White Collar Crime

This article discusses three open issues following Dubin v. United States: How appellate courts have been interpreting the “at the crux” language; an emerging circuit split as to whether district courts must specifically instruct juries on the “at the crux” test; and questions not answered in Dubin that will be subject to further development.

Given its widespread use and popularity, AI-related issues have unsurprisingly begun to feature prominently in recent securities cases. These issues range from allegations of “AI washing” and overstated AI capabilities to disputes over whether clients’ use of generative AI tools can be shielded by the attorney-client privilege.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission introduced sweeping reforms in May meant to incentivize more initial public offerings, lowering the costs for companies to go public and making it easier to raise capital once they do.

This article explores recent trends in the use of confidential information on prediction markets, how the Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates that conduct, and practical considerations for businesses.

The Department of Justice's March 2026 proposed rule, which state bar associations, former grievance attorneys, and political advocates frame as a power grab by the current administration, represents an attempt to re-open a long-ago resolved feud between the DOJ and the states over who regulates the ethical conduct of federal prosecutors.

Trade crimes have emerged as a defining enforcement priority in white collar practice. For defense practitioners, the shift demands more than awareness; it requires retooling case strategies, developing technical fluency in complex regulatory regimes, and rethinking how to challenge the government’s theories of intent and culpability.

This article covers potential landmines for the average elected official or public employee, particularly through the lens of the always developing Open Public Records Act and will provide some tools that municipal attorneys can use to fight back against self-inflicted wounds or AI overreach.

For most of its 136-year history, Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act was more of a threat than a weapon. The provision — which prohibits the willful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power through anticompetitive conduct — carried demanding proof requirements, required expensive and expansive discovery, and produced so few trial victories that enforcers rarely tested it. When they did, they usually lost. That calculus may be shifting.