The National Law Journal

Trump Suspends Paul Weiss Security Clearances, WH Spokes Says

Litigators Question Trump's Memo Demanding Plaintiffs Pay Burdensome Bonds

Trump Takes Aim at ‘Crooked Law Firms' in DOJ Speech

In 'Deal Mode': CFTC Chair Pushes for Quick Compliance Settlements

From watching law-based movies to wearing certain articles of clothing, it turns out lawyers do believe in superstitions and engage in a variety of pre-trial rituals. Georgia attorney Kevin Adamson shared that his good luck ritual involved watching a specific movie scene. "When I was a brand new lawyer, I learned about lawyer superstitions from a very well-respected lawyer that said before every trial, she would watch Atticus Finch's closing argument in 'To Kill A Mockingbird' and that sounded like a great idea because she said it reminded her of why she was trying each case," Adamson wrote. "I thought I'd try it and it was the most miserable trial I've ever tried because, while I love Gregory Peck, I didn't like the book in school and nothing about it inspired me." But instead of ditching the pre-trial ritual, Adamson said he swapped movies after stumbling upon a certain 1992 courtroom comedy. "I'm getting ready for another trial and my father is watching 'My Cousin Vinny' and I sat down and realized Vinny and I had something in common. Neither of us really knew what we were doing but he was authentic in trying his best for his clients," Adamson said. "Now, before every trial, I watch 'My Cousin Vinny' to remind me to be authentic with my jury and I’d like to think it’s helped me be a pretty decent trial lawyer for the last couple of decades." More lawyer lucky charms and rituals from Cedra Mayfield: https://lnkd.in/eNE9mM4z

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday unanimously upheld former Uber security chief Joseph Sullivan’s 2022 conviction on charges he covered up a massive data breach at the company and obstructed a regulator's investigation into its security practices. Sullivan had only been on the job a few months when two hackers broke into Uber's Amazon data storage server and swiped the personal information of 57 million app users, including names, phone numbers, email addresses and 600,000 driver's license numbers. Sullivan said he knew the breach would be embarrassing for Uber if it were made public. Just days before, he'd given a lengthy deposition to the FTC on Uber's progress in tightening security as part of the regulator's continuing investigation into the 2014 incident. So he chose to deal with the situation quietly, paying the two hackers $100,000 in Bitcoin through Uber's white hat bug bounty program while continuing to help Uber's in-house legal team negotiate a settlement that would bring the regulatory agency's investigation to a close. Along with in-house attorney Craig Clark, who got immunity in exchange for his testimony, Sullivan pursued an aggressive legal theory that they believed would settle the matter without having to report the breach to the FTC. Sullivan argued in his appeal to the Ninth Circuit that the Department of Justice had built its case on "innuendo," asking the jury to view Uber's bug bounty program "not as an effective way to protect users, but as hush money. It faulted Mr. Sullivan for not directing Uber's legal department to notify the FTC (a job for Uber's CEO, if anyone) and for not editing submissions to the FTC that Mr. Sullivan had not drafted, signed, and in some instances even read. The government theorized, without proof, that Mr. Sullivan was motivated by a need to protect his own reputation as a cybersecurity professional." But Thursday’s?20-page appeals court ruling?sided with the government on all of those grounds. Writing for the court, Judge Margaret McKeown noted, “Despite the similarities between the 2016 incident and the 2014 incident that the FTC already was investigating, no one at Uber informed the FTC of this new breach. Instead, unbeknownst to federal officials, Sullivan and a group of Uber staffers decided to track down the hackers and pressure them into signing a nondisclosure agreement … that purported to re-characterize the hack as ‘research’ into ‘vulnerabilities’ under Uber’s Bug Bounty Program.” Full story from Greg Andrews: https://lnkd.in/eGXRBheE

What's Binding Circuit Precedent Post-Chevron? Appeals Court Showdown Could Come

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner experienced a year of slowed, but continued, growth in 2024, as the firm continued its rebound from a?challenging 2022 fiscal year?through strategic investments in key practices and markets. Profits per equity partner rose 1.9% to $1.36 million, as the firm saw a slight decline in its equity partner ranks, from 91 to 87. Meanwhile, the nonequity tier grew 25.4%, from 29 to 36. Managing partner Erika Harmon Arner said the decrease in equity partners was partly due to several equity partners retiring, and one who departed for a job as in-house counsel with a client. “We have many equity partners who retire from Finnegan, several each year, typically,” she said, adding that many of the firm’s partners “stay their entire legal careers.” With overall head count stable at 282, Finnegan’s revenue per lawyer increased 3.3% to $1.24 million in 2024. Last year the firm accelerated investments into expanding its platform, opening new operations in Europe and diversifying its IP-focused practice areas. “We really intentionally made some long-term investments, and we are already seeing payoff from those, and it's been very exciting for the firm,” Arner said. Arner said that Finnegan’s partners embraced changes to their firm’s structure in prior years. “In 2022, after such a banner year in 2021, our partners were fully on board with making some significant investments and using some of that profit towards the growth of the firm over the long term,” Arner said. Full story from Samson Amore: https://lnkd.in/e6ED3ENu

South America’s largest oil and gas company has reached a $283 million settlement in a civil case that accused a Brazilian government enterprise of defrauding U.S. investors. Plaintiffs represented by Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel ended their nine-year legal dispute with Brazil’s state-owned energy company Petrobras, according to a stipulation filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. Hogan Lovells represented Petrobras, one of the world’s largest energy producers also known as Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. Counsel for Petrobras and EIG reached a settlement March 7 requiring Petrobras to pay $283 million and the plaintiffs to permanently dismiss their lawsuit with prejudice. “The agreement does not constitute an admission of fault or wrongdoing by Petrobras and is entered into in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders, considering the peculiarities of U.S. Laws, which are applicable to the disputes, the stage of the lawsuit, and the characteristics of litigation before the U.S. Federal Courts,” according to a press release announcing the settlement. Full story from Sulaiman Abdur-Rahman: https://lnkd.in/eAYJ5xEP

In one of his first executive orders promoting fossil fuels, President Donald Trump directed the Council on Environmental Quality to rescind National Environmental Policy Act regulations, upending the process by which the federal government assesses its actions for environmental impact. Set to go into effect April 11, the move is meant to quicken the environmental review process and, in keeping with Trump’s larger goals, make government more efficient. But removing CEQ’s ability to implement NEPA could leave federal agencies with a patchwork of regulations and leave NEPA reviews vulnerable to challenges from environmentalists, environmental lawyers said. Previously, each agency developed its own NEPA procedures and CEQ set the overarching NEPA regulations and ensured compliance across the federal government. And even though the regulations are repealed, NEPA remains the law. Columbia Law School professor Camille Pannu said most interpretations of NEPA processes and guidelines have been through case law, “so that’s not going to be repealed when the guidelines are repealed.” “Taking away the ability to regulate or trying to rescind regulations in these manners doesn't actually change the regulatory reality,” added Pannu, who teaches environmental law. “People still have to comply with NEPA.” Holland & Knight partner Rafe Petersen said the NEPA process could get more streamlined once agencies adopt a full set of NEPA regulations rather than relying on CEQs. Still, “I think there's going to be a little chaos when the agencies all first adopt their regs,” Petersen said. “It's going to be a pretty decent workload, I'm sure, for them to pull this all together.” Full story from Dan N.: https://lnkd.in/e9Jdr4_e