'Diversity' has been a buzzword in the legal profession for decades. However, a  recent article in GP Solo, published by the American Bar Association, asserts diversity efforts have largely been aimed at law schools, large law firms and corporate counsel, thereby ignoring small law firms and solo practitioners.

Many small firm attorneys and private practitioners often wonder why or how they play a role in the diversification of the legal profession, according to Sandra Y. Yamate,  the Executive Director of the ABA Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession, and the author of that article, 

"It is misguided, however, to think that sole practitioners and small firm lawyers cannot do as much to advance diversity as their colleagues in larger organizations. Nothing could be further from the truth," she writes.

In an attempt to get some answers, Above the Law recently released a Small Law Firm Diversity Survey. Respondents were asked to consider several general statements pertaining to diversity, then provide long-form answers.

An example of the statements includes "'Having attorneys or staff from diverse backgrounds is a competitive advantage for small law firms.'" Of the more than 300 respondents who participated in the survey, nearly half strongly agreed with the contention. Just over 21% indicated they agreed and 19% stated they had no opinion. The remaining responses were divided between 'disagree' and 'strongly disagree.'

One response in favor of the statement asserted that a diverse workforce encourages a range of attitudes and potential solutions. The author concluded that “can only help client service.” Conversely, a comment from a respondent against the proposition indicated there is no evidence to support the contention.

Ambrose Moses, III, an African-American solo practitioner in Columbus, expressed dismay with the survey. "Some of the attitudes and mindsets illustrated by some of the comments included in the report are disappointing because it appears that some trained and licensed lawyers are ignorant of American history or have no desire to remedy the societal and individual harm caused by bias, discrimination and injustice."

He labeled some of the comments as "troublesome hindrances to our nation achieving legal, social and economic justice for all." He also express dismay that some of the responses might have been made by judges, court personnel, government attorneys (such as county prosecutors and their assistants), attorneys general (and their assistants), U.S. attorneys and their aides, general special counsel and more.

"This is not to ignore the impact of such attitudes and mindsets held by private attorneys in large and small firms. Rather, it is essential to recognize that when such attitudes and mindsets infect the ranks of our judges, government attorneys, and court personnel, then the bias, discrimination, and injustice continues to be systemic and, I submit, both de facto and de jure,” sums Moses.

Steve Smith, President and Founder of Los Angeles-based GrowthSource Coaching, mentors business people from a myriad of professions, including law. He too dismissed much of what was highlighted in the survey, although for different reasons than Moses.

"Most of what I’ve experienced runs counter to these findings but that could be the legal crowd I’m running around with," says Smith. “Small firms and solo practitioners are usually only focused on a few things: can I find someone I can work with; can I afford the best person I can find; will they stay with me after I teach them all my secrets,” he says.

That’s not to say Smith dismisses the importance of diversity for small firms or solo practitioners. However, he says, "I’m not sure it leaks into the daily practice of running a law firm."

The general consensus in the business world is to be "considered inclusive," says Smith. However, "when it comes to running a business, diversity isn’t usually the first consideration when deciding who to employ. Most of the time, a law firm’s first consideration is whether the candidate fits with the brand and whether they will get along."

Another school of thought in the business world, he says, is that "unless a person has a degree from a name university, maybe (the employer) can pay them less. They won’t pay top dollar unless the (candidate) is bringing a big pedigree.”

According to Smith. "Diversity is fine unless it creates big inconveniences for me and my business." In expressing support for diversity, in general, Smith urges people to be honest when discussing the topic.

"I’m not down on diversity but I want the discussion to be real. It’s one thing to say it but another to live it," he says.

Tami Kamin Meyer is an Ohio attorney and writer.

There's nothing more annoying than a deadbeat client. But, there are steps you can take to make this situation less onerous or to even avoid such situations altogether.

Identifying Problematic Clients Before You Get Stiffed

“The best time not to represent a client is at the beginning,” says Terry Zimmerman, a collections attorney from Akron, Ohio, who recently retired after 39 years of practicing law. Although the adage of ‘not judging a book by its cover’ might be appropriate when selecting reading material, there are telltale indications a would-be client may not pay his or her bill, Zimmerman says.

“If a client tells you they went to an attorney who has a good reputation but that attorney did not take the case, consider there’s probably a good reason why," he says. "The client might not be a good risk.”

A client who admits to have spoken with other lawyers prior to coming to you is likely shopping for the best price. "That’s another red flag,” Zimmerman says. Another clue is “when they ask the cost of a ‘simple divorce’ or a ‘simple bankruptcy,’” he says. The general public doesn’t generally appreciate what truly constitutes a case as ‘simple’ or ‘complex,’ so asking for a price upfront without explaining the variables of the matter are a red flag they won’t pay, Zimmerman suggests.

Robert B. Walker, an estate planning, collections and creditor’s rights bankruptcy attorney in Reston, Virginia, says he “worries about the ones who have been paying regularly but suddenly become slow pay.” When that happens, the client is generally not happy with the representation they are receiving or perhaps believe they are being overcharged.

Another clue a client isn’t likely to pay their legal fees? “If a client nit-picks your bill, you probably have a problem,” Walker says. One way to minimize financial exposure, Zimmerman says, is to “get some money up front.” Besides, he says, that’s a great way to learn where the client banks, useful information in case the lawyer pursues a collection matter against the client in the future.

What to Do When a Client Doesn’t Pay

It might seem elementary, but before initiating any type of litigation, it’s imperative to know who the actual defendant is. If, for example, a lawyer represents Joe’s Autobody, but not Joe himself, it’s wrong to pursue an action against Joe rather than the business, Zimmerman says.

Therefore, when representing a company, Zimmerman says it’s imperative the lawyer obtain a personal guarantee in writing that Joe has the authority to hire the attorney on behalf of the business. Once a determination is made as to whom the defendant is, the next step is to review the fee agreement signed by the client and the attorney.

According to the Code of Professional Responsibility, written agreements are only required in contingency fee cases, “but it’s a good practice” to use them in all matters, Zimmerman says.

Walker says “he comes and goes” on the use of written fee agreements. On one hand, they spell out the terms governing the professional relationship between the lawyer and client. However, they can also lengthen the attorney’s malpractice exposure in states like Virginia, where the statute of limitations for collecting fees and pursuing legal malpractice matters differs depending on whether a written fee agreement was used or not.

Zimmerman also cautions lawyers contemplating legal action against deadbeat clients to consider whether it might also expose them to a malpractice claim initiated by a disgruntled client. Another matter to consider is whether the debt in question is consumer-oriented or not, Walker says.

“There should be a determination made as to whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and any state version, govern such collection by one attorney for a client attorney,” he says. When a lawyer tries to collect legal fees owed, such legislation does not apply. However, an outside collection agent might be deemed a ‘collector’ subject to Federal and state laws. Other rules govern the collection of past due legal fees, says Steve Smith, President and Founder of GrowthSource Coaching, a California company that educates business owners and other professionals about improving their companies.

For example, ABA Model Rule 1.5 governs fee types and fee arrangements. “One of the overriding principles is the concept of the reasonableness of fees. The overwhelming, number one reason why people avoid paying their bill is the client has decided the fees were unreasonable for the service they received,” he says.

Absent exigent circumstances, such as being up against a statute of limitations, Walker likes to send a demand letter to the client, now potential defendant, when legal fees are overdue. If nothing else, doing so helps determine whether the lawyer has the debtor’s correct address.

Smith’s approach is similar. First, he suggests sending a pleasant letter reminding or informing the client of their past due account. If a week passes with no response, he advises placing a personal call to the client to try to determine why they haven’t paid their bill or responded to the letter.

“Get them on the phone to discuss installments or even reduce the overall balance,” Smith says. No matter what is said during the conversation, he implores the lawyer to maintain a “good business decorum.” Follow up with one email a week for the next three weeks, imploring the client to pay their bill. Each missive should communicate the “increasing severity” of the matter so the client understands the gravity of the situation.

If, after 30 days, payments are still not forthcoming, it’s “time to make an assessment,” about whether to sue the client for the fees they owe, Smith says. Factors to consider include the size of the past due balance and the costs involved with hiring an outside agency or lawyer to collect the debt, assuming the case will be farmed out.

Walker cautions lawyers about handling their own collection matters. “The ability to be objective is not as great when you are representing yourself," he says. "When your professionalism is challenged, it’s hard to be objective.” 

What Not to Do

There are several steps to avoid when seeking to collect an overdue client balance. According to Smith, do not:

• Contact the client’s family members or friends to discuss
• Contact an employer to seek the garnishment of wages, since a judgment is needed to initiate a garnishment
• Allow the situation to impact your effectiveness in representing other clients

It’s also not wise to argue with the client over the past due account. Not only is that unprofessional, such behavior will likely infuriate the client and increase the likelihood he or she might file a malpractice claim. Lastly, if a lawyer seeks to hire you to collect his or her past due accounts, be sure to conduct a conflicts search before taking on the case. Do not pursue a collections case against a defendant if you represented him or her or a related entity in the past, Zimmerman advises.

Tami Kamin Meyer is an Ohio attorney and writer.

With three groups of attorneys leaving BigLaw to start their own boutique firms in January alone, legal industry experts are predicting that 2016 might be a year of major big firm-to-boutique migration. So reports Bloomberg BNA.

In the first month of the year, when there’s typically a flurry of lateral movement between big law firms, groups of lawyers from Arent Fox in California, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, and Schiff Hardin have all instead opted to form of new, small firms.

Legal industry experts note that while former BigLaw attorneys often do find that a small firm partnership is better suited to their personal needs, business development challenges and day-to day administration duties can make small firm life challenging.

Read the full article from Bloomberg BNA.

Bigger might be better in some things in life, but not necessarily when it comes to employment opportunities for attorneys.

Small law firms are coming up big as places for lawyers to find work, according to a recent article on Law Crossing. The article cited the National Association of Law Placement as saying small law firms are providing “the majority of law firm jobs taken by recent graduates.”

Economic uncertainties continue to inject volatility in the legal landscape, making large law firms wary of over-hiring. There is also tremendous fear the number of clients capable of affording or willing to pay big firm rates is dwindling.

Meanwhile, there continues to be an escalating need for legal services among the general population, who not only can’t afford huge hourly fees but who are also uncomfortable in the swanky downtown offices of The Bigs. So where do these clients turn? Small law firms or solo practitioners whose rates are usually lower than those charged by big law firms and whose lawyers are generally more accessible.

View from the Trenches

Joseph Dreitler didn’t always practice law in the small firm setting. In fact, he spent 17 years in-house at Procter & Gamble and Anheuser-Busch and another 14 toiling in various large, general practice firms. However, for the past four years, he has practiced law in a two-person trademark, copyright and patent law firm in Columbus, Ohio. The namesake of Dreitler True says his current situation is “the most fun” he’s had while practicing law, for a few reasons.

They include:

• Lack of bureaucracy
• No conflicts of interest
• Lower overhead
• The lower fees he can charge due to reduced overhead costs
• No need to try and ‘leverage’ associates to bring in revenue for the firm

Dreitler also relishes the fact he doesn’t feel pressured to bill an astronomical number of hours yearly like he did when he worked in a big firm. Something else he doesn’t miss about big firm life is partners who are supposed to behave like a team but who are really out for their own best interests.

“I don’t feel the disappointment in other partners not cross-selling my services to their client,” he says, adding that in every firm he worked, the consistent mantra was that everyone was on the same team. However, eventually Dreitler became dismayed when he finally realized that was not really the case in any of the firms where he worked. “Partners hoarded work. They did not want any other partner to even meet their clients for fear they would screw something up. Partners who had no idea of the difference between a trademark and a copyright would take on that kind of work and never call partners who specialized in that work because they wanted the hours and could care less about the clients getting the most qualified lawyers on the matter,” Dreitler laments.

Early in Evan Schwartz’s legal career, he was a small fish in a very large pond. In actuality, he was more like a guppy in a huge sea of the gigantic law firm where he worked for several years. In those days, he toiled in a firm with 300 to 500 lawyers nationwide. When he left, he was a solo practitioner for a time. His firm grew to ten lawyers, including a law partner, but today he is the namesake of Schwartz Law PC.

His firm, with offices in Manhattan and Garden City, NY, is comprised of six lawyers whose work focuses on disability law and other insurance-related matters. There are several aspects of practicing in the small firm setting that Schwartz finds appealing. He enjoys the collegiality of working in a small group, which also means attorneys have the opportunity to accept greater responsibility for their cases and clients than occurs in large firms.

“Large firms can also be collegial but are frequently more regimented and both pay and responsibility are typically more lockstep,” says Schwartz. Like Dreitler and Schwartz, Caroline Z. Worley didn’t always practice law in the small firm setting. After the namesake of Worley Law LLC, a small firm in Westerville, Ohio, graduated law school, she toiled as a staff attorney for a Common Pleas Judge.

Following that, she joined a large law firm in Columbus. Since then, everywhere she has practiced law has employed five or fewer lawyers. Worley cites the “team and family atmosphere” with all employees, both attorneys as staff, as what she enjoys most about the small firm setting.

She also relishes the lack of bureaucracy and the flexibility that working in a small group engenders. “Also, since our overhead is lower, an attorney can offer the same or better services for half the cost. There is also plenty of time to get out and serve on nonprofit boards and to give back by volunteering your time,” she says.

Those experiences differ greatly from what she underwent in the big firm setting. For example, “you usually have to run all ideas up a chain of command and change is harder and slower,” she laments. Working for a small firm, especially her own, offers Worley the flexibility to work different hours and at locations other than her brick-and-mortar location.

Pitfalls of Small-Firm-Life

While all three lawyers agree their professional lives are happier as small firm attorneys, they do admit there are pitfalls to working in such an environment. For Worley, working with a small “marketing and business development budget” is challenging. She would also like to hire additional support staff, but that is cost-prohibitive.

While he wouldn’t trade his current situation for a return to big-firm life, Schwartz says there are challenges working in a small firm. For example, the small firm scenario affords “less predictability of the business,” he says. In other words, says Schwartz, running a small firm is “more risky.”

Another pitfall of the solo and small firm environment is that, typically, attorneys receive less training before they are thrown into the fire. According to Schwartz, there is “typically less training and supervision, which can be exhilarating or disastrous, depending on the person you are and the particular circumstances of the matters you are handling.”

While certainly no one is saying Big Law is dead, there is no doubt small and solo law practices are gaining increasingly popularity among lawyers. At least that’s what Schwartz thinks. “In general, small firms help make the legal system more accessible to the general public by offering lower fees and more direct contact between attorneys and their clients. When I weighed the pros and cons of big firm life versus working in a small firm, I decided I wanted to own my own firm and control my own destiny. I have more autonomy and greater job security because I develop my own book of business,” Schwartz says.

Tami Kamin Meyer is an Ohio attorney and writer.

General Electric's general counsel's 2012 compensation package afforded him almost $11 million in cash, making him the highest paid general counsel on Corporate Counsel magazine's latest list of the nation's 100 highest paid GCs. So reports Law.com.

At $1,853,671, the average take-home pay enjoyed by the lawyers on the list this year is the highest it has ever been.

Read the full article from Law.com here.

After entering a guilty plea, John Farahi, founder of Newpoint Financial Services Inc., was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison on March 20, according to a National Law Journal story. The Beverly Hills businessman admitted his role in a $20 million Ponzi scheme and the plea could have ramifications for former Nixon Peabody securities partner David Tamman, who was found guilty for his role in the scheme.

Tamman’s lawyer, though, insists the two instances are different and “suspect the judge will listen to what we have to say and make a decision accordingly."

Read the full article from the National Law Journal here.

A Los Angeles nutrition company is locked in a legal battle with billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, who has accused the company of perpetuating a pyramid scheme. Herbalife officials said the company will up their legal defense costs from $25 million to $40 million in the wake of Ackman’s accusations, according to a Los Angeles Times article.

Ackman, who reportedly bet $1 billion the company is a sham, has said most of the company’s sales people lose money and expects the company’s shares to fall to zero.

Read the full article from the Los Angeles Times here.

Food and Drug Administration logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When attorney F. Lee Bailey was indicted for mail fraud in 1973, he quoted a popular aphorism referencing the difference between how England and the U.S. treat their criminal defense lawyers.  “In England they are apt to be knighted; in the United States they are apt to be indicted.”  There is quite a bit of truth in the saying and the dangers inherent in practicing law in the U.S. are not only faced by defense lawyers.  Sensing an opportunity, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently set its sights on corporate in-house counsel.

In November, 2010, Lauren Stevens, a former vice president and general counsel for pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, was indicted on federal charges of making false statements and obstructing a federal investigation.  Stevens was accused of making false and misleading statements in a series of letters to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on behalf of her employer.  Despite it having been obvious from the beginning that Stevens was only relaying information furnished by her client and had no intent or motive to mislead federal investigators, she was enthusiastically pursued by the DOJ.  “Where facts and law allow, the Justice Department will pursue individuals responsible for illegal conduct just as vigorously as we pursue corporations,” Tony West, assistant attorney general for the civil division, said in a statement.  It should be noted that despite the DOJ’s stated commitment to pursue corporations, GlaxoSmithKline’s name was noticeably absent from the Stevens indictment.  West continued, “Criminal charges are appropriate when false statements such as those alleged here are made to the FDA.”

Read the full article here...

The intersection of law, innovation and technology has always naturally created friction, as changes to one do not necessarily accompany changes to the other. To that end, it is incumbent upon principals in the industries to constantly audit the others for the sake of the consumers and constituents who operate in those spaces.

Recently, the Rock Center for Corporate Governance, along with the Stanford Graduate School of Business and United States Department of Justice (DOJ) hosted a workshop examining one such intersection—that of antitrust law and venture capitalism. Academics, investors, legal and business experts gathered for the Wednesday, Feb. 12 event, according to Stanford University.

Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust at the Department of Justice, touched on a broad array of challenges facing both regulators and venture capitalists, and further, what to do about them as they emerge. “In any case whether a merger is harmful, a restraint is unreasonable, or a course of conduct is exclusionary, antitrust enforcers have to ask the same question—what do we do about it now?” he asked. “In doing so, we focus on trying to restore competition in the market going forward. That often involves asking what new competitors need to thrive in a constantly changing marketplace. It is a difficult challenge, but one familiar to many investors who support early-stage companies.”

Delrahim also spoke about some of the common ground between investors and enforcers with respect to the role of antitrust regulation and the state of the industry. He said one characteristic they both share is a constant urge to prognosticate. The Supreme Court often has to, in its judicial capacity, predict how a merger will impact competition in both the near- and long-term. “We measure harm based on how the market might respond to a merger or to a course of conduct. This is not guesswork,” he said. “Neither is venture capital investment. Instead, we both look at the market, draw from economics, and make educated predictions.”

He pointed out other areas of overlap in the address: “Not only do venture capitalists and antitrust enforcers often ask similar questions, I think we share similar values. Dynamic competition should drive markets. Investment should go to the best ideas. Disruption can create consumer value,” said Delrahim. “These are the principles I have continually returned to in both of my tenures at the DOJ, and most recently as AAG. I first outlined these principles in my New Madison Approach to the intersection of antitrust enforcement and intellectual property rights. They are also part of venture capital’s DNA.”

FROM TWITTER

Thibault Schrepel @LeConcurrential

Very pleased to share "The Fundamental Unimportance of Algorithmic Collusion for Antitrust Law", published at the @HarvardJOLT. While algorithmic collusion creates no fundamental challenge, blockchain-based collusion does. Let's end the publication bias!

According to the organizers, other presenters included Michael Moritz of Sequoia Capital, Stanford Law Professor Doug Melamed and Dean Jonathan Levin of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Melamed spoke on trends in the venture capital sector. Among some of the considerations he noted are the legal framework venture capitalists must work in, and the underlying principles of those investments. He touched on “kill zones;” investing in platform-dominated markets and monetizing data.

According to information from the Department of Justice, comments from the public are welcome. Parties are able to submit comments online through March 14, 2020, here: ATR.VCworkshop@usdoj.gov.

Attorney Carrie LeRoy started the Cyber Dignity Program in 2012 to educate teenagers on the possible legal consequences of cyberbullying, and now she hopes to take the Bay Area program national. So reports Bloomberg.

LeRoy was moved to action after a teen, who had been sexually bullied, committed suicide in Saratoga, California. LeRoy has partnered with other attorneys to spread information about cyberbullying litigation, and her program has already reached 13,000 high school students.

Read the full article from Bloomberg.

A new report from Exterro and FTI Consulting projects the e-discovery industry is going to hit $19 billion by 2023, up from $10 billion last year, as demand for technology and services is soaring.

The report also shows robust activity across the industry, noting that the number of investments, mergers and acquisitions in the space jumped from 24 to 44 between 2017 and 2018. The study, titled 'The State of E-Discovery 2019 Report,' examined the state of the emerging legal sector and highlighted trends, relevant legislation and case law.

“The challenges facing legal and e-discovery teams are broadening as the intersection of e-discovery, data security, and data privacy increases,” reads the report. “But embracing technologies and effective business processes can give legal teams exciting new capabilities to address these challenges.”

Globally, two landmark pieces of legislation, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which governs how organizations collect and use data of citizens of the European Union, and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which has bolstered residents rights with respect to their data, are likely to be key factors influencing the direction of the industry, according to the report.

Further, 10 additional states have introduced similar legislation, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has introduced a draft “Consumer Data Protection Act” as “a growing number of US technology giants are calling for a domestic version of GDPR.” But, striking a balance between users’ rights and protecting sensitive information may require a good deal of finesse. “Despite the major risks of non-compliance with privacy regulations, cybersecurity still remains the top concern for information governance teams,” reads the report.

From Twitter
HaystackID @HaystackID
“While the challenges of document review vary from day-to-day, six fundamental challenges appear to be common to all legal departments dealing with the discipline of #eDiscovery during document reviews.” https://buff.ly/2PSaq8i #LegalTech

Another key trend in e-discovery is an increased reliance on alternative legal service providers over law firms. According to the report, legal services providers are pulling in more money spent on e-discovery than law firms to the tune of 33% to 23%. In that vein, lawyer management of e-discovery is also down, with attorneys managing the process for only 34% of in-house legal departments, a number down 8% between 2017 and 2018.

Where Do Judges Stand?

According to the report, more than 1 in 5 judges reported feeling they should “act as an ‘active e-discovery case manager.’” As such, 56% said a separate case manager who promptly addresses issues as they arise is preferable. Another report from earlier this year found judges have reported an overall improvement in e-discovery “competence,” perhaps reducing the need to mitigate conflicts altogether. Reportedly, “lawyers who have appeared before the judges in the past year exhibited ‘an adequate level of knowledge’ 56% of the time, with only 18% lagging,” according to previous coverage of that survey from Progressive Law Practice.

Georgetown Law and Exterro Partner in e-Discovery Education Initiative

A new “legal thought leadership educational initiative” called edTalks, will feature discussions surrounding best-practices and cutting edge ideas and concepts, according information from Exterro. The 15 minute talks will be moderated by Mollie Nichols of Hogan Lovells, Nancy Patton at Exterro and David Greenwald of Jenner & Block. The next webcast is set for September 18, at 1 p.m. EST.

The law does not always keep pace with reality. In the instance of deepfakes, it’s the law’s ability to keep pace with virtual reality that’s being called into question.

On Thursday, June 13, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence took a deeper look at the deceptive chaos the emerging technology might bring and convened a panel of experts to look at ways to prevent its abuse. Deepfakes are hyper-convincing videos doctored to show something that never actually happened.

Per the committee, the meeting took place regarding manipulated media, national security and artificial intelligence components associated with the deepfake” technology. The law and technology panelists lined up to offer testimony included:

• Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland’s Francis King Carey School of Law and an Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) board member
• Jack Clark, the policy director for OpenAI
• David Doermann, a professor at SUNY Empire Innovation and a director at the Artificial Intelligence Institute for the University at Buffalo
• Clint Watts, a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a Senior Fellow for the Alliance for Securing Democracy, German Marshall Fund

More Than One Approach to Exposing Deepfakes

Citron said a combination of factors, including the law, will be needed to combat the malicious intent of the doctored information. "We need a combination of law, markets, and societal resistance," said Citron, according to information from EPIC, adding that "the phenomenon is going to be increasingly felt by women and minorities."

EPIC has called for the “Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence” as the foundation of any federal laws governing its use. Artificial intelligence is a key component in the spreading of misinformation. The guidelines include several tenants such as the:

• Right to Transparency
• Right to Human Determination
• Identification Obligation
• Fairness Obligation
• Accuracy, Reliability, and Validity Obligations
• Public Safety Obligation
• Termination Obligation

At the hearing, Clark called for funding, education and “institutional intervention” in order to mitigate the confusion caused by misinformation spread through the tech.

From Twitter:
Ashley Pilipiszyn ‏ @apilipis 
"@jackclarkSF calls for institutional interventions, increased funding, measurement, norms, and comprehensive AI education as pathways to address the national security challenges of AI, manipulated media, and 'deepfakes': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLS9MlIWOk …

House Committee’s Purview is Expansive, Scope Wide

According to information provided by the Congressional committee, topic associated with deepfake technology will cover the law, politics, security and human interest. They include:

• Future advancements
• Detecting and tracking
• How deepfakes might allow individuals to deny media
• Its psychological impact
• Counterintelligence fears
• Internet platforms’ role in mitigating fake information
• Legal challenges
• The appropriate role of the federal government.

“Deepfakes raise profound questions about national security and democratic governance, with individuals and voters no longer able to trust their own eyes or ears when assessing the authenticity of what they see on their screens,” reads information from the committee.

Promotional materials for the hearing state this is a first-of-its-kind hearing as there has not, to date, been a House committee meeting dedicated specifically to deepfake technology and other AI-generated faux data.

From the president’s ex-lawyer to murdered ex-NFL stars, here are some notable verdicts from July.

Most Political Verdict: Judge orders Michael Cohen to Home Confinement After Retaliatory Imprisonment

A judge ruled Michael Cohen was improperly imprisoned and has since been sent home after the President’s former attorney was said to have only been returned to prison as retaliation, according to an article from CNBC. Cohen said he was only sent back to prison because he failed to guarantee he would not move forward with plans to publish a book about the President. As part of a program to reduce the prison population amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Cohen will serve his three-year sentence under home confinement.

Most Altered Verdict: Monsanto Damages Cut Again, Down to $21.5M Upon Appeal

The 1st District Court of Appeal in California upheld the verdict holding Monsanto’s weed killer responsible for the cancer diagnosis of school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, but substantially cut the damages awarded in the case, according to an article from the Insurance Journal. After jurors originally awarded Johnson $289.2 million, a judge knocked that payout down to $78.5 million before the most recent decision to slash it to $21.5 million. The award was cut because California state law “doesn’t allow damages for reduced life expectancy.”

Most Retroactive Verdict: New Case Set for Killer of ex-Jet Joe McKnight’s After SCOTUS Bans Split-jury Rulings

Ronald Gasser's manslaughter conviction, as well as his three decade sentence, for the killing of ex-NFL player Joe McKnight has been vacated and a new trial ordered, according to an article from ESPN. The Louisiana 5th Circuit Court of Appeal’s move comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits split-jury verdicts. Gasser was convicted in 2018 by a 10-2 vote. The April ruling was applied retroactively to Gasser.  

Most Reversed Verdict: Appeals Court Reinstates $38M Police Shooting Verdict

A state appeals court ruled a Baltimore County judge was wrong to overturn a verdict awarding $38 million to the family of Korryn Gaines,” according to an article from The Baltimore Sun. Gaines was shot and killed by police in 2016 after an hours-long standoff partially broadcast on social media. It is unclear what portion of the award has been reinstated, although for now, the family’s attorney said it has reinstated in full. Per the article, it is unlikely the matter is resolved.

Most Smoking Verdict: Tobacco Verdict Stands in Florida Amid Claims of Misleading Ads

A $7.25 million verdict against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. was upheld by a three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Florida, according to an article from WUSF Public Media. The case stems from claims made by plaintiff Paul E. Rouse, who suffers from coronary artery disease after smoking two packs of cigarettes per day, that the tobacco company was “fraudulently concealing the dangers of smoking.” Rouse said he chose the company’s Winston filtered cigarettes based on advertisements indicating they were safer than other types of cigarettes.

Two Northeast universities are pushing back against President Donald Trump’s plan to deport students studying abroad if schools conduct online-only classes. The move comes amid uncertainty about the status of in-person schooling starting normally in the fall as new COVID-19 cases continue to crop up. Some have speculated the decision is a political power play to pressure colleges to open their doors.

Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seeking a temporary restraining order and both preliminary and permanent “injunctive relief” to prevent enforcement of the July 6 directive calling for the potential deportations. 

“These students are being told to transfer to other institutions offering in-person instruction or leave the country, even though this late in the summer, it is highly unlikely students can apply for let alone successfully obtain such transfers,” according to Harvard. “Many of these students do not have the means to safely travel outside of the country and face substantial barriers to online learning as a result of unavailable or unreliable internet connections, time zone variations, and other obstacles.”

Per the Administration’s guidance, students taking online-only courses will not be permitted to remain in the country. Further, F-1 and M-1 designated students, who were taking classes outside the U.S., would not be permitted to enter, according to Harvard.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It states the policy is in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act for three reasons. The July 6 guidance;

• “Failed to consider important aspects of the problem before the agency acted”
• “Fails to offer any reasonable basis that could justify the policy”
• “Failed to provide the public with notice and the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking”

The decision, says representatives at Harvard, appears to “reflect an effort by the federal government to force universities to reopen in-person classes.” By doing so, they said, students would be tightly packed into residency halls even though many institutions find this inadvisable and unsafe. “The effect—and perhaps even the goal—is to create as much chaos for universities and international students as possible,” states the school.

FROM TWITTER

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Jul 8

"In Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and many other countries, SCHOOLS ARE OPEN WITH NO PROBLEMS. The Dems think it would be bad for them politically if U.S. schools open before the November Election, but is important for the children & families. May cut off funding if not open!"

MIT President L. Rafael Reif griped that the policy was made after many schools already issued final decisions regarding the fall semester and creates confusion for staff and students. “The announcement disrupts our international students’ lives and jeopardizes their academic and research pursuits. ICE is unable to offer the most basic answers about how its policy will be interpreted or implemented,” said Reif, in an email to the school’s community.

Reif also recalled his own experiences as a student travelling to a foreign country in defense of the importance of a diverse student body. “MIT’s strength is its people–no matter where they come from. I know firsthand the anxiety of arriving in this country as a student, excited to advance my education, but separated from my family by thousands of miles. I also know that welcoming the world’s brightest, most talented and motivated students is an essential American strength,” Reif said.

FROM TWITTER

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Jul 8

"I disagree with @CDCgov on their very tough & expensive guidelines for opening schools. While they want them open, they are asking schools to do very impractical things. I will be meeting with them!!!"

From protecting gay workers’ rights to the right to have a priest in your death chamber, here are some notable recent verdicts from the Supreme Court.

Most Progressive Verdict: SCOTUS rules 6-3 to Protect Gay, Transgendered Employees

The Supreme Court ruled Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies to transgendered and gay people, according to an article from The Hill. The landmark 6-3 decision came in the wake of a number of cases involving alleged workplace discrimination. The majority opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and argues discrimination based on sex applies to transgendered and gay individuals, while the dissenting justices contend Congress likely did not take those ideas into account when they passed the law decades ago. In addition to Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voted in the majority.

Most Contentious Verdict: Roberts Swings DACA Ruling Against Trump

The Supreme Court blocked President Donald Trump’s effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. So reports CNN. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who has irked some by ruling against the court’s more conservative justices in high-profile cases. He was joined by the court’s traditionally liberal members Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in the 5-4 decision. The ruling “emphasizes that the administration failed to provide an adequate reason to justify ending the DACA program.”

Most Metallic Verdict: Trump’s Steel Tariffs Safe After SCOTUS Opts Not to Hear Challenge

The Supreme Court passed on taking a case brought by U.S. steel importers fighting President Donald Trump’s 2018 tariffs, according to an article from Politico. This effectively ends the legal battle over the import taxes put in place against China, Europe and other countries. Although Congress is granted jurisdiction of trade in the U.S. Constitution, Trump has imposed the tariffs under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. The American Institute for International Steel, contends, though, that the law is unconstitutional as it “imposes no limits on the president’s discretion to take action.”

Most Religious: Convicted Murderer Spared from Death Sentence Over Right to Bring Priest Into Chamber

Convicted murderer Ruben Gutierrez was granted a reprieve of his Texas death sentence after the Supreme Court intervened, according to a article from The New York Daily News. Gutierrez was found guilty of slaying an 85-year-old woman in 1998, but his life was spared as his representation argued a policy barring him from having a priest in the death chamber violates his religious rights. The state’s prison policy bans anyone other than staff and security from being present in the death chamber. This year, six executions in Texas were postponed due to COVID-19 or action from an appeals court, the article states.

Most One-Sided: Asylum Case Ruling Could Lead to 'Fast Track' Deportations

The Supreme Court ruled, 7-2, that those seeking asylum in the U.S. do not have a right to a federal court hearing, according to an article from NPR. The decision effectively gives the green light to President Donald Trump’s administration to “fast-track the deportation of thousands of immigrants who have claimed to be escaping from persecution and torture in their home countries,” according to the article. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were the only dissenters.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently filed several lawsuits in response to the fallout from George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis, Minnesota. One is aimed at protecting journalists covering protests and the other challenges curfews in Los Angeles and San Bernardino. Additional actions are also planned, says the advocacy group.

The first suit, a class action against Minnesota state and local law enforcement officials, claims journalists attempting to cover protests in the wake of Floyd’s death have been “conspicuous” targets for intimidation, arrest and assault by police despite being clearly identified as media.

“As people take to the streets to demand justice for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, and too many other Black people who have been killed by police in recent years, journalists have joined them to bear witness,” reads information from the ACLU. “These apparently deliberate attacks on journalists violate the First Amendment freedom of the press, and they will not go unanswered.”

According to the organization, its is also planning several other initiatives related to the right to protest and preventing police brutality.

In response to reports of rioting and looting throughout the nation, President Donald Trump has taken a firm stance against displays of protestor violence, and pledged to use any federal resources at his disposal to restore “security and safety in America.”

“I am mobilizing all available federal resources—civilian and military—to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights,” the president said Monday, June 1 from the Rose Garden.

Trump called on governors to deploy the National Guard and for local officials to help establish an “an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled.”

The ACLU, on the other hand, has cried foul over arrests and alleged abuse of those at the hands of those asked to protect the streets. The ACLU cited the arrest of a CNN news crew featuring correspondent Omar Jimenez and the tear-gassing of Los Angeles Times reporter Molly Hennessy-Fiske and photographer Carolyn Cole, among others, as evidence the police have inhibited free speech during public demonstrations. In both cases, it says, the members of the press were clearly identified. Jimenez and his crew repeatedly offered to cooperate with law enforcement, it notes.

“These attacks violate the press’s clearly established First Amendment right to report on public protests and police activities. An open society depends on a free press to keep the public informed and to bear witness to government actions,” reads information from the ACLU. “When law enforcement officers target members of the press with impunity, they strike at the root of our democracy. Law enforcement officers who perpetrate these abuses must be held accountable for their actions to the fullest extent of the law.”

A statement shared with media from Minneapolis City Attorney Erik Nilsson indicates the city is reviewing the allegations and will continue to support the First Amendment.

FROM TWITTER

Zoe Tillman @ZoeTillman

"New lawsuit last night of note: Black Lives Matter + ACLU suing Los Angeles and other local officials in southern California over curfews. '...extraordinary suppression of literally all political protest after dark plainly violates the First Amendment.'

In the same vein, the ACLU has filed separate actions in California on behalf of Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles, protestors, journalists and others challenging “draconian” curfews instilled in recent days. “The curfews’ extraordinary suppression of all political protest in the evening hours plainly violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and their blanket restrictions on movement outside working hours violate the Constitution’s protection of freedom of movement,” reads information from the advocacy group.

The ACLU claims the curfews prohibit “innocuous” activities like grocery shopping, visiting friends and relatives and even seeking medical attention. The curfews, too, it says, inhibit journalism. “It has become increasingly clear that law enforcement officials are not just controlling crowds, but also suppressing speech. L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters that the L.A. County curfew will remain in force ‘until the organized protests are gone,’” claims the ACLU.

Per the group, the defendants in the lawsuit include:

• Eric Garcetti, mayor of Los Angeles
• Michel Moore, chief of Los Angeles Police Department
• Alex Villanueva, sheriff of Los Angeles County
• Eric McBride, chief of San Bernardino Police Department