Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)
Today’s lead story in PLW is a look at the effect Justice Joan Orie Melvin’s suspension will have on the state Supreme Court. As reporters Zack Needles and Ben Present write, the high court might have lost its tiebreaker based on a study of cases over the past two years.
Below the fold on Page 1, Ben Present writes that new juvenile rules aim to protect confidentiality.
On Page 3, Ben Present writes that the Commonwealth Court has ruled there is no benefits exception for “funded” employment.
There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about lawyers drafting pleadings without signing their names; Sam Pond and Allison Wheeler’s Workers’ Compensation commentary on the real goal behind eliminating administrative burdens; and Shira J. Goodman and Lynn A. Marks’ Judiciary commentary on why sufficient funding and willing citizens are critical to the courts.
The top story in today’s Legal is Dechert’s products liability and mass torts group no longer serving as the king of the firm’s litigation focus. As reporter Gina Passarella writes, the firm has lost at least five products liability partners since last year and has adjusted its focus in some ways.
Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sympathized with Blank Rome and another law firm in a document battle between a defunct corporation and the government, which is seeking hundreds of allegedly privileged documents being held by Blank Rome. The company tried to appeal a district court order granting the government’s request for the documents, but was ultimately dismissed, although a split three-judge panel took a sympathetic view of the position the law firms were in.
In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court justices have agreed to hear arguments on whether medical malpractice defendants may rely on an “error in judgment” defense at trial.
In a Health Care Law column on Page 5, Vasilios J. Kalogredis and Karilynn Bayus write about the dilemma of recovering costs in an overpayment victory.
In an Intellectual Property column on Page 7, Paul F. Prestia and Antranig Baronian write that patent clearance opinions are still important and still relevant.
If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.