Joel Pratt

This article considers the effect of federal precedent on pre-2014 same-sex common-law marriage claims in the context of divorce and probate issues.

Independent research and development (IR&D), as a contractor tool to enhance technology offered to the government at a reasonable cost, has created concerns for the Department of Defense (DOD). In response, DOD issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on February 8, 2016, seeking input to help address the agency's concerns regarding “substantial future IR&D when such effort is undertaken as a means of reducing evaluated bid prices in competitive source selections.” The proposed rule, if… Show more

Independent research and development (IR&D), as a contractor tool to enhance technology offered to the government at a reasonable cost, has created concerns for the Department of Defense (DOD). In response, DOD issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on February 8, 2016, seeking input to help address the agency's concerns regarding “substantial future IR&D when such effort is undertaken as a means of reducing evaluated bid prices in competitive source selections.” The proposed rule, if made final, would require the government to add costs (for proposal evaluation purposes) to any contractor offer that relies on substantial future IR&D efforts.

Dentons partners Thomas A. Lemmer and Steven M. Masiello submitted comments to DOD on the proposed rule and participated in drafting comments by the Public Contract Law Section of the American Bar Association. These comments explain why DOD’s suggested approach is ill-conceived―both because it is bad policy that will inhibit contractor IR&D efforts, and because it is contrary to the existing regulatory framework addressing IR&D, which fully protects the government’s interests. Show less

Cannabis businesses lack the "good faith" necessary to discharge or reorganize their debts under the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Client advisory on statute of limitations developments

Divorce cases present an extremely complex set of emotional, legal, and ethical questions. Recognizing that traditional litigation models can be harmful to client interests, many lawyers have critically reexamined and reformed the basic process of settling a divorce. The collaborative law movement is one such attempt; its strictures work to reorient lawyers toward productive and cooperative negotiation strategies and away from litigiousness. Collaborative law has not been without its critics… Show more

Divorce cases present an extremely complex set of emotional, legal, and ethical questions. Recognizing that traditional litigation models can be harmful to client interests, many lawyers have critically reexamined and reformed the basic process of settling a divorce. The collaborative law movement is one such attempt; its strictures work to reorient lawyers toward productive and cooperative negotiation strategies and away from litigiousness. Collaborative law has not been without its critics, nor is it a perfect process. Instead, it represents one of a host of options clients and lawyers may have in addressing the dissolution of a marriage. A collaborative divorce can be costly, particularly if one party is more conciliatory than the other. Certain parts of the process also raise very serious ethical concerns. Collaborative divorce may ask a lawyer to manage a task not at all suited to the legal profession. Despite concerns, collaborative practitioners have pushed the practice of family law into the 21st Century, and the lessons of those practitioners, as well as the profession’s long-standing rules of ethics, should guide future practice. Therefore, a process should exist that helps mitigate certain serious concerns about collaborative law, while retaining its benefits. This Note proposes such a solution. Show less

New Jersey and Delaware have often fought over their territorial boundaries in the Delaware River. Three times, they have litigated cases in the Supreme Court under the Court’s original jurisdiction to hear cases or controversies between states. In 1905, a Compact negotiated by the states and confirmed by Congress settled the first case between the two states. The second case between the two states led the Supreme Court to issue a Decree confirming the boundaries of the two states. The third… Show more

New Jersey and Delaware have often fought over their territorial boundaries in the Delaware River. Three times, they have litigated cases in the Supreme Court under the Court’s original jurisdiction to hear cases or controversies between states. In 1905, a Compact negotiated by the states and confirmed by Congress settled the first case between the two states. The second case between the two states led the Supreme Court to issue a Decree confirming the boundaries of the two states. The third case, which began in 2005, asked the Court to decide the scope of each state’s power to regulate development in the Delaware River. The Court came up with a compromise, argued for by neither state, which gave lasting effect to the 1905 Compact between the states while recognizing how water regulation has developed over the last century. The Court’s resolution, though seemingly counterintuitive, can be best understood with reference to federal and state common law principles. More important, however, is how the case was argued. Though it presented a traditional “environment v. the economy” debate, the party supporting the pro-environment argument (Delaware) did not argue it as such. This case, therefore, presents a roadmap to victory for environmentalists in front of the Roberts Court: to win an environmental case, it may be best to avoid mentioning the environment at all. Show less