Commercial Litigation Update

New episode of our podcast, Speaking of Litigation:  The old adage about real estate is “location, location, location!” In this Speaking of Litigation podcast episode, however, the central theme shifts to “litigation, litigation, litigation!” as the discussion focuses on the significant implications of legal disputes and challenges in the realm of real estate development.

Detailing storied examples of development litigation controversies, such as that involving the “American Dream” retail and entertainment center in New Jersey, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Keith Randall, Sheila Woolson, and Jeremy Oliver explore the legal challenges developers face throughout a project’s life cycle. From entitlement and environmental issues to construction disputes and more, this episode addresses the ways you can mitigate these challenges from interfering with your next development endeavor.

Searching the internet for “AI and litigation” reveals tons of results about how AI will either replace lawyers or transform the legal profession. These results are unsurprising. Since the early 2010s, articles focusing on the potential impact AI may have on lawyers have popped up every few months. But these results miss the bigger and more important picture, which is that AI likely will spawn a myriad of litigation stemming from its use. This litigation will create the rise of AI lawyers who specialize in the complexities of AI.

In fact, this year we are already seeing the rise of AI lawyers as a handful of lawsuits surrounding AI have been filed. Below is a summary of current proceedings that have been filed this year and where they stand.

On July 26, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted its long-anticipated cybersecurity reporting rule (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule applies to public companies subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and, in some cases, to foreign private issuers. As quoted in the SEC’s press release, SEC Commissioner Gary Gensler noted that many public companies already make cybersecurity disclosures to investors, and the Final Rule provides uniformity and structure for these future disclosures. The Final Rule also imposes a tight timeline for cybersecurity incident reporting and may include disclosure of an ongoing cybersecurity incident, as well as requiring periodic disclosures concerning organizational cybersecurity risk management processes and governance.

Mistakes sometimes happen. One of the most serious mistakes attorneys can make is to inadvertently disclose privileged or otherwise protected information during discovery. This may sound easy, but in the electronic era, where electronic documents with metadata are the norm, this creates special difficulties.

By now, the story of two New York attorneys facing scrutiny for citing nonexistent cases generated by the artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool ChatGPT has made national (and international) headlines. Late last month, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York sanctioned the attorneys and their firm $5,000. The court’s decision (Roberto Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023) (ECF No. 54)) provides a humbling reminder of both an attorney’s responsibilities in ensuring the accuracy of his or her filings, and the limits of certain technologies in the legal profession.

On June 28, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“HHS-OIG”), along with other federal and state law enforcement partners, announced a nationwide health care fraud enforcement action targeting a variety of alleged health care fraud schemes. As has been the case over the last few years, DOJ and HHS-OIG have moved away from categorizing the enforcement action as a “takedown”. The government has not explained the naming change, but one explanation is that it is no longer properly considered a true “takedown” because the enforcement activity (charges, arrests) occurs over many weeks leading up to the day it is announced.  

A 6-3 Court, sharply divided along conservative and liberal jurisprudential lines, has decided the two headlining cases involving affirmative action in university admissions: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College gets top billing, perhaps relating to the alumni status of several Justices, but the decision also resolves the case of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. 

June 30th is the nominal last day of the Supreme Court's current term. The Court began the day with the long-awaited decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, another 6-3 jurisprudentially ideological split in which, per Justice Gorsuch, the Court holds that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees. As was the situation with yesterday's affirmative action cases, it is hard to tell whether the majority and the dissenters (Justice Sotomayor writing their opinion) are speaking about the same case. The majority views this as a clear case of forced speech. To the dissenters, this is no more than a matter of requiring conduct—the sale of services—on the basis of equality. Thus, Justice Gorsuch opines, “Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.” As Justice Sotomayor sees it, ”[t]oday, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”

In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. __ (June 27, 2023), the United States Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law that enables a plaintiff to show general personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation based only upon that company’s registering to do business in Pennsylvania. 42 Pa. Const. Stat. § 5301(a)(2). It is well established that general personal jurisdiction permits a court to adjudicate any and all claims against an out-of-state corporate defendant only where a plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant has substantial contacts with the forum state. The majority decision, however, rules that a plaintiff need not engage in a contacts analysis where a state, such as Pennsylvania, has a corporate registration law deeming corporate registration as consent to jurisdiction. Other states will now likely emulate Pennsylvania by adopting similar statutory provisions authorizing general personal jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations registered to do business in those states even where there has been no showing of substantial state contacts.

New episode of our podcast, Speaking of Litigation: From chart-topping artificial rap songs to employment screening tools, artificial intelligence (AI) is not only a societal phenomenon but also a growing legal dilemma.

Trial lawyers around the globe are focused on the emergence of AI-related disputes in and out of the courtroom.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Teddy McCormick, Jim Flynn, and Ali Nienaber illustrate the influence that AI has on litigation, employment practices, music, and more.