The Federal Lawyer (2012)

Jury selection for the six-day civil case had just concluded. Unexpectedly, neither party’s counsel used a peremptory challenge or made a motion to strike for cause. The presiding judge, Hon. Donovan W. Frank, was impressed with the lawyers because the final jury included a blind juror and the trial would include a large number of documents. The lawyers agreed to ensure that any testifying witness who used a document would take extra measures and explain the contents of the document.

The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) is a virtual minefield for a would-be plaintiff seeking additional compensation or other non-monetary relief from the federal government related to a government contract. Not only do jurisdictional prerequisites create a number of hurdles that contractors must surmount in order to pursue litigation against the federal government before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) or a board of contract appeals (BCA), but satisfying those prerequisites in a strategic manner is essential not only to repelling the government’s virtually inevitable motion to dismiss, but also to avoiding, at least in the COFC, a government counterclaim. In that regard, this article explores the CDA claims process and suggests valuable tactics for CDA claim preparation.

This article proposes practical relief to the federal judiciary, accounting for increasingly polarized government.

This issue focuses to a great degree on issues of ethics and professionalism among the members of the federal bar. As federal practitioners, we are members of a smaller group group of lawyers who practice primarily or exclusively in state courts. As a rule, we come to know the other lawyers in our community who are primarily federal practitioners more readily, and we have benefited from the collegiality that arises from such relationships. With some exceptions, of course, that collegiality tends to make our working relationships with opposing counsel less hostile and more cooperative.

From at least the time of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Solid Waste Authority of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the federal courts have led an assault on the Clean Water Act (CWA). The primary target of their attack has been on the scope of “waters” encompassed by the law. But recent decisions by the Supreme Court and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia suggest that the courts may be prepared to move beyond this jurisdictional question.

This spring, we find ourselves in the midst of a contentious election season, therefore. we are focusing this year’s constitutional law issue on elections.

The set of articles in this issue all focus, to one degree or another, on the conflicting tensions of continuity and change in the law.

Blood should no longer play a leading role in determining whether a person is an Indian for purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction. The blood test evokes racial language in our jurisprudence that is outdated and unnecessary in 2012. A better test would discard blood and focus entirely on whether the person is enrolled or eligible for enrollment in a federally recognized Indian tribe.

You say to yourself, “Immigration courts, they don’t affect me so why should I bother to read that article?” Read on, I say, and you will quickly learn that regardless of the focus of your legal practice, there is much to be learned and most of it quite interesting. This article will put the importance of the work of the immigration courts into perspective, and give you a peek into the larger legal issues and ramifications of the workings of this often misunderstood tribunal. You will see how these developments are quickly making a basic understanding of the structure of immigration law a “must-know” for all competent lawyers.

Times have changed, and the way in which we prepare for and try cases must take into account the types of communication media now in use. Simply put, trials involve witnesses, and it is likely that the modern witness has an electronic trail or history that may be relevant and/or persuasive when making your case or trying to break down your opposition.