Litigation Practice Group Podcast Mark A. Behrens February 04, 2014
There is a split among appellate courts in the United States over medical monitoring – court-ordered payments to plaintiffs who have been exposed to some potentially harmful product or situation but have no symptoms. Is a present injury a fundamental prerequisite to any award? Should the person or entity that created the product or situation be required to pay plaintiffs for periodic medical testing? Most, but not all, courts say no. Mark Behrens discussed medical monitoring, when and where it might be required, and the latest trends.
- Mark A. Behrens, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P.
[Listen now!] Criminal Law & Procedure and Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been involved in a lengthy legal battle over campaign finance activities in the 2002 election cycle. On September 19, 2013, a Texas court overturned Delay's previous conviction for money laundering, citing the evidence as legally insufficient to sustain his convictions. Our experts provided some summary of previous developments and technical background on the campaign finance aspects of the case, and offered a balanced discussion of the First Amendment issues at play.
- Benjamin T. Barr, Counsel, Wyoming Liberty Group
- Dr. Craig Holman, Government Affairs Lobbyist, Public Citizen
- Moderator: Dean Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
[Listen now!] SCOTUScast 08-04-10 featuring Richard A. Samp
Richard A. Samp August 04, 2010
On March 30, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District v. United States ex rel. Wilson. This case concerns the False Claims Act (FCA), which authorizes the Attorney General and private qui tam relators to recover from persons who make false or fraudulent claims to the United States. The FCA, however, bars qui tam actions based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in, among other things, "a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation." The question in this case is whether this bar applies to actions based on public disclosures made in state and local reports, hearings, audits, or investigations in addition to disclosures that come from federal sources of the same kind.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Court held that the part of the False Claims Act at issue does encompass disclosures made in state and local sources in addition to those made in federal sources.
To discuss the case, we have the Washington Legal Foundation's Chief Counsel, Richard A. Samp. Mr. Samp signed an amicus brief that the Washington Legal Foundation submitted in support of the petitioners. SCOTUScast 05-16-12 featuring David Olson
David S. Olson April 26, 2012
On April 18, 2012 the Supreme Court announced its decision in Kappos v. Hyatt. This case involves the Patent Act of 1952, under which an applicant who is denied a patent by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is permitted to challenge that decision by filing a lawsuit in federal court. The question here concerns the extent to which an applicant can introduce in federal court evidence that was not presented to the PTO--and the standard that the court should apply in considering such evidence.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held unanimously that when introducing new evidence in federal court, an applicant is not subject to limits beyond those set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence and of Civil Procedure. The Court further held that if such evidence pertains to disputed issues of fact, it should be assessed by the federal trial court under a de novo standard of review. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined.
To discuss the case, we have David Olson, who is an Assistant Professor at Boston College Law School.
Losing Confidence in Confidentiality: Do Expanding Exceptions to the Attorney-Client Privilege Gut Its Purpose? Engage Volume 13, Issue 1, March 2012
True or false: attorney-client communications, simply speaking, are privileged? False, both under law and—more importantly—in practice. That answer may surprise clients and even many lawyers. If it does, these clients have a problem: sensitive communications transmitted on the assumption of confidentiality may one day be ordered produced under a multitude of exceptions that now exist under the law. As the law has developed to erode the privilege, lawyers and clients—and especially insurance companies and their lawyers—may decide to operate on the assumption they will one day be compelled to produce their communications. They may prefer to avoid frank communication out of concern for creating written communications that could be troublesome in future litigation... [Read more!]