Boies Schiller Flexner LLP’s Post

Admitted Attorneys and Candidate Attorneys… Those who have written the board exams before, what advice can you give a recent graduate who is still yet to write those exams. Do you think there is an issue with the exams in the recent years compared to the past papers? The results are reflecting a huge decline Please share your thoughts

2025 Hourly Rate Trends to Watch Now – Firms Billing 3rd Year Associate Hourly Rates at or over $1,000 Higher hourly rates are being billed by less experienced Associates. Currently, 15 of the AMLAW 50 firms have 3rd Year Associates billing at $1,000 or more per hour. Expect that number (of firms) to go to 30, or 60% of the AMLAW 50 in 2025. Additionally, only 2 firms in the AMLAW 51-100 have $1,000+ Associate hourly rates; that number will go to 10 total in 2025. So, for 2025, 40% of the AMLAW 100 will have 3rd Year Associates billing at $1,000 or more per hour. And, only one Magic Circle firm has Associate rates in the $1K+ category; we forecast that 1 - 2 more Magic Circle firms will join-in by 2025. Upcoming Key Hourly Rate Inflection Points ·     June and July AMLAW 200 Associate Rate Changes ·     Magic Circle May 1st Rate Changes

2025 Hourly Rate Trends to Watch Now – Firms Billing 3rd Year Associate Hourly Rates at or over $1,000 Higher hourly rates are being billed by less experienced Associates. Currently, 15 of the AMLAW 50 firms have 3rd Year Associates billing at $1,000 or more per hour. Expect that number (of firms) to go to 30, or 60% of the AMLAW 50 in 2025. Additionally, only 2 firms in the AMLAW 51-100 have $1,000+ Associate hourly rates; that number will go to 10 total in 2025. So, for 2025, 40% of the AMLAW 100 will have 3rd Year Associates billing at $1,000 or more per hour. And, only one Magic Circle firm has Associate rates in the $1K+ category; we forecast that 1 - 2 more Magic Circle firms will join-in by 2025. Upcoming Key Hourly Rate Inflection Points ·     June and July AMLAW 200 Associate Rate Changes ·     Magic Circle May 1st Rate Changes

As you know, Lorino fees have been an ongoing topic of debate over the past couple of years. In Lorino v. WCAB, 266 A.3d 487 (Pa. 2021), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that Section 440(a) of the Act provides Judges with discretion to award attorney’s fees in contested cases where claimant prevails, regardless of whether employer establishes a reasonable contest. The Lorino case has raised questions among Judges, attorneys and claims professionals since its circulation. To address some of these concerns, I recently interviewed Valerie Lieberman and Jenifer Dana Kaufman to gain insight from defense and claimant perspectives. Here are some of the questions that were raised: · Should Claimants’ counsel automatically be entitled to Lorino fees when employer presents a reasonable basis to contest a claim, but counsel is not receiving a fee from any other source?   · At what point does Claimants’ counsel hourly rate become unreasonable? Should counsel’s hourly rate exceed the rate of defense counsel with same level of knowledge and experience?   · Are there any situations where Lorino fees should be denied when counsel is not receiving a fee from any other source, but claimant ultimately prevails in litigation? I’d love to hear your thoughts about these issues. #lorinofees #reasonablecontest #employersliability #contestedclaims #Workers' Compensation Section https://lnkd.in/e6S-c885

From CPA Trendlines: New Comment on The Slow, Painful Death of the 150-Hour Rule by Alan: Attorneys have forever required (in most states) an undergraduate degree and 3 years of law school to sit for the bar exam. These students have a significantly higher cost barrier to entry into their profession then CPAs. I have not heard any complaints regarding the cost of law school coming from law school students.. I see no reason why the 150 hour rule be changed. Watering down the requirements to obtain a CPA license I believe will threaten the cross-border reciprocity that the AICPA fought very hard for across the country. Once the 150 hour rule is not the law of the land, I believe that there will be a quick withdrawal of cross reciprocity causing even greater problems. You do not want to lower in any manner the degree of difficulty to obtain the certificate. http://dlvr.it/TF6vll

In the 23andMe MDL, we filed a brief today arguing for a new paradigm for Courts to evaluate leadership motions in class actions. The basics are below, but you can check out the Reuters coverage here: https://lnkd.in/eRKaFjig.  We start with the premise that under the current framework, courts are put in an uncomfortable position: first, pick the lawyer for the class—evaluating their backgrounds and proposed strategy in the case—and then snap back to the decider role when those strategies play out. The result is generally large bloated "consensus" teams that lead to quick and really bad settlements. So what to do? The answer we suggest is unusual: let's ask the class. With the help of incredible professors Alissa Del Riego and Joseph Avery, we ran a survey asking the class what they wanted to see in a lead firm. And the results were illuminating:  1. A smaller, more efficient lead team  2. Lawyers with proven track records in the specific legal claims being brought  3. A record of really good settlements in similar cases  4. Financially strong firms - we argue that a good proxy is to see which firms took PPP money during the pandemic.  5. Firms that want to litigate the case and have done real investigatory work instead of those that want to settle without having done the work And, wait for it.... 6. Firms that deliver high claims rates. But here's the part that gets us uninvited to the plaintiff's parties. The class also cares about cost. So, we are doing the unthinkable: we're saying up front that we won't seek the lessor of (a) 20% of the actual real benefits to the class (not cy pres, unclaimed funds or injunctive relief) or (b) the percentage of the class that files valid claims. That is, if there's a 5% claims rate, we will seek no more than 5% of the fees. As we've argued at conferences, if courts adopt this as a rule, the days of anemic claims rates will be done, just like coupon settlements were ended post CAFA. Really excited to get this idea out into the world. #classaction, #mdl, #reform

Jay Edelson’s firm continues to lead. The “new paradigm” for class action lead counsel selection discussed below is great stuff. And it could also be more broadly applied with small modifications to Rule 23 adequacy of counsel analysis as well. #classactions #consumerprotection #rule23 #frcp23

Another strikeout in getting Rule 36 Judgments eliminated. The Court denied the combined panel rehearing and rehearing en banc petition from Island Intellectual Property LLC on Monday, which was expected. Under Federal Circuit Rule 36 (a) Judgment of Affirmance Without Opinion.  The court may enter a judgment of affirmance without opinion, citing this rule, when it determines that any of the following conditions exist and an opinion would have no precedential value: (1) the judgment, decision, or order of the trial court appealed from is based on findings that are not clearly erroneous; (2) the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict is sufficient; (3) the record supports summary judgment, directed verdict, or judgment on the pleadings; (4) the decision of an administrative agency warrants affirmance under the standard of review in the statute authorizing the petition for review; or (5) a judgment or decision has been entered without an error of law. The Court has addressed this (use of Rule 36) issue before, and the Supreme Court has denied cert for many petitions arguing Rule 36 is improper. For appellants a Rule 36 Judgment seems unjust, especially when the Court violates its own rule above. For appealed agency decisions (PTAB Final Written Decisions and Appeal Decisions), only (4) and (5) could apply. Under Court precedent addressing standard of review, The Board’s decision is reviewed under the standards set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Yeda Research v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Those standards require this Court to "decide all relevant questions of law" and to set aside agency actions that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Deciding all relevant questions of law is not optional, yet there are instances where legitimate issues of law are raised in an appeal that are necessary for the decision, including claim construction, which the panel fails to address. To be fair, arguments addressing legal issues are often "he said, she said" and for those cases a Rule 36 is appropriate. But in too many cases, the issuance of Rule 36 is arbitrary and capricious, especially when identical legal issues are raised on appeal and the Court issues a Rule 36 in one case and a precedential opinion in another.

I passed the South Carolina bar exam? Shocking, I know.... Although I've been licensed since 2016 and scored over 300 then too--and am fully barred in 7 other states (IA, MN, WI, IL, NC, GA, and CO)--there is no reciprocity in South Carolina. Because there's no reciprocity, I've been provisionally barred as a military spouse under Rule 430. But my wife is set to discharge honorably from the Navy on 6/1/24, so my time was coming to an end--unless I passed the bar. I'd petitioned the SC Supreme Court to waive the bar exam requirement for me. I'd submitted affidavits from 8 practicing attorneys here to establish my competency. It was a long shot, I knew it--and they denied it. No surprise there. So I took that silly test to prove....nothing? Does passing the non-state specific exam establish minimum competency for state specific law? I suppose opinions can differ. They must, or I wouldn't have taken this test. I'd felt confident after the test. Really wasn't too worried one way or another, things would work out just fine. But that doesn't mean it hasn't been a stressful couple of weeks while I've waited for the results I obtained today--even if I figured what the result would be. Failure would've left unfinished business. I also wasted a lot of economically productive hours in February. But I wouldn't have passed had I failed to study. But now that I'm about to be a full member of the SC bar, I'll be the first to advocate for the elimination of the bar exam--and for reasonable reciprocity rules. Because a non-specific state exam doesn't establish minimum competency. I was tested on res ipsa and contrib negligence for example, neither of which are recognized in SC. Lastly, the lack of reciprocity hurts its own members who end up wanting to practice outside of SC, especially in the neighboring states of GA and NC. States generally don't grant reciprocity to other states who don't allow reciprocity. That's enough for today. Tonight I'm taking the family out for pizza.

A welcome step by CBIC- Mandatory virtual hearing for adjudication and appellate proceedings under GST. My observations- 1. As a substantial part of my work is litigation, I have observed that virtual mode of hearing is a blessing. Though the first appellate authority ( CGST offices ) has always granted virtual hearing to us, it was being granted on request. The new instruction dated 5th November, 2024 states that the virtual hearing is mandatory and the physical mode of hearing shall be granted only upon receipt of specific request by concerned person and after recording reasons in writing. 2. Though we have always appeared through virtual mode in appellate proceedings conducted by CGST offices, same privilege is not there for proceedings conducted by SGST offices. This disparity needs to be removed urgently. 3. From my experience, I can say that the virtual mode of hearing gives comfort that is unmatched. You don’t need to visit the officer. You don’t need to wait there for hours and hours. Instead of informal talks, you can make to the point submission in virtual mode. Your drafting and presentation skills matter a lot. No unnecessary wastage of time and energy. It is a real blessing for practitioners like us. 4. The transparency provided by a virtual mode of hearing is incredible. The nuisance of demand of unlawful gratification is removed to a significant extent by virtual mode of hearing. I wish to see 100 % virtual hearings in appellate proceeding for CGST as well as SGST offices. If we wish to progress as a country, transparency and accountability in the departmental proceedings are indispensable. #gst #Law #ca #litigation #gstupdates #caaspirants Brijesh Thakar & Associates - Chartered Accountants