The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two cases involving government officials who blocked individuals from their social media accounts.

One of the cases, Garnier v. O’Connor-Ratcliff, 41 F.4th 1158 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. granted, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, No. 22-324 (Apr. 24, 2023), was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In April 2021, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed a petition in Brooklyn Family Court alleging that an uncle who was legally responsible for his nephew had neglected the child by providing inadequate supervision and guardianship and by neglecting his education. Among other things, ACS offered the court voice recordings that it claimed supported

During the first few months of this year, it would not have been surprising if lawyers and corporate executives already believed that 2023 was going to be the “Year of Biometric Privacy.” Consider that, in February, the Illinois Supreme Court issued two significant decisions interpreting the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), continuing its trend

Privacy is a growing concern in the United States and as we increasingly see consumer private information being obtained and used, both by businesses and cyber criminals, regulation of the collection and disclosure of non-public information and cyber security will likely increase as well. For instance, in early March, the Biden Administration announced a new

After Seventh Circuit Judges Frank Easterbrook, William Bauer, and Richard Posner ruled in National Rifle Association of America v. Chicago, 567 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2009), rev’d sub nom. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states, Harold Turner published a blog post declaring

On November 18, 2022, the New Jersey Law Journal published Nancy Del Pizzo and Deborah Isaacson’s article, “An Update on Recent and Emerging Privacy Laws: When the Client’s Reach is Nationwide.”

The article explores various laws that are becoming effective in 2023 and the nuances in those laws. For practitioners advising clients who sell goods

The Appellate Division, First Department recently affirmed a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant law firm, holding that the plaintiff could not prove the proximate cause element of its legal malpractice claim.

In VPC Projects, LLC v. Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe, LLP, 2021 NY Slip Op 01225 (1st

On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s charge-filing requirements, while mandatory, are not jurisdictional, and any objections will be deemed forfeited if an employer waits too long to raise them.

In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, Respondent Davis filed a charge against her employer, Fort Bend County, with

The United States District Court, Western District of New York recently held that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to state a claim pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487, and the fact that there was no criminal conviction of the defendant lawyers for violating the statute did not prevent plaintiff from proceeding with her claim.

In

The Appellate Division, First Department recently reversed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment on liability in favor of the legal malpractice plaintiff and dismissing the defendant law firm’s counterclaims for legal fees.

In Genesis Merchant Partners, L.P. v. Gilbride, Tusa, Last & Spellane, LLC, the plaintiffs, who are related venture capital firms, sued the

The Appellate Division, First Department recently held that a legal malpractice action could withstand a law firm’s motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that plaintiff failed to plead the “but for” causation element of the claim, reversing the trial court’s dismissal.

In Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. v. Morrison & Foerster LLP, Supreme Court,

The United States District Court, Southern District of New York recently held that a legal malpractice action could withstand a law firm’s motion to dismiss when the law firm’s retainer agreement was broadly written and did not clearly define the scope of the firm’s representation.

In Mitchell Barack v. Seward & Kissel, LLP, (Civil Action