(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus as to the guilt phase claims relating to first degree murder, vacating the convictions and remanding because if counsel had performed effectively by investigating and presenting evidence of the defendant's diminished mental capacity defense based on mental impairment there was a reasonable probability at least one juror would have had a reasonable doubt about his ability to form the requisite mental state for first degree murder.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denying a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging a trial judge's refusal to disqualify himself and for the attorney's removal as defense counsel in a case where the defense attorney engaged in a series of procedural delays in his defense of a man charged with two counts of rape that the court eventually held was denying the victim, defendant, and government their right to a speedy trial because the court correctly found that his motion to disqualify was untimely and the trial court had the authority to remove defense counsel to ensure adequate representation is provided and to avoid the substantial impairment of court proceedings... a rarely exercised authority that was held to be appropriate in this instance.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's denial of a California inmate's habeas corpus petition alleging the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney held deeply racist beliefs about African Americans in general and him in particular because he conceded he was unaware of his attorney's racism until years after the conviction was final and couldn't identify any acts or admissions by his attorney that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed an order disqualifying a law firm from an insurance coverage case based on a newly hired associate's conflict of interest. While the disqualification ruling was pending on appeal, the discovery associate left the 500-plus attorney firm. Based on this development, the Fourth Appellate District reversed the disqualification order and returned the case to the trial court with directions to reweigh the competing disqualification considerations in light of Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co., 183 Cal. App. 4th 776 (2010).

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an attorney was not entitled to a new trial after a jury found him liable to a client for intentional torts. The attorney argued that the client failed to prove causation. Disagreeing, the Fourth Appellate District concluded that claims of fraudulent concealment and intentional breach of fiduciary duty brought against an attorney are subject to the substantial-factor causation standard, not the trial-within-a-trial or but-for standard employed in cases of legal malpractice based on negligence. The panel also held that the testimony of the client alone sufficed here to support her emotional distress damages.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that plaintiff's counsel was not liable for breaching a provision in a settlement agreement requiring him to keep the settlement confidential. Upon being sued by the other settling party for speaking with the online news media about this product liability case, the plaintiff's counsel filed a SLAPP motion. On appeal, the Fourth Appellate District held that the settlement agreement's language purporting to impose a confidentiality obligation on the attorney was unenforceable in this case.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a dispute over legal fees should not have been submitted to arbitration because the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement was unenforceable. A law firm recovered its outstanding fees through arbitration after it was disqualified from a case due to a conflict of interest. On review, however, the California Supreme Court held that the matter should never have been arbitrated because the law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict rendered its agreement with its client, including the arbitration clause, unenforceable as against public policy. The high court also held that the conflicts waiver the client signed was ineffective.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order disqualifying an attorney from representing a client due to a conflict of interest. The attorney argued that there was no conflict, but the California Second Appellate District concluded otherwise. The panel stated that when an attorney represents more than one client, all of whom seek damages from a pool of money controlled by another party, the conflict is self-evident: there might not be enough money to satisfy each client's claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that there was no need to disqualify a city attorney's office from representing the city in a police officer's employment lawsuit. The officer argued that disqualification was necessary because she had been forced to answer questions about her lawsuit during a police internal affairs interview about another matter. Ordered the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying the city attorney's office.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to disqualify another party's counsel in longstanding litigation over groundwater rights. Stressed the movant's long delay in seeking disqualification, in this case where counsel allegedly had a conflict of interest.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an excess insurer could not sue an insured's lawyers for negligent misrepresentation. The insurer claimed that the lawyers led it to believe that a product liability suit posed no threat of exposure to its policy. Concluding that the law firm was immune from suit under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss and rendered a judgment of dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a law firm was disqualified from representing a party in an unfair business practices case due to a conflict of interest. Reversed the denial of a disqualification motion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a $950 sanction imposed on a deputy public defender for violating a reciprocal discovery order by failing to disclose statements taken from a witness. Concluded that there was no discovery violation under the circumstances here.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an attorney committed misconduct by manifesting gender bias. Reported him to the State Bar. The attorney had filed a notice of appeal that referred to a female judicial officer's ruling as succubustic, a word that refers to a demon assuming female form that has sexual intercourse with men in their sleep.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution claims against attorneys is one year. Accordingly, the present lawsuit was time-barred. Affirmed the decision below.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that investors could not proceed with a lawsuit accusing an attorney of being complicit in a client's Ponzi scheme. The attorney had immunity because, under Texas law, a non-client is not allowed to sue an attorney for conduct that occurred within the scope of the attorney's representation of a client. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the law firm.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a lawyer should not have been disqualified from representing a student-employee at a community college in a sexual harassment case. He did not violate California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct concerning communications with represented parties when he contacted another student-employee seeking a witness statement. Granted writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order disqualifying attorneys. The appeals court held that no evidence had been presented that Plaintiff's attorneys possessed confidential attorney-client privileged information relevant to the suit and that if there was a conflict other lawyers in the law firm could represent Plaintiff.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denying a petition to review an FCC order allowing the limitation of bidding credits available to 'designated entities' in the bidding process for electromagnetic spectrum licenses since the decision was not arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to the law.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing a trial court judgment granting writ of mandate and the award of attorney's fees in the case of a real estate salesperson who sued a state agency for publicizing her three misdemeanor convictions because they had no mandatory duty to remove from their website information about a licensee's convictions even if they were eventually dismissed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a preliminary injunction against a company whose business involved purchasing physical copies of copyrighted movie and television shows, censoring objectionable content, and then ripping digital copies of their edited versions to stream to customers because the Family Movie Act and the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act did not permit the defendant's activities.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's dismissal of a defamation action as it related to out-of-state defendants because Connecticut's long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants excepting defamation actions does not violate the plaintiff's First or Fourteenth Amendment rights in a case where a media publisher reported on the plaintiff's lawsuit accusing their former Netherlands employer of a kickback operation involving Qaddafi and quoted the employer's statements about him, but reversing and remanding a decision that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim as it related to the employer's statements that he had repeatedly tried to extort money from them to determine whether the implication was indeed defamatory.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate in the case of a criminal defendant awaiting trial on the charge of attempted murder who sought the Facebook posts of the victim directing the respondent superior court to vacate its order denying Facebook's motion to quash subpeonas duces tecum and vacate order allowing subpeona duces tecum and enter a new order granting the petitioner's motion because the Stored Communications Act prohibits electronic communications service providers from knowingly divulging the contents of a communication and no exception applied.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under Massachusetts law for libel and intentional interference, affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant on the remaining claims, and affirming the award of attorney fees and costs to the defense in a case where an attorney was the subject of two negative reports because the law immunized the defense for many of the complaints.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of Bill Cosby's motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds in a case alleging defamation when the New York Daily News published an article in which the plaintiff accused him of rape and a purportedly confidential letter drafted by Cosby's attorney in response was released to news outlets and websites worldwide.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Ordering the district court to vacate orders prohibiting the petitioner from expressing their views on litigation or republishing public documents over social media platforms, and requiring them to post a disclaimer prohibiting comment on the litigation because this amounted to prior restraint on their First Amendment rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's ruling that Yelp lacked standing to assert the First Amendment rights of an anonymous reviewer whose identity was sought in connection with a defamation claim, finding no error in the determination that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the comments made by this person were defamatory, and concluding that this finding was sufficient to support the court order compelling the production of subpeonaed documents, for which reason the petition for writ of mandate was denied, but also finding the opposition to the motion to compel was substantially justified and reversing the order of sanctions against Yelp.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's judgment in favor of the defense and its denial of plaintiff motions to reopen discovery and for relief from judgment in an action challenging a jail's policy prohibiting the delivery of unsolicited commercial mail to inmates because the ban related to legitimate penological objectives and arguments supporting the plaintiff's appeals had been abandoned.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of an action alleging that ESPN gave away personally identifiable information in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act by giving Adobe Analytics the plaintiff's Roku device serial number and identifying videos he watched through an ESPN app, rejecting ESPN's contention that the plaintiff lacked standing because every disclosure of personally identifiable information provides standing, but holding that an ordinary person couldn't use the information to identify an individual.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's dismissal for failure to state a claim in the case of a musician whose video was taken down from YouTube, which posted a statement that the video had violated their terms of service, because using violence and profanity as examples of things that could result in the removal of a video did not amount to libel.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversing a district court decision relating to the release of private individuals' medical documents under the Freedom of Information Act in a case brought by a journalist conducting research because the balancing of public interest in disclosure and the relevant privacy interests was flawed due to the court's application of the wrong standard because the release of the documents was unlikely to advance a valid public interest and substantial privacy interests implicated by the records outweighed the interest in disclosure.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a wireless company's complaints for lack of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act in the case of a company whose failure to pay for spectrum licenses resulted in their automatic cancellation by the FCC because the Communications Act provided a comprehensive statutory scheme to raise contract claims, which foreclosed Tucker Act jurisdiction.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a case alleging copyright infringement seeking to hold a high-speed internet provider contributorily responsible for infringement of a music publisher's copyrights, affirming the trial court's determination that the defense was not entitled to a safe harbor defense, but reversing, vacating, and remanding on account of errors in jury instructions.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal for failure to state a claim allegations of First Amendment violations by the City of New York, but reversing as to Manhattan Community Access Corporation and its employees because public access TV channels are a public forum and the corporation and its employees were state actors when they fired workers who produced segments critical of the corporation.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversing a district court order finding fair use in the case of a company that enables clients to view and distribute ten-minute clips of television and radio programs produced by others because whether or not the snippets served a transformational purpose the provision of virtually all of Fox's copyrighted content deprived Fox of copyright revenue and could not be justified as fair use.

(California Court of Appeal) - Vacating a district court's denial of a motion for attorney fees and remanding for consideration under the appropriate legal and evidentiary standards in a Lanham Act case in a suit relating to internet domain registry services because the district court required clear and convincing evidence of an exceptional case, rather than the Act's preponderance of the evidence standard.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacating a district court's denial of a motion for attorney fees and remanding for consideration under the appropriate legal and evidentiary standards in a Lanham Act case in a suit relating to internet domain registry services because the district court required clear and convincing evidence of an exceptional case, rather than the Act's preponderance of the evidence standard.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of class action employment law claims brought by independent contractors working for the government-funded broadcast service Voice of America. The contractors alleged that they should have been appointed to positions in the civil service or retained through personal-services contracts instead of working under purchase order vendor contracts that provided less in the way of compensation and benefits. In affirming the dismissal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the trial court's finding that plaintiffs had set forth no viable theory of recovery.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order denying attorney's fees to a newspaper that had been forced to litigate over its request for public records. The newspaper argued that it was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under the California Public Records Act. However, the Third Appellate District disagreed, holding that the Act does not allow for an award of attorney fees when the requester litigates against an officer of a public agency in a mandamus action that the officer initiated to keep the public agency from disclosing records it agreed to disclose.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that magazine publishers did not violate antitrust laws by trying to drive a wholesaler out of business. The wholesaler delivered magazines to retail stores and it alleged that when it tried to impose a surcharge on the publishers in 2009, they conspired to boycott and drive the wholesaler out of business. On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the wholesaler had presented insufficient evidence of a boycott scheme to survive summary judgment. The panel also affirmed summary judgment against the publishers' counterclaims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. Olympic Committee and USA Track and Field did not violate antitrust law by imposing advertising restrictions during the Olympic Trials. A chewing gum company that wished to pay to display its logo on athletes' apparel brought this suit to challenge the advertising restrictions. Rejecting the company's arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant organizations were entitled to implied antitrust immunity on the basis that their advertising restrictions were integral to performance of their duties under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government was justified in refusing to release certain photographs of detainees taken by U.S. Army personnel at military detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations demanded that the photographs be released under the Freedom of Information Act. The government countered that the photographs were shielded from disclosure by a 2009 law, the Protected National Security Documents Act. Agreeing with the government, the Second Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the government.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the State Bar of California did not have to disclose information from its database. For social science research purposes, the petitioners sought anonymized data about all individuals who took the California bar examination from 1972 to 2008, including their race or ethnicity, law school and undergraduate grade point averages, LSAT scores, and performance on the bar examination. Affirming the denial of a writ of mandate, the California First Appellate District held that such a request was beyond the purview of the California Public Records Act because it would compel the State Bar to create new records.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a defamation suit brought by a hedge fund manager who claimed Bloomberg News falsely reported that he was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The plaintiff brought suit against Bloomberg, as well as the reporter and editor of the story, alleging that they had defamed him and committed other common-law torts. Agreeing with the district court, the First Circuit held that the plaintiff was required to plausibly allege actual malice because he was at least a limited-purpose public figure and that he had failed to allege such facts.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reinstated sports photographers' copyright infringement claims against the National Football League and the Associated Press. Seven photographers who make a living taking photos of NFL events alleged that thousands of their photos were exploited without a license and without compensating them in any way. Vacating in part and remanding, the Second Circuit held that some of the photographers' claims were plausibly pleaded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a city was entitled to invoice the National Lawyers Guild for certain costs incurred in complying with the Guild’s requests for production of documents under the California Public Records Act, including billing for the time that city employees spent redacting police body camera videos.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the district court should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction over a lawsuit contending that the First Amendment required the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to release newly filed complaints to the press at the moment of receipt by her office -- not after processing. Ordered the case dismissed without prejudice.