Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here’s the sign-up.
WHAT WE’RE WATCHING
THE NEEDLE AND THE DAMAGE DONE? - A few federal courts have adopted policies in recent weeks requiring lawyers to be vaccinated before appearing in court—decisions which, you’ll be shocked to learn, have not been met with universal acclaim. In this week’s Law.com Litigation Trendspotter column, we explore the concerns some observers have raised about these policies, all of which center on potential negative consequences for clients. We also look at one federal judge who is taking the polar opposite approach to vaccine requirements and mask mandates in his courtroom and consider whether there might be a middle ground that makes the most sense. Before we dive in, I’m interested to hear what you think: should courts be requiring attorneys who appear for in-person proceedings to be vaccinated? Why or why not? Let me know at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]