Attorney-Client Privilege: The U.S. Supreme Court dug into attorney-client privilege on the opening day of the Court's fall term, examining whether a party can appeal a judge's finding that it has waived the privilege in an order releasing material for discovery, The National Law Journal reports. In Mohawk Industries Inc. v. Carpenter, the Court looked at whether such an order be appealed before the trial resumes or only after it wraps ups. Mohawk, represented by Alston & Bird, said a party should have the right to appeal immediately. The New York Times examines several cases the Supreme Court declined to hear. The court today is expected to hear argument in a free-speech case that involves dog-fighting videos.
Executions on Hold: Following the failed execution of a man in Ohio last month, Gov. Ted Strickland has postponed two other executions to give corrections officials additional time to examine and revise injection procedure, The New York Times reports. The standard execution procedure failed Sept. 15. Ohio officials are looking into backup procedures.
Tweaking Compensation: The Recorder reports that Bingham McCutchen is moving to a "merit lockstep" system that will keep base pay on lockstep but introduce a merit component into bonuses. Several firms this year announced a move away from lockstep compensation, including Howrey, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and Townsend and Townsend and Crew. Nixon Peabody and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman have lowered salaries for some associates in each yearly class, resulting in a de facto departure from lockstep.
A Vote At Last? The nomination of Thomas Perez to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has stalled for months, but the gridlock could end today, The BLT reports. Senate Democrats are hoping for a confirmation vote for Perez, who was nominated in March. A vote to end debate on Perez’s nomination has been scheduled for 12:15 p.m. today. A vote to confirm Perez would follow if 60 senators agree to end debate.
The 'Original': Vincent's, the clam bar on Mott Street in Manhattan, was barred from billing itself the "original" Vincent's amid a dispute with a competitor, The New York Law Journal reports. A federal judge in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York faulted an attempt by the owner of Vincent's of Mott Street to register two versions of the name while still in litigation over whether it could use the formulations.
Comments