Good morning! I'm Lit Daily editor Jenna Greene here with your Daily Dicta. You can reach me at [email protected] or find me on Twitter: @jgreenejenna.

There are plenty of important things happening in the legal world right now. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a case that could upend patent litigation. Net neutrality is on its way out. The CFPB is in chaos and headed for a showdown in court to determine its rightful acting director.

And then there's the news I'm secretly most interested in. Prince Harry is engaged to Meghan Markle, a woman who became famous for playing a paralegal turned lawyer on the television show “Suits.”

The show—which takes place at a fictional New York firm that's like a cross between Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz—is not what you'd call a documentary.

Still, some of it rings true. Consider some of these lines from the pilot episode, which first aired in 2011.

When Markle's character sees a new associate heading home at 6:30 p.m., she laughs and tells him, “You're a rookie associate. If you go home before 9 your first week, you're not going to make it through your first month.”

She also tells him, “All work gets billed, even if it's just finding an address.”

Star partner Harvey Specter (think some hybrid of Philippe Selendy, Brad Karp, Daniel Petrocelli and Darren Robbins) has some pithy advice too. “Nobody does anything as a courtesy,” he tells the new associate. “They sent those files because that's where they want you to look. Being a lawyer is like being a doctor. You keep pressing until it hurts. Then you know where to look.”

And also, “The threat of sanctions is better than filing for sanctions.” Which might be true.

Then there's the snooty hiring partner, who says, “The fact that we only hire from Harvard gives us a cachet that's a little more valuable than hiring a kid from Rutgers.”

In the canon of legal shows, I'd put it alongside L.A. Law as at least vaguely realistic—and definitely ahead of Ally McBeal or Perry Mason.

What are your thoughts on the greatest TV legal dramas? Email me at [email protected].

Markle told BBC News she is leaving Suits at the end of the season. Go figure, she'd rather be a real-life princess than a paralegal on TV.

Lateral Watch

Cozen O'Connor re-hired partner James Schultz, who stepped down after less than a year as a top ethics lawyer in the White House Counsel's Office. He'll lead Cozen's government and regulatory practice.

Was it, oh, a frustrating job, considering the word “emoluments” is now part of the popular vernacular?

Schultz says no. He told Politico that concerns about ethics issues in the Trump administration have been overblown.

“There has been undue attention … We've been more onerous in making people divest and recuse than the agencies would have required,” Schultz told Josh Gerstein. “Some in the news media unfairly criticize this administration and take every opportunity to take shots, even when they're not justified.”

In another aptly-timed exit, Goodwin Procter snagged Anthony Alexis, the former head of enforcement at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—who left just in time to miss the tug-of-war over the agency's rightful acting director. He'll head Goodwin Procter's consumer financial services enforcement practice.

Before Alexis joined the CFPB in early 2015, he was a complex litigation and white-collar partner at Mayer Brown, and before that, a federal prosecutor.

More Legal News

Pregerson, Liberal Judge of 'Conscience' on the Ninth Circuit, Dead at 94
“He did not draw a line between the law and his conscience,” Judge Alex Kozinski said. “To him, law without conscience is a meaningless thing, or an evil thing.”

NFL Class Counsel's Ties to Third-Party Litigation Funder Raise Questions
Does lead class counsel Christopher Seeger have a conflict of interest?

The EEOC Got What It Wanted in First Suit Alleging Sexual Orientation Discrimination
“This judgment should send a strong message to all employers that the protections against sexual harassment include sexual orientation,” the EEOC said. But the penalty—$55,000—is not exactly frightening.

Bonus Season Begins as Cravath Again Sets the Stage
From $15,000 all the way up to $100,000. Jealous? Who me, no I'm not jealous.

How a Few Savvy Law Firms Turned E-Discovery Into a Cash Cow
The per-document price of e-discovery has declined, but the volume of documents makes it hard to control overall costs. And that's where some firms see an opening.

The Crucial Decision: Mediate or Litigate? A Former Judge's Perspective
Parties that have been in a litigation posture sometimes need to step back and take a more realistic view of their own case.

The Perils of Autofill, Continued

I wrote yesterday about the perils of autofill, and queried lawyers if they have faced similar situations, where they received unintended emails from an opposing party.

I got this thoughtful response from Eversheds Sutherland IP litigation partner Ann Fort, who noted that the column presented a hypothetical with many facts missing. She wrote:

“But given the situation described in your column, and only those bare facts, if I were the sender, or represented the sender, I would advise the client that we should notify the recipients.

I understand the worry about unscrupulous opposing counsel being alerted to a disclosure. But if I advised the client not to request deletion or sequestration, and then the opponent used the communication and my client objected, a court could conclude that my side failed to exercise diligence in protecting its privileged communication.

Arguably, that failure compounds the initial negligence, and could make it harder to convince the court that no waiver occurred. And preventing waiver is the only goal in those circumstances, because a finding of waiver could cover all communication – not just that one email. Obviously undesirable.

And if the court followed this logic, then it would have been my advice that made our side less diligent in protecting the client's privileged communication. I definitely do not want to be in that position.

I recently received such a communication, although it was not quite as juicy as the one described in the blog post.

I double-deleted it, instructed my associate who was also copied on it to do the same, and then notified the sender that we had done so.

Perhaps this response was colored by the fact that the sending lawyer works in another firm in the same building.

Proximity or no, I would expect the same from opposing counsel, at least the first time. Everyone can make a mistake, and one mistake isn't a waiver.

The second time (or more), the argument for waiver becomes stronger; at that point I would sequester and notify the other side.”

Good morning! I'm Lit Daily editor Jenna Greene here with your Daily Dicta. You can reach me at [email protected] or find me on Twitter: @jgreenejenna.

There are plenty of important things happening in the legal world right now. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a case that could upend patent litigation. Net neutrality is on its way out. The CFPB is in chaos and headed for a showdown in court to determine its rightful acting director.

And then there's the news I'm secretly most interested in. Prince Harry is engaged to Meghan Markle, a woman who became famous for playing a paralegal turned lawyer on the television show “Suits.”

The show—which takes place at a fictional New York firm that's like a cross between Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz—is not what you'd call a documentary.

Still, some of it rings true. Consider some of these lines from the pilot episode, which first aired in 2011.

When Markle's character sees a new associate heading home at 6:30 p.m., she laughs and tells him, “You're a rookie associate. If you go home before 9 your first week, you're not going to make it through your first month.”

She also tells him, “All work gets billed, even if it's just finding an address.”

Star partner Harvey Specter (think some hybrid of Philippe Selendy, Brad Karp, Daniel Petrocelli and Darren Robbins) has some pithy advice too. “Nobody does anything as a courtesy,” he tells the new associate. “They sent those files because that's where they want you to look. Being a lawyer is like being a doctor. You keep pressing until it hurts. Then you know where to look.”

And also, “The threat of sanctions is better than filing for sanctions.” Which might be true.

Then there's the snooty hiring partner, who says, “The fact that we only hire from Harvard gives us a cachet that's a little more valuable than hiring a kid from Rutgers.”

In the canon of legal shows, I'd put it alongside L.A. Law as at least vaguely realistic—and definitely ahead of Ally McBeal or Perry Mason.

What are your thoughts on the greatest TV legal dramas? Email me at [email protected].

Markle told BBC News she is leaving Suits at the end of the season. Go figure, she'd rather be a real-life princess than a paralegal on TV.

Lateral Watch

Cozen O'Connor re-hired partner James Schultz, who stepped down after less than a year as a top ethics lawyer in the White House Counsel's Office. He'll lead Cozen's government and regulatory practice.

Was it, oh, a frustrating job, considering the word “emoluments” is now part of the popular vernacular?

Schultz says no. He told Politico that concerns about ethics issues in the Trump administration have been overblown.

“There has been undue attention … We've been more onerous in making people divest and recuse than the agencies would have required,” Schultz told Josh Gerstein. “Some in the news media unfairly criticize this administration and take every opportunity to take shots, even when they're not justified.”

In another aptly-timed exit, Goodwin Procter snagged Anthony Alexis, the former head of enforcement at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—who left just in time to miss the tug-of-war over the agency's rightful acting director. He'll head Goodwin Procter's consumer financial services enforcement practice.

Before Alexis joined the CFPB in early 2015, he was a complex litigation and white-collar partner at Mayer Brown, and before that, a federal prosecutor.

More Legal News

Pregerson, Liberal Judge of 'Conscience' on the Ninth Circuit, Dead at 94
“He did not draw a line between the law and his conscience,” Judge Alex Kozinski said. “To him, law without conscience is a meaningless thing, or an evil thing.”

NFL Class Counsel's Ties to Third-Party Litigation Funder Raise Questions
Does lead class counsel Christopher Seeger have a conflict of interest?

The EEOC Got What It Wanted in First Suit Alleging Sexual Orientation Discrimination
“This judgment should send a strong message to all employers that the protections against sexual harassment include sexual orientation,” the EEOC said. But the penalty—$55,000—is not exactly frightening.

Bonus Season Begins as Cravath Again Sets the Stage
From $15,000 all the way up to $100,000. Jealous? Who me, no I'm not jealous.

How a Few Savvy Law Firms Turned E-Discovery Into a Cash Cow
The per-document price of e-discovery has declined, but the volume of documents makes it hard to control overall costs. And that's where some firms see an opening.

The Crucial Decision: Mediate or Litigate? A Former Judge's Perspective
Parties that have been in a litigation posture sometimes need to step back and take a more realistic view of their own case.

The Perils of Autofill, Continued

I wrote yesterday about the perils of autofill, and queried lawyers if they have faced similar situations, where they received unintended emails from an opposing party.

I got this thoughtful response from Eversheds Sutherland IP litigation partner Ann Fort, who noted that the column presented a hypothetical with many facts missing. She wrote:

“But given the situation described in your column, and only those bare facts, if I were the sender, or represented the sender, I would advise the client that we should notify the recipients.

I understand the worry about unscrupulous opposing counsel being alerted to a disclosure. But if I advised the client not to request deletion or sequestration, and then the opponent used the communication and my client objected, a court could conclude that my side failed to exercise diligence in protecting its privileged communication.

Arguably, that failure compounds the initial negligence, and could make it harder to convince the court that no waiver occurred. And preventing waiver is the only goal in those circumstances, because a finding of waiver could cover all communication – not just that one email. Obviously undesirable.

And if the court followed this logic, then it would have been my advice that made our side less diligent in protecting the client's privileged communication. I definitely do not want to be in that position.

I recently received such a communication, although it was not quite as juicy as the one described in the blog post.

I double-deleted it, instructed my associate who was also copied on it to do the same, and then notified the sender that we had done so.

Perhaps this response was colored by the fact that the sending lawyer works in another firm in the same building.

Proximity or no, I would expect the same from opposing counsel, at least the first time. Everyone can make a mistake, and one mistake isn't a waiver.

The second time (or more), the argument for waiver becomes stronger; at that point I would sequester and notify the other side.”