Biden/Harris 2020: Surprising exactly no one.
Oh, Dersh: That sounds awfully definitive to me.
Dentons Gets Bigger: Another tie-up for the megafirm.
Want To Get Around A Tricky Argument? Just ignore it. The California Bar did.
Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
Biden/Harris 2020: Surprising exactly no one.
Oh, Dersh: That sounds awfully definitive to me.
Dentons Gets Bigger: Another tie-up for the megafirm.
Want To Get Around A Tricky Argument? Just ignore it. The California Bar did.
America’s bar examination authorities have turned to threatening Character & Fitness repercussions for their critics marking a new, darker phase of the bar exam drama. How in the world did it come to this? Also, we talk about Kanye’s double agent attorney and PACER gets a slap from the federal courts.
(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!
According to data collected by Law.com for the A-List law firms ranking, which top 20 firm has the highest diversity score?
Hint: The Biglaw firm received 95.5 (out of 100) score on diversity, and is ranked 13th on the list.
See the answer on the next page.
A few months ago, I discussed the legality of lesser-known hemp-derived cannabinoids which appeared to be gaining success in the United States. One of these promising cannabinoids is cannabinol (CBN). Put simply, CBN is a non-intoxicating cannabinoid that results from the degradation of THC. Because it is difficult, if not impossible, to grow CBN-rich strains of hemp, most of the CBN found on the U.S. market is the product of decarboxylation — a chemical reaction that converts other cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), into CBN. This conversion process creates some confusion regarding the legal status of CBN.
Although CBN is not expressly listed under the federal Controlled Substances Act (the CSA), the cannabinoid is a Scheduled I controlled substance when derived from marijuana. The CSA defines “marihuana” to mean “all parts of the cannabis plant” except the stalks and nonviable seeds. Because neither the stalks nor nonviable seeds contain meaningful amounts of cannabinoids, CBN squarely falls under the definition of marijuana and, as a result, is a controlled substance.
On the other hand, CBN derived from hemp is not a controlled substance and, thus, may be lawful. This is true for two reasons. First, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill) expressly removed “hemp” from the CSA definition of marijuana. Second, the 2018 Farm Bill defines “hemp” as “all parts” of the cannabis plant, including cannabinoids, with a THC concentration that does not exceed 0.3% on a dry weight basis. Accordingly, CBN is probably lawful if derived from hemp.
Nevertheless, some argue that CBN, regardless of its source, is a controlled substance because it is produced from the degradation of THC. The proponents of this argument generally rely on two theories.
The first theory is premised on the federal Analogue Act (the AA). The AA treats any substance intended for human consumption that resembles a Schedule I or II substance in its chemical make-up and effect on the human body as if it were a CSA Schedule I or II controlled substance. But should the AA apply in this context?
The CSA expressly excludes “tetrahydrocannabinols [all forms of THC] in hemp” from the list of Schedule I controlled substances. Moreover, the effects of CBN are not “substantially similar” to those of THC. In fact, its effects are significantly less potent. Therefore, CBN that stems from hemp-derived THC should not be deemed a controlled substance analogue.
The second argument is based on the literal interpretation of “tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp,” and thus, that only CBN derived from THC “in hemp” is lawful. The reasoning here is that trace amounts (no more than 0.3%) of THC that naturally occur in the hemp plant are lawful, but THC that is extracted and isolated from the hemp plant is unlawful. This analysis fails to account for the fact that the 2018 Farm Bill expressly legalized “derivatives, extracts, [and] cannabinoids,” most of which must go through a processing phase that inevitably increases the THC concentration. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that Congress intended to legalize processed hemp (i.e., cannabinoids not “in hemp”) as well.
However, as reasonable as this statutory interpretation is, it fails to resolve the position taken by some law enforcement groups that treat processed hemp containing more than 0.3% THC as marijuana (i.e., a controlled substance), even if the THC concentration only increases fleetingly during the processing phase.
Consequently, though it seems clear that hemp-derived CBN should not be treated as a Schedule I controlled substance analogue, it is unclear whether CBN that results from processed hemp-derived THC is lawful, given the confusing legal status of THC not “in hemp.”
This lingering uncertainty regarding the legal status of CBN will likely need to be addressed through legislation or the courts. In the meantime, producing CBN from THC extracted from hemp should be done cautiously and with the understanding that this lesser-known cannabinoid may be treated as a controlled substance under the CSA, even if Congress did not consider or intend this result.
Nathalie practices out of Harris Bricken’s Portland office and focuses on the regulatory framework of hemp-derived CBD (“hemp CBD”) products. She is an authority on FDA enforcement, Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and other laws and regulations surrounding hemp and hemp CBD products. She also advises domestic and international clients on the sale, distribution, marketing, labeling, importation and exportation of these products. Nathalie frequently speaks on these issues and has made national media appearances, including on NPR’s Marketplace. For two consecutive years, Nathalie has been selected as a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers Magazine, an honor bestowed on only 2.5% of eligible Oregon attorneys. Nathalie is also a regular contributor to her firm’s Canna Law Blog.
Senator Kamala Harris (Photo by NOAH BERGER/AFP/Getty Images)
The news everyone has been waiting for has finally arrived. Former Vice President Joe Biden, 77, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has announced his running mate for the 2020 election. As announced on Twitter, Senator Kamala Harris, 55, has been chosen to serve as Biden’s vice president, making her the first African American and South Asian American woman to be nominated for vice president by a major political party.
Harris is a graduate of the University of California Hastings College of the Law. After law school, she worked as a prosecutor for several years in the Alameda County and San Francisco district attorney’s offices before running for San Francisco district attorney in 2003. She later went on to become California’s attorney general in 2010. Six years later, in 2016, Harris became the second Black woman in history to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Here’s what Biden said of Harris earlier today:
“You make a lot of important decisions as president. But the first one is who you select to be your Vice President,” Biden said in an email to supporters Tuesday afternoon. “I’ve decided that Kamala Harris is the best person to help me take this fight to Donald Trump and Mike Pence and then to lead this nation starting in January 2021.”
“These aren’t normal times,” Biden added. “I need someone working alongside me who is smart, tough, and ready to lead. Kamala is that person.”
Harris’s husband, Douglas Emhoff, is a partner at DLA Piper, and he’s already showing his wife some well-deserved Twitter love.
Congratulations to Kamala Harris for reaching these great political heights!
Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.
(NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)
Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s defamation suit agains the president is back on track after the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Vance that “absolute presidential immunity” is really not a thing.
Last week, New York Supreme Court Justice Verna L. Saunders “construe[d] the holding in Vance applicable to all state court proceedings in which a sitting president is involved” and lifted the stay on discovery imposed pending resolution of the president’s immunity to discovery in a suit filed by former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos, who also sued for defamation after she accused the president of sexual assault and he called her a liar.
Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan of Kaplan, Hecker & Fink immediately fired off a letter to Trump’s counsel Marc Kasowitz demanding to schedule discovery, including both depositions and retrieval of a DNA sample from the president.
After Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman’s years ago, Trump denied having ever met the advice columnist, said she was “not my type,” and accused her of fabricating the accusation to sell her book. Carroll sued for defamation, pointing to a photo of the two of them together, and producing a dress she claims to have worn on the day in question and never since. Testing revealed the presence of DNA from an unidentified male person on the dress, and now she’d like a sample from the president to see if there’s a match.
In fact, Carroll’s lawyer has generously offered to be flexible on the date of deposition, postponing it until after the president hands over his genetic material for comparison.
“We propose that Defendant first provide us with a DNA sample, so that our experts can have an opportunity to test it before we take his deposition,” Kaplan wrote.
She was also mindful of the president’s very busy schedule, now that he’s back from three days of golfing in New Jersey. AHEM.
“President Clinton made time to testify under oath about allegations of sexual harassment, and so President Trump can surely make time to testify about allegations of sexual assault and defamation,” Kaplan continued. “His testimony about what he did (and what he said) will strike to the very heart of the case and offer evidence that cannot be obtained from any other sources. He is obviously required to provide it.”
Remember when the nation was regaled with a painfully detailed and likely false description of President Clinton’s manhood in the Paula Jones case? Remember when Clinton was forced to submit DNA to match with the stain on Monica Lewinsky’s infamous blue dress?
Karma’s a bitch.
Trump’s lawyers, who have used every trick in the book to drag this out, including ducking process like a child support deadbeat, will no doubt argue that the Vance decision applies only to criminal process, not civil discovery. It’s not clear whether that position will get any traction with the appellate court, particularly in light of the Jones precedent. But digging their heels in on the DNA test — which would surely take the wind out of Carroll’s sails if there was no match — is hardly a ringing endorsement of their client’s innocence.
Kasowitz Letter, August 10, 2020
Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.
Kandi Burruss (Photo by Vivien Killilea/Getty Images for Webber Films/Riveting Entertainment)
I am honored to be part of this year’s curriculum at Georgia State University College of Law. Attorneys are among the most important members of your team. It’s imperative you have the right lawyers around you to assist in making the best decisions. Every contract you sign is building towards your overall dreams and goals. I’m excited to see the students get a first-hand look into some of the contracts that have shaped my career thus far.
— Kandi Burruss, a singer, songwriter, actress, entrepreneur, and star of “The Real Housewives of Atlanta,” commenting on the fact that her career will be the focus of Georgia State Law’s “Legal Life of…” course, which is part of the school’s Entertainment, Sports and Media Law Initiative. “I couldn’t be happier for my students to learn the law through Kandi’s career,” said Professor Mo Ivory. Last fall, the course focused on the Legal Life of Ludacris.
Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.
Alan Dershowitz’s long-running legal battle may seem complex but that’s mostly because he’s styled it that way. At its root, this is a case about him calling Jeffrey Epstein’s victims “liars” and one of those women, Virginia Giuffre, suing him for defamation. That it’s become a case where he’s disqualified David Boies on the grounds that the woman’s attorney was a fact witness to Dershowitz’s claim that Boies is orchestrating an extortion plot against the Harvard Law professor, resulting in Boies counterclaiming against Dershowitz is all getting further and further from the point: did Dershowitz defame this woman or not?
One side issue Dershowitz has invited to the case is a bid to secure documents and testimony from billionaire Les Wexner, who used to let Epstein handle his finances, hoping to show that Wexner was the victim of an extortion plot orchestrated by Boies and Giuffre supposedly to quell accusations against Wexner which all goes to prove, Dershowitz hopes, that he’s just a victim like countless other men accused of statutory rape just because they happened to be close friends and associates with a pedophile for years. It’s certainly attenuated from the central claim, but it’s a narrative that plays well theatrically. A “conspiracy of silence” amongst rich people who just refuse to go on record? Sure, why not?
But Judge Preska just nixed the seal on correspondence from Wexner’s attorney John Zeiger and there’s a definitive “we don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, please get off our lawn” coming from their side:
While many of these are discovery subjects that should be, in the first instance, explored with Ms. Giuffre and Mr. Boies, Mr. Zeiger did have communications with Mr. Boies and can readily confirm that: no extortion demand was ever made, no settlement was entered into, and not a penny (or other consideration) was ever paid. Just the opposite is true for Mr. Wexner, however. He had no involvement, and thus lacks any personal knowledge relating to, Defendant’s so-called “Extortion Claim.” Mr. Boies, who is in the midst of litigation with Defendant, can readily confirm Mr. Wexner’s lack of involvement without burdening a non-party.
Attorneys can find a way to weasel out of a lot of stuff, but this isn’t equivocal language. These are some very definitive truth claims. It’s hard to imagine any lawyer making these statements if there’s any chance it could come out to be a lie. Wexner also, apparently, offered to provide written testimony confirming this, which Dershowitz rejects in favor of a video deposition.
People can lie, of course, and credibility can be challenged over the course of questioning, but when the Wexner subplot thrived upon the idea that “what does this guy have to hide?” having it come out that his camp was already offering to testify under oath about this stuff as long as it didn’t burden them with hours of videotaped questioning, it looks less like a guy trying to hide something and more like an old man who doesn’t want something interrupting his retirement.
Who knows at this point, but it might well be that Dershowitz had a better story going before we got our first peek into Wexner’s side of things. On the other hand, some outlets are already spinning these documents as “[Wexner] May Finally Have to Explain His Epstein Ties” so it may be too much to hope that people will accept that third-parties have zero appetite for depositions no matter what the circumstances.
Judge Preska plans to hear argument on whether or not Wexner needs to testify next week.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
Thank you for taking this survey!
This survey will take about 6 minutes—and your responses are anonymous so please be as honest as possible.
As a thank you for completing the survey, we’ll enter you into a draw to win one of five $200 Amazon gift cards.
Select “Next” to start.