Joshua Wright, a former professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School and a former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member, has withdrawn his lawsuit against the university. This move marks the conclusion of a protracted legal battle following allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against him by multiple women.

Agreement Reached to End Legal Proceedings

According to court documents filed on November 27, Wright and the university agreed to end the case without further litigation. The filing, which did not disclose details of any potential settlement, stipulated that each party would bear its legal costs. U.S. District Court Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, presiding in the Eastern District of Virginia, approved the agreement.

Neither Wright nor his attorney, Benjamin North of the Binnall Law Group, provided immediate comments. Similarly, George Mason University representatives have yet to issue a public statement.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Background of the Allegations

Wright, who had an intermittent teaching tenure at George Mason University from 2004 to 2023, resigned after facing allegations of using his academic position to engage in inappropriate relationships with students. The most prominent accusation came from Elyse Dorsey, a former student and current partner at Kirkland & Ellis, who alleged that Wright sexually assaulted her early in their relationship and later used his influence to undermine her professional opportunities.

Dorsey’s Title IX complaint, filed in 2021, led to a university investigation into Wright’s conduct. She has praised the university for prioritizing student safety, stating in an email that George Mason “chose to protect its students rather than cave to Wright’s frivolous threats.”

Wright’s Legal Claims and Counter-Accusations

In November 2023, Wright initiated a lawsuit against George Mason University, alleging violations of Title IX and institutional policies during the investigation. He claimed the university had mishandled his complaint, which accused Dorsey of sexually harassing and retaliating against him at the end of what he described as an 11-year, consensual, on-again-off-again relationship beginning in 2010. Wright asserted that the university’s dismissal of his complaint constituted sex-based discrimination.

The university’s motion to dismiss Wright’s lawsuit argued that Dorsey, not being a university employee, could not be held to the same standards as Wright, a professor. In a September ruling, the court allowed the university’s investigation into Wright to proceed but did not dismiss his lawsuit outright.

Additional Accusations

The allegations against Wright extend beyond Dorsey. According to media reports, at least two other women have accused him of misconduct. These accusations further intensified the scrutiny surrounding his resignation and subsequent legal actions.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Legal Battle Comes to a Close

The legal proceedings spanned over a year, with Wright’s lawsuit marking a significant development in the controversy. In October 2023, George Mason University renewed its request to dismiss the case, citing the conclusion of its investigation into Wright’s actions. The recent stipulation to dismiss the lawsuit signals the end of a contentious chapter for both Wright and the university.

Implications and Reflections

This case underscores the complexities of addressing sexual misconduct allegations within academic institutions. George Mason University’s handling of the matter highlights the challenges of balancing due process with the need to safeguard students and uphold institutional integrity.

As Wright’s legal dispute with the university concludes, questions remain about how higher education institutions can better address power dynamics and protect vulnerable individuals in academic settings. For now, George Mason University’s decision to prioritize student safety over reputational risks sends a clear message about its stance on such issues.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Former George Mason Law Professor Joshua Wright Drops Lawsuit Amid Misconduct Allegations first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Lawsuit Accusations

On August 1, 2024, a class action lawsuit was filed against the law firm Duane Morris, alleging that the firm improperly classifies its nonequity partners and engages in discriminatory pay practices. The suit, filed by Meagan Garland, a Black female attorney, claims that the firm shifts significant business expenses and tax liabilities onto nonequity partners while failing to provide them with equitable pay or benefits.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Misclassification and Financial Impact

Garland, who has been with the firm since 2018, alleges that despite receiving a partner title in January 2021, her role and responsibilities remained unchanged. However, her compensation and tax obligations were adjusted, leading to a decrease in her effective pay. The lawsuit details how Duane Morris stopped withholding employment taxes from Garland’s salary and imposed additional financial burdens on her, including a share of the firm’s partnership taxes and capital contributions.

Alleged Discrimination

The lawsuit also accuses Duane Morris of violating California’s equal pay laws through systematic gender and racial pay inequity. Garland asserts that the firm’s predominantly male and white executive committee makes compensation decisions in a non-transparent manner, which disproportionately disadvantages female and nonwhite attorneys.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Financial Discrepancies

The suit highlights discrepancies in pay between Garland and her colleagues. It cites instances where white male attorneys with similar or less experience received significantly higher compensation and bonuses compared to Garland. The complaint also alleges that Duane Morris used funds deducted from nonequity partners for political and charitable purposes, further disadvantaging those partners.

Legal Demands

Garland’s lawsuit seeks various remedies, including punitive damages and civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation, a declaratory judgment on employment misclassification, and restitution. The legal claims involve breach of contract, violations of California’s business and equal pay laws, and several other allegations related to misrepresentation and fiduciary duties.

Firm’s Response

Duane Morris has responded to the allegations, expressing strong disagreement with the claims and indicating their intention to vigorously defend themselves in court.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Duane Morris Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Gender and Racial Pay Inequities first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

U.S. law firm Winston & Strawn has reached a settlement in an unusual copyright lawsuit brought by a smaller firm, Hsuanyeh Law Group, alleging that Winston’s attorneys copied one of its court filings “nearly verbatim.” The settlement agreement was filed in New York federal court on Tuesday.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Discontinuation by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote discontinued the case after being informed by both parties that they had reached a settlement. Winston, a Chicago-founded law firm with close to 1,000 lawyers, and Hsuanyeh, a Boston-based patent law firm with six lawyers, were representing separate companies in patent lawsuits against Unification Technologies LLC over computer data storage technology. The cases from 2023 were consolidated and later settled.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Background of the Lawsuit

Hsuanyeh founder Hsuanyeh Chang filed a motion to dismiss the case against his client, Phison Electronics, in August. Following this, a Winston attorney praised the filing as “impressive.” However, the situation escalated when Winston filed a nearly identical version of the motion for its client, Silicon Motion, the next day. This action prompted Hsuanyeh to sue Winston and four of its attorneys in December, leading to a rare copyright infringement case over court filings.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Denial of Copyright Infringement

Winston responded to Hsuanyeh’s claims by asserting that no legal precedent supports the notion that copying a co-defendant’s motion constitutes copyright infringement. This defense was reiterated in a court filing last month.

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

Conclusion and Case Details

The case, titled Hsuanyeh Law Group PC v. Winston & Strawn LLP, was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under case number 1:23-cv-11193. Lance Liu represented Hsuanyeh Law Group in the lawsuit. While a lawyer for Hsuanyeh declined to comment on the settlement, Winston’s attorneys named in the case and their legal representative did not provide immediate comments or further details regarding the settlement agreement.

The post Settlement Reached in Lawsuit Over Copycat Court Filing first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Eleven Republican-led states have initiated a legal challenge against President Biden’s new student loan repayment program, alleging similarities to a previously invalidated debt relief initiative. Led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, the lawsuit contends that Biden’s Saving on a Valuable Education (Save) program exceeds his constitutional authority and mirrors a past forgiveness plan that the Supreme Court struck down last year.

Allegations and Legal Basis

The lawsuit, spearheaded by Kansas AG Kris Kobach, asserts that President Biden’s Save program constitutes executive overreach and draws parallels to a previously rejected debt relief initiative.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Description of the Save Program

President Biden’s Save program, launched in October, aims to provide reduced monthly payments and an accelerated path to loan cancellation for millions of borrowers. While it has already relieved the debts of over 150,000 participants who borrowed under $12,000 and made payments for a decade, its projected cost varies significantly. The Biden administration estimates the program to cost $156 billion over a decade, whereas the Congressional Budget Office predicts a higher figure at $230 billion.

Legal and Administrative Responses

Kansas AG Kobach criticized the Save program, accusing the president of pushing forward despite past legal setbacks. The Education Department refrained from commenting on the lawsuit but reiterated its commitment to enhancing the student loan system and offering relief to borrowers.

Legal Grounds and Previous Challenges

The lawsuit draws upon arguments from previous legal battles against broad-based debt relief. Unlike the failed plan that relied on a 9/11-era law, the Save program derives its authority from the Higher Education Act, presenting a different legal foundation.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Program Mechanics and Conservative Criticism

The Save program, an adaptation of the existing Revised Pay as You Earn (Repaye) plan, ties monthly payments to income and family size. However, conservatives like Kobach argue that widespread debt relief unfairly burdens taxpayers who did not attend college or save for their education.

Legal Landscape and Political Response

The lawsuit follows the Supreme Court’s rejection of a similar debt cancellation program last year, highlighting the ongoing legal and political battles surrounding student loan relief initiatives. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey expressed support for Kobach’s lawsuit and hinted at filing a related one.

Administration’s Perspective

Despite facing legal challenges, the Biden administration continues to advocate for the Save program, emphasizing its potential to alleviate the financial burden for millions of borrowers by reducing their annual payments.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Republican-Led States Challenge Biden's Student Loan Repayment Program first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The Department of Justice has launched a bid to halt the progression of the high-profile youth climate lawsuit, Juliana v. US, which obtained trial authorization in Oregon last year.

DOJ Petition Challenges Trial Authorization

On February 2nd, the Biden administration submitted a petition to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asserting that Judge Ann Aiken of the US District Court for the District of Oregon erred in reviving Juliana by allowing an amended complaint to proceed to trial.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Dispute Over Trial Authorization

The crux of the matter lies in Judge Aiken’s decision to greenlight the case for trial after a Ninth Circuit ruling in 2020 dismissed the original complaint. According to the DOJ, Judge Aiken’s action contravened the Ninth Circuit’s directive.

DOJ’s Position

In its petition, the Justice Department contended that the plaintiffs, a group of young individuals and a purported representative of future generations, are seeking extensive relief from the judiciary rather than the political branches. The DOJ argued that granting such relief would essentially position the district court as a supervisor over the federal government’s entire response to climate change.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Lengthy Legal Battle

The lawsuit, initiated by twenty-one youth plaintiffs in 2015, alleges that the government’s facilitation of climate change-inducing fossil fuel projects infringes upon their constitutional rights to life. Spanning three presidential administrations, the case has garnered significant attention.

DOJ Seeks Complete Dismissal

The DOJ’s petition requests the complete dismissal of the case, along with a stay in the proceedings at the Oregon district court while the Ninth Circuit deliberates on the matter.

Legal Details

The case in question is identified as United States of America v. United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene, 9th Cir., No. 24-684, Petition 2/2/24.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Department of Justice Seeks to Halt Youth Climate Lawsuit first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a unanimous decision on Tuesday, the Illinois State Board of Elections ruled to dismiss a challenge to former President Donald Trump’s candidacy. However, this decision is unlikely to be the final resolution, as an appeal seems imminent.

Dismissal by the Board

The panel voted 8-0 on a bipartisan basis, cited a lack of jurisdiction in adjudicating a complex constitutional dispute involving the 14th Amendment. This amendment, ratified after the Civil War, could potentially disqualify Trump from the ballot based on the “insurrectionist ban.”

Legal Analysis and Recommendations

Retired Judge Clark Erickson, overseeing an evidentiary hearing, recommended the dismissal, affirming that the board lacked the legal authority to undertake such a complex constitutional analysis. However, based on the evidence presented, Erickson noted that Trump’s involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot could implicate him under the 14th Amendment. He suggested that state courts, with more authority, should determine Trump’s eligibility.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Arguments from Both Sides

Matthew Piers, representing the anti-Trump challengers, urged the panel to bar Trump from the ballot, alleging his significant role in the Capitol insurrection. Conversely, Trump’s attorney, Adam Merrill, advocated for Trump’s inclusion on the 2024 ballot, disputing Erickson’s findings.

Board Member Statements

During the vote, board member Catherine McCrory, a Republican, condemned Trump’s actions but emphasized the board’s lack of authority to remove him from the ballot. Despite her belief in Trump’s involvement in the insurrection, McCrory voted to dismiss the challenge.

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

Legal Landscape

Several Illinois voters initiated the challenge, seeking to follow the example of Colorado and Maine in removing Trump from the presidential ballots. Similar challenges in Michigan, Minnesota, and other states have been dismissed on procedural grounds. Trump has criticized these lawsuits as partisan maneuvers.

The decision of the Illinois State Board of Elections marks a preliminary step in the legal battle over Trump’s candidacy. While the challenge has been dismissed at this level, the matter will likely proceed to state courts, where the final determination regarding Trump’s eligibility may be made.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Illinois State Board of Elections Unanimously Dismisses Challenge to Trump's Candidacy first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a legal triumph, Slarskey LLC has secured a Final Award totaling $9.745 million on behalf of Mishcon de Reya New York LLP (“Mishcon NY”). This victory stems from a prolonged dispute involving Mishcon NY’s representation of ChanBond LLC against multiple defendants accused of patent infringement, culminating in a substantial arbitration win against competitor King & Wood Mallesons LLP (“KWM”) and ChanBond LLC.

The Background

The conflict originated from Mishcon NY’s dedicated legal representation of ChanBond, spanning over 4.5 years on a contingency-fee-basis. Despite Mishcon NY’s efforts, the firm ceased operations in December 2019. However, crucially, the partners responsible for the ChanBond matters transitioned to KWM, where they continued litigating the cases. Subsequently, the ChanBond Actions settled, resulting in a significant contingency fee. However, Mishcon NY was neither informed about this settlement by KWM nor compensated accordingly when they eventually learned of it.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

The Arbitration Process

Following these developments, a 5-day arbitration hearing occurred in September 2023 before a panel comprising former federal and state court judges. The panel meticulously assessed the evidence and ultimately ruled in favor of Mishcon NY, dismissing the defenses by KWM and its legal representatives. The decision vindicated Mishcon NY’s entitlement to compensation for its diligent legal services.

Statements from Slarskey LLC

Evan Fried, a partner at Slarskey LLC, emphasized the profound significance of this case, stating, “This case touches the very core of our profession—the way attorneys treat one another. We are proud to have generated such a positive result for our client.”

David Slarskey, another partner at Slarskey LLC, underscored the magnitude of this international legal showdown, noting, “This was an international Clash of the Titans… Not every small firm in New York has the confidence of a 600-person London law firm to carry a claim against a competitor involving matters of professional ethics in front of an arbitration panel of retired federal and state judges. We’re privileged to have the trust of great clients like Mishcon.”

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

Representation and Conclusion

Slarskey LLC attorneys David Slarskey, Evan Fried, and Keith Dore represented Mishcon de Reya New York LLP throughout this arduous legal battle, securing a substantial victory that underscores the firm’s commitment to its clients and the pursuit of justice.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Slarskey LLC Secures $10 Million Arbitration Victory for Mishcon de Reya New York LLP first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent legal development, renowned U.S. law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has successfully resolved a longstanding dispute over $1.4 million in purportedly unpaid legal fees with members of the influential Rosenthal-Hidalgo family, whom the firm once represented. The resolution of the conflict comes after Quinn Emanuel and the family members jointly requested a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to dismiss the lawsuit that Quinn Emanuel initiated back in 2019.

Settlement Details Remain Confidential

The terms of the settlement were not disclosed in the filing, but it was mentioned that the defendants, comprising the children of Jaime Rosenthal Oliva, a former vice president of Honduras, and their associated business interests, were obligated to make “four remaining monthly settlement payments.” Both Quinn Emanuel and representatives for the Rosenthal-Hidalgo family have refrained from commenting on the settlement, leaving the specifics of the resolution undisclosed.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Background: Legal Battle Origins

Quinn Emanuel had filed a lawsuit against Patricia, Carlos, and Cesar Rosenthal, along with multiple companies under their control, asserting that the law firm had not received full payment for its legal services in defending the family members. The Rosenthals had become subjects of U.S. government scrutiny due to alleged connections to the Honduran drug-trafficking ring known as Cachiros.

Criminal Charges and Legal Assistance

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan indicted Jaime Rosenthal Oliva and his eldest son, Yani Benjamin Rosenthal Hidalgo, on money laundering charges in 2015. Quinn Emanuel contended that their legal representation played a pivotal role in securing a reduced sentence of 36 months for Yani Rosenthal. Jaime Rosenthal, however, evaded prosecution until his passing in 2019 while still facing money-laundering charges.

Counterclaims and Allegations

In response to Quinn Emanuel’s initial lawsuit, the Rosenthals filed counterclaims in 2022, asserting that the legal action was nothing more than “a shake down to force these individuals to pay legal fees they don’t owe.” They specifically highlighted that only their father, Rosenthal Oliva, and their brother Yani had signed retainer agreements with Quinn Emanuel.

Uncover exclusive insights and strategic approaches through the State of the Lateral Law Firm Legal Market 2024—an in-depth report delving into the intricate patterns and current trends within the lateral law firm market.

Conclusion: Closure of Legal Chapter

With the recent settlement and the joint request for dismissal, the legal dispute between Quinn Emanuel and the Rosenthal-Hidalgo family appears to have reached a conclusion. The intricacies of the settlement agreement remain confidential, and the parties involved have chosen not to publicly comment on the resolution.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Quinn Emanuel Settles $1.4 Million Legal Fee Dispute with Prominent Honduran Family first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

HP Inc (HPQ.N) is entangled in a federal lawsuit in Chicago as consumers from various states, including Illinois, New York, and Missouri, accuse the company of antitrust violations. The plaintiffs claim that HP printers refuse replacement ink cartridges from other manufacturers, compelling them to pay exorbitant prices for HP-branded cartridges.

Alleged Violation of Antitrust Laws

In the proposed federal class action filed on Friday, the 11 consumers contend that HP violated U.S. and state antitrust laws, allegedly aiming to monopolize the replacement ink market. The lawsuit accuses HP of failing to inform consumers that automatic software updates would render some printers non-functional unless HP-branded ink were used.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Unveiling Deceptive Practices

According to the lawsuit, the consumers, faced with non-functional printers, were coerced into purchasing HP-branded ink they would not have otherwise chosen. HP has yet to respond to the allegations, and the plaintiffs’ attorneys from Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman have not stated as of Monday.

Previous Legal Actions

This latest lawsuit builds upon previous or pending cases involving HP’s alleged deceptive practices related to ink cartridges. In 2019, HP settled a California case by agreeing to pay $1.5 million to resolve consumer claims without admitting wrongdoing. Last August, a U.S. judge in California ruled that HP must face allegations related to all-in-one printers designed to cease scanning and faxing when low on ink.

California Judges Rule Against HP

In a different California lawsuit last December, a federal judge allowed plaintiffs to sue HP in a class action over its alleged failure to warn consumers about the “Dynamic Security” policy that updates and prevents the use of some third-party cartridges. However, the scope of proposed classes was narrowed, limiting the lawsuit to seeking an injunction against HP’s practices rather than monetary damages.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Chicago Case Seeks Injunction and Damages

In the Chicago case, the plaintiffs sought an injunction preventing HP from disabling printers unless HP-branded ink is used and monetary damages exceed $5 million. The lawsuit, titled Renee Robinson et al. v. HP Inc., is in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, under case number 1:24-cv-00164.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post HP Inc Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Ink Cartridge Monopoly first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Alleged Copyright Infringement in the Development of AI Models

In a recent legal development, OpenAI and its financial supporter, Microsoft, face a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court. The plaintiffs, nonfiction authors Nicholas Basbanes and Nicholas Gage, contend that their works were improperly used in the training data for artificial intelligence (AI) models, including the widely-used ChatGPT.

Copyright Infringement Allegations

Basbanes and Gage have filed a proposed class action, asserting that OpenAI and Microsoft violated their copyrights by incorporating segments from several of their books into the dataset utilized to train OpenAI’s GPT large language model. The authors argue that the companies’ utilization of their literary works without proper authorization constitutes copyright infringement.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Lack of Immediate Responses from Defendants

As of now, neither Microsoft nor OpenAI has issued a response to the allegations. Representatives for the companies have yet to comment on the complaint, leaving the legal claims unanswered.

A Growing Trend of Lawsuits in the Tech Industry

This lawsuit is part of a broader trend, with various fiction and nonfiction writers taking legal action against tech companies. Notable figures such as comedian Sarah Silverman and “Game of Thrones” author George R.R. Martin have also filed lawsuits, claiming that their creative works were used without permission to train AI programs.

The New York Times Joins the Legal Battle

Adding to the legal challenges, The New York Times recently filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. The renowned media organization alleges that its journalists’ work was utilized without proper authorization in the training of AI applications.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Former Journalists Speak Out

Basbanes and Gage, former journalists themselves, express their discontent with the situation. Michael Richter, their legal representative, deems it “outrageous” that companies can leverage their clients’ works to fuel a burgeoning billion-dollar industry without offering any compensation.

As the legal battle unfolds, it sheds light on the complexities surrounding intellectual property in the age of artificial intelligence, prompting a closer examination of ethical considerations and compensation within the tech industry.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Lawsuit Claims OpenAI and Microsoft Misused Authors' Work to Train AI first appeared on JDJournal Blog.