Sign Up for Alerts
Sign up to receive receive industry-specific emails from our legal team.
Sign Up for Alerts
We provide tailored, industry-specific legal updates to our clients and other friends of the firm.
Areas of Interest
September 14th, 2015
Proposed Rule May Perhaps Propose a Momentary Admission
The New York state court system has proposed a new rule authorizing out-of-state and foreign attorneys to practice in New York temporarily, the state’s Office of Court Administration has announced. The proposed rule change — which was successfully opposed for more than a decade by lawyers worried about losing business to neighboring states — would bring New York in line with a national consensus regarding interstate and international law practice: forty-five other states have already adopted a similar rule. Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at NYU Law School, characterized the state’s longstanding reluctance to open its courts to out-of-staters as a case of “misguided economic protectionism.” “New York’s failure to adopt a temporary practice rule has not only been bewildering and a great disappointment, it also reveals a failure to recognize that today lawyers routinely cross state lines,” Gillers wrote in an email. New York’s proposed rule is based on a model rule passed by the American Bar Association in 2002. In the decade after the ABA rule was passed, New York was one of only a handful of states that declined to follow the ABA’s lead. Gillers added that New York’s reticence prompted a rule in Connecticut barring New York lawyers from temporary practice, since New York doesn’t afford the same benefit to Connecticut lawyers. Ronald Minkoff, a Manhattan litigator who sits on the State Bar’s Committee on Standards of Attorney Conduct, the group primarily responsible for pushing the rule change through, said the new rule modernizes law practice in New York. “We’re in the 21st century here,” he said. “People are regularly going to depositions, meetings, et cetera, across state lines. We need to get with the program.” Another reason for the rule, Minkoff suggested, is that large numbers of lawyers were already practicing across state lines, in violation of the state’s ban. “I would characterize the rule against unauthorized practice of law as ‘honored in the breach,’” Minkoff said, channeling Shakespeare. In a 2012 report co-authored by Minkoff, the State Bar explained that “temporary practice in New York is already commonly thought to be permitted under case law construing the existing statutes.” A new rule authorizing temporary practice, the report suggested, would “clarify rather than contradict current understandings.” Asked whether the battle over the rule was a fight between lawyers at large law firms in New York City, who regularly do business with out-of-state and international clients, and smaller firms and solo practitioners outside the city, Gillers brushed aside the notion.
© 2015 Legal Monitor Worldwide. All Rights Reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
Other Quoted
Copyright Guide or Policy Change? Project Divides IP Attys
Law360 quoted Jacqueline Charlesworth on the controversy surrounding the American Law Institute’s copyright restatement project. Ms. Charlesworth criticized the initiative as advancing a “revisionist theory” that could weaken copyright protections. She was among nearly two dozen advisers who resigned from the project, signaling deep concerns about its direction.
The article highlights a broader debate within the IP community: whether the restatement simply clarifies existing law or attempts to reshape policy in favor of users. Ms. Charlesworth’s perspective emphasizes the stakes for rights holders as courts and practitioners consider how much influence the restatement may carry. Read the Law360 article about the copyright restatement project here.
November 19 2025
Reports of ‘Click-to-Cancel’s Death May Be Premature
A Competition Policy International article quoted Holly A. Melton on the continuing impact of the Federal Trade Commission’s “click-to-cancel” rule , despite a recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Melton was quoted for her analysis of the FTC’s $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon over Prime subscription practices. In a blog post, Melton pointed to a clause in the agreement that anticipates future rulemaking around negative option features. “That’s not boilerplate,” she wrote. “It reads like a deliberate placeholder—future-proofing the settlement for the reappearance of Click to Cancel.” Melton interprets this as a strategic move by the FTC to potentially revive the rule through a new proceeding.
Melton’s outlook reflects a broader shift in the FTC’s enforcement priorities toward consumer-facing issues like subscription transparency and cancellation ease. She referenced Commissioner Mark Meador’s remarks about focusing on “everyday economic concerns affecting ordinary households” and noted that, even without immediate rulemaking, the agency’s litigation stance signals that subscription practices will remain a top-tier priority for the Bureau of Consumer Protection. Her guidance to advertisers and subscription services: “prioritize transparency, obtain affirmative consent, and make cancellation as effortless as sign-up. The ‘Click to Cancel’ may be down, but it’s not out,” Melton concluded, underscoring the FTC’s intent to keep its options open. Read the Competition Policy International post here.
November 11 2025
States Turn to Outside Firms to Generate Big Privacy Settlements
Holly A. Melton is quoted in the Bloomberg Law article on the growing practice of state attorneys general hiring outside counsel for litigation in data privacy and online safety cases. The article noted this shift boosts companies’ risk profiles, with smaller states taking on more complex cases. “‘One, don’t ignore the states that don’t necessarily have privacy laws because you’re not safe’ said Holly Melton, partner at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz. ‘And two, the sort of posture has already kind of ratcheted up when they come in with outside counsel who’s sort of running the show.’”
Bloomberg Law stated this strategy is getting mixed results. Some states point out that they could not bring certain cases without the staffing, resources and expertise of the private firms. But critics question outside counsels’ driving state priorities—selecting enforcement for big payouts or settlements, more akin to civil plaintiff litigation instead of traditional AG litigation that prioritizes companies changing their behavior. View Article.
October 9 2025
