-based billing. He also predicts that AI-driven business models will generate enough legal matters to compensate for the work taken away by machines. Brown emphasizes the importance of hiring data scientists and experts who understand AI to defend AI algorithms in courtrooms and with regulators. DLA Piper has already been involved in cases related to AI, defending Microsoft and OpenAI. The firm aims to build AI-fueled legal work products that deliver new insights and target areas amenable to alternative billing structures. Brown sees AI as a tool that complements great lawyers and gives firms a competitive advantage.

 

Bloomberg Law

Bloomberg Tax

Mitigate risk, ensure compliance and impress the board

The 2024 Whistleblowing & Incident Management Benchmark Report by NAVEX offers data on 1.8 million incidents to help you:

• Proactively mitigate legal risks with insights on current reporting trends
• Fortify your defense leveraging data-driven program benchmarks
• Impress your board with clear data and comparative program metrics

Download your free copy! Leverage data-driven insights to strengthen your compliance program and gain a competitive edge.

Download Now

 

TikTok is preparing for a legal battle after President Joe Biden signed a law calling for its forced sale or ban in the United States. The new law, passed as part of a foreign aid package, aims to dismantle the app due to concerns over data privacy and Chinese government influence. Legal experts are divided on the law's constitutionality, with some arguing it avoids previous legal pitfalls while others believe it still faces hurdles. TikTok executives have pledged to challenge the law in court, potentially tying up the case for months. The outcome of the legal battle could have significant implications for American speech freedoms in the internet age.

 

ABA Journal

Alesha Dominique and Ani Galoyan, intellectual property brands partners at Norton Rose Fulbright, explore the transformative impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) on the fashion industry. They discuss how this emerging technology not only boosts creativity and sustainability but also introduces significant legal challenges, particularly in the realm of trademark infringement. The use of generative AI can result in designs that mimic existing trademarks, potentially leading to consumer confusion and legal disputes. Recent lawsuits, such as those against Stability AI, have brought these issues to the forefront, underscoring the need for legal systems to evolve. The authors emphasize that while fashion designers could face direct trademark infringement charges, generative AI companies might not be held accountable under current laws. This scenario necessitates a legal reevaluation to ensure that the innovative use of AI in fashion does not sidestep intellectual property rights.

 

Bloomberg Law

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to a Pennsylvania ethics rule that prohibits lawyers from engaging in discriminatory or harassing conduct in the practice of law. The rule, which was amended during the litigation, defines harassment as conduct intended to intimidate or show hostility towards a person. The challenge was brought by a lawyer who feared that his continuing legal education seminars could be seen as harassment or discrimination under the rule. However, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the rule does not prevent the lawyer from quoting offensive language or expressing controversial opinions in his presentations. The American Bar Association noted that the Pennsylvania rule is similar but not identical to its own model rule. The lawyer's representative expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court's decision but was pleased that the rule was narrowed during the litigation.

 

ABA Journal

Los Angeles has experienced a surge in billboards and bus ads for personal injury law firms. These ads have become a prominent part of the city's landscape, alongside the entertainment industry. The abundance of legal service advertisements can be attributed to the need for brand awareness and the market conditions brought on by the pandemic. The decrease in advertising budgets during the economic downturn created more billboard space at a lower price, allowing law firms to take advantage of the opportunity. While the pandemic resulted in fewer car accidents and workplace accidents, the cost of ad space decreased, making it more accessible for injury lawyers. Billboards help develop a legal brand and contribute to the acquisition cost per case. Outdoor advertising delivers billions of impressions per week in the Los Angeles market, with legal services ads being highly recalled and engaged with by consumers. The cost of billboards varies depending on size and location. As the market recovered from the pandemic, the billboard industry boomed again, with personal injury law firms leading the expansion. However, having numerous billboard ads does not necessarily reflect the quality of a lawyer. Clients must do their due diligence before selecting a lawyer, as there may not be a correlation between advertising prowess and legal expertise.

 

Los Angeles Times

Cisco Systems has said that hackers have subverted some of its digital security devices to break in to government networks globally. The company's Adaptive Security Appliances, which combine various digital defense functions, were found to have vulnerabilities that were exploited by a group of hackers known as "UAT4356." Cisco described the group as a "sophisticated state-sponsored actor" and urged customers to update their software immediately. The breaches date back to earlier this year. Cisco also warned that the hackers were interested in attacking network devices from Microsoft and other vendors. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has not confirmed evidence of this activity affecting U.S. government networks.

 

Reuters

Major U.S. companies may be sued by their own shareholders for making political donations, according to a new legal strategy progressives are advocating to rein in corporate influence on elections. Shareholders have the right to sue if they disagree with how their money is spent, according to a report by the Center for American Progress. This could discourage executives from publicly traded companies from donating to political causes. The strategy could impact the 2024 elections, potentially hurting Republicans who receive more money from key sectors. The Citizens United ruling in 2010 allowed corporations and other groups to spend unlimited amounts on elections, leading to a surge in spending by outside groups. Some campaign finance lawyers are skeptical about the effectiveness of the strategy. Local jurisdictions have also implemented rules to restrict corporate spending in elections.

 

Bloomberg

Lawyers are seeking $217m in fees for their work on a class action lawsuit against Google. The lawsuit alleged that Google improperly retained users' web data while they used a private browsing setting. The lawyers, from Boies Schiller Flexner, Susman Godfrey, and Morgan & Morgan, are requesting the nine-figure fee, despite class members receiving no damages. The lawyers argue that their lodestar multiplier should not be denied, even though the court declined to award damages. Under the settlement, Google agreed to delete previously obtained data records and extend protections under the private browsing setting for the next five years. The plaintiffs' lawyers have already filed over 1,000 cases in California state court, with plans to file more. The fee award is scheduled to be determined in August.

 

Bloomberg Law

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Hydration LLC, a sports drink brand founded by Logan Paul, alleging that some of its products contain toxic "forever chemicals" at three times the recommended limit. The lawsuit accuses the company of fraudulently marketing its drinks as healthy, despite high levels of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) found in one of its flavors. PFAS chemicals are highly toxic and can cause various health problems. The Environmental Protection Agency has banned some PFAS chemicals, but there are thousands of different types. The lawsuit follows previous attention on Prime for its marketing tactics and elevated caffeine content. The company has marketing deals with major sports teams and athletes. The case is ongoing, and a decision is pending. "Every human on the planet has PFAS in their body," said Dr. Keith Vorst, a polymer and food protection expert.

 

NJ.com

The grocery chain Kroger has agreed to pay the state of Washington $47.5 million as part of a settlement for its role in the opioid epidemic. The state sued Kroger, along with Albertsons and Rite Aid, for failing to act as a check against the overprescription of opioids. The lawsuit against Albertsons and Rite Aid is still ongoing. The settlement money will be used to fight the opioid epidemic, with half going to the state and half going to local governments. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson stated that his legal team held some of the largest corporations accountable for fueling the opioid epidemic and has won over $1.2 billion to combat the crisis. The settlement is not yet finalized, but the Attorney General's Office is confident it will be.

 

The Columbian

Baker McKenzie has hired a group of 17 transactional lawyers, including nine partners and two counsel, from Munger Tolles & Olson in Los Angeles. The team will enhance Baker McKenzie's capabilities in M&A, private equity, funds, finance, and transactional tax matters. The nine former Munger Tolles partners joining Baker McKenzie include corporate specialists Jennifer Broder, Tyler Hilton, Kelly Kriebs, and Brett Rodda, funds advisers David Lee and Nikole Zoumberakis, banking and finance attorney Judith Kitano, and tax adviser Matthew Schonholz. Two former counsel, Michael Greaney and Kimberly Chi, are also joining Baker McKenzie as partners. Munger Tolles had around 220 lawyers, including 72 partners, prior to the team's departure. Colin Murray, Baker McKenzie's North America CEO, stated that the team's impeccable credentials and track record make them a natural extension of the firm's growth plan. The team has represented clients such as Intel, Oaktree Capital Management, and Berkshire Hathaway.

 

Bloomberg Law

The Global Legal Post

The Global Legal Post

Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP  has raised its starting salary for associates to $210,000, effective immediately. The firm aims to attract talented and skilled attorneys to serve its clients regionally, nationally, and internationally. Potter Anderson Chair Peter J. Walsh, Jr. emphasized the firm's commitment to offering competitive compensation and benefits to its attorneys. The firm's attorneys are consistently recognized as top lawyers by leading legal industry rankings and publications.

 

LawFuel

Workers at big retail and grocery stores in unincorporated L.A. County will have more control over their schedules starting next summer. The L.A. County Board of Supervisors has passed a law requiring employers to provide schedules two weeks in advance, compensate for last-minute changes, and space out shifts by at least 10 hours. The ordinance, effective July 2025, applies to retailers and grocers with 300 or more employees nationwide. The policy aims to benefit both retailers and workers, providing a predictable schedule for workers to plan their lives. The law is similar to the "fair work week" ordinance passed by the City of Los Angeles. However, business and trade groups argue that the policy will complicate scheduling and burden businesses. The county's Department of Consumer and Business Affairs will enforce the policy, with penalties ranging from $500 to $1000 per violation. Advocates hope other industries will adopt similar regulations.

 

Los Angeles Times

A U.S. appeals court has rejected Starbucks' claims that a union election at its flagship Seattle store was invalid due to being held via mail ballot during the COVID-19 pandemic. The three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a National Labor Relations Board decision, stating that the company must recognize and bargain with the store's union. Starbucks argued that the election was unsafe and used incorrect data, but the court disagreed. The ruling comes amid a nationwide union organizing campaign at Starbucks. Business groups and lawmakers have criticized the use of mail-ballot elections, claiming they lower voter participation and jeopardize workers' rights. Workers at over 420 Starbucks stores have voted to unionize since 2021. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a separate appeal by Starbucks of a ruling requiring it to rehire seven employees at a Memphis café who were fired as they pursued unionization.

 

US News and World Report