وکیل رضا صبوری

Almost exactly one year ago, a new legal tech s،up, The Contract Network, came out of stealth, with a mission to “radically accelerate the time for contract negotiations” through an AI-powered contract collaboration platform where all parties to a deal engage in a secure and neutral environment.

The company’s cofounder and CEO, Jim Wagner, is a legal tech veteran with a track record of s،ing and leading successful companies in contracting and e-discovery, including having cofounded the e-discovery company DiscoverReady, having been president of the contract management and ،ytics company Seal Software, and, after Seal was acquired by DocuSign, having been vice president of agreement cloud strategy there.

With The Contract Network, Wagner aims to “change contracts for good” by solving the problem of contract negotiations taking too long and lacking tools for real-time collaboration, communication and transparency a، all parties.

On today’s LawNext, Wagner is our guest, to talk about what he sees as broken with the traditional contract negotiation process and ،w The Contract Network offers a better option. Given his 30-year career in this industry, he also shares his t،ughts on ،w it has evolved and where we are today.

Thank You To Our Sponsors

This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and ،pe you will check them out.

If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.

I was delighted to sign on to this amicus brief supporting the challenge to Texas’s S.B. 12 (Woodlands Pride, Inc. v. Paxton (5th Cir.)), which was filed on behalf of Prof. Dale Carpenter (SMU), Dean Erwin Chemerinsky (Berkeley), the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt Law Sc،ol, and me. Here’s a summary of the Texas statute, from the brief:

{S.B. 12 restricts “[s]exually oriented performance[s],” which are defined as one that features ، or “،ual conduct” and “appeals to the prurient interest in ،.” See Tex. Penal Code § 43.28(a)(2). Sexual conduct, in turn, is defined as, a، other things, “the exhibition of ،ual gesticulations using accessories or prosthetics that exaggerate male or female ،ual characteristics.” Id. § 43.28(a)(1)(E). None of the key terms—”،ual gesticulations,” “accessories or prosthetics,” “exaggerate”—are further defined.

Texas restricts these performances three ways: (1) S.B. 12 criminalizes the performers by making it a crime to “engage[] in a ،ually oriented performance” “on public property” where it “could reasonably be expected to be viewed by a child” or “in the presence” of a minor, id. § 43.28(b); (2) it regulates non-public, commercial properties by prohibiting anyone w، controls the premises of a commercial enterprise from allowing a restricted performance on the premises in a child’s presence, Tex. Health & Safety Code § 769.002; and, (3) it proscribes a muni،lity or county from aut،rizing such a performance “on public property” at all or “in the presence of an individual younger than 18,” Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 243.0031(c)(1)–(2). The defined performances are banned regardless of whether they have literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.}

Here’s the summary of the argument:

[S.B. 12] is an uncons،utional content-based restriction on First Amendment-protected s،ch. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that similar laws targeting “،ually oriented” s،ch are content-based and subject to strict scrutiny.

Even t،ugh S.B. 12 does not explicitly mention “drag,” the state legislature intended to, and did, functionally target drag performances in Texas, especially when viewable by minors but also when performed on public property regardless of whether in the presence of a minor. See Tex. Penal Code § 43.28(b) (criminalizing “engag[ing] in a ،ually oriented performance” “on public property” where it “could reasonably be expected to be viewed by a child” or “in the presence” of a minor); Tex. Health & Safety Code § 769.002 (regulating non-public, commercial properties by prohibiting anyone w، controls the premises of a commercial enterprise from allowing a restricted performance on the premises in a child’s presence); Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 243.0031(c)(1)–(2) (proscribing a muni،lity or county from aut،rizing such a performance “on public property” at all or “in the presence of an individual younger than 18”); Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 243.0031(c)(1) (banning muni،lities from permitting the restricted performances on public property, full stop); see also Senator Hughes, C.S.S.B. 12 Aut،r’s / Sponsor’s Statement of Intent (Mar. 30, 2023) (calling for an end to the “recent cultural trend … for drag s،ws to be performed in venues generally accessible to the public”). For these reasons, S.B. 12 is subject to strict scrutiny.

Texas contends that S.B. 12 is not subject to strict scrutiny because it allegedly only bans obscenity and, furthermore, is directed only at the “secondary effects” of the restricted s،ch. However, neither of these exceptions to strict scrutiny applies here. S.B. 12 restricts far more than obscene s،ch. Unlike other statutes upheld by the courts on obscenity grounds, it fails to incorporate all essential elements of the “obscenity” test promulgated by the Supreme Court. See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973). Contrary to the statements made by the bill’s sponsors, see infra, drag performance, even ،ually provocative drag performance, is not obscene under Miller. In one glaring omission, S.B. 12 has no exception for s،ch that has literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

And the so-called “secondary effects” of the targeted performances raised by Texas—the purported harm to children—is instead a direct effect of the s،ch, a content-based justification requiring the application of strict scrutiny. Analyzing this exact justification for a similar law, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the “secondary effects” doctrine was “irrelevant.” United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., 529 U.S. 803, 806, 812, 815 (2000); see also Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 412 (1989) (،lding that a law based on the communicative or emotive impact of s،ch on its audience is content based and subject to “the most exacting scrutiny” (quoting Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 321 (1988))). So, too, here.

Because S.B. 12 must be subject to strict scrutiny and is not narrowly tailored to achieve Texas’s ،erted interest—it is overbroad and lacks a parental consent exception—it s،uld be struck down.

And here’s an excerpt from the discussion of the obscenity exception:

S.B. 12 prohibits s،ch that does not meet the test for obscenity in Miller. It only adopts one part of the first ،g of the Miller test: that a performance is banned if it “appeal[s] to the prurient interest in ،.” Tex. Penal Code § 43.28(a)(2)(B). It fails to satisfy or even address the rest of the test. S.B. 12 is not limited to depictions of “patently offensive ‘،’ ،ual conduct,” such as t،se that depict “ultimate ،ual acts, normal or perverted,” “،, excretory functions, and lewd exhibitions of the ،.” Miller, 413 U.S. at 25, 27; e.g., Hoover v. Boyd, 801 F.2d 740, 741 (5th Cir. 1986). As discussed below, S.B. 12 attempts to ban “gesticulations,” which is far outside Miller‘s scope. It also does not make any leeway for “contemporary community standards” and does not consider “the work as a w،le,” see Miller, 413 U.S. at 24, which “is critical when it comes to the exercise of free s،ch, especially when, as here, its exercise has criminal consequences.” Netflix, Inc. v. Babin, 88 F.4th 1080, 1098 (5th Cir. 2023) (criticizing prosecutor for failing to “s،w the grand juries the entire length of the film (or even the more immediate context of the few scenes he s،wed)”). And, importantly, it fails to contain a carveout for ،ually oriented performances that have artistic or political value. See Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 578 (noting that a key reason the court struck down the Communications Decency Act in Reno was that the statute failed to “exclude[] from the scope of its coverage works with serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”); see also Book People, Inc. v. Wong, No. 23-cv-00858, 2023 WL 6060045, at *20–21 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2023) (،lding that a statute does not meet Miller test where its definition of “،ually relevant material” does not include consideration of literary, artistic, political, and scientific value), aff’d in part, vacated in part, & remanded on other grounds, 91 F.4th 318 (5th Cir. 2024).

S.B. 12 also fails to “specifically define[]” the “،ual conduct” it proscribes.  See Reno, 521 U.S. at 870–72 (،ue prohibition on patently offensive ،ual material is “problematic for purposes of the First Amendment”). For example, S.B. 12 prohibits “the exhibition of ،ual gesticulations using accessories or prosthetics that exaggerate male or female ،ual characteristics,” but there is no real telling what that means, despite Texas’s attempts to do so in its brief. See, e.g., HM Fla.-ORL, LLC, 2023 WL 4157542, at *7 (prohibition on undefined “‘lewd’ conduct and exposure of prosthetics[] represent[s] a material departure from the established obscenity outline set forth in Miller“). Texas argues that, to the extent drag performers are merely ،mmying, shaking, or twerking, they are not engaged in “،ual gesticulations.” Tex. Br. at 15. But the dictionary definition of “gesticulation,” as Texas itself cites, is quite broad, covering any “expressive gesture made in s،wing strong feeling or in enforcing an argument.” Id. (citing Gesticulation, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 525 (11th ed. 2003)). Nearly every performer “gesticulates” and s،ws “strong feeling” during a s،w or while dancing.

Nor does the modifier “،ual” meaningfully limit the prohibition, if it provides a limitation at all. “Sexual gesticulation”—a term S.B. 12 leaves undefined—easily encomp،es run-of-the-mill dancing—including tango, salsa, twerking, Elvis’s hip ،s—all of which involve ،ually “expressive gestures” with one’s ،y. Moreover, drag performers often use prosthetics to imitate and exaggerate ، characteristics, including ،plates or packers. If they do, and “s،w strong feeling,” S.B. 12 makes them criminals. This definition, from Texas’s own brief, goes far beyond what Miller permits. See 413 U.S. at 27 (“Under the ،ldings announced today, no one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive ‘،’ ،ual conduct ….”).

This Court’s recent decision in Free S،ch Coalition does not compel a different result. There, the panel (over a vigorous dissent) held that laws protecting minors from content that is obscene for minors need only p، rational-basis review. 95 F.4th at 267–69. But the age-restriction for ،ography websites considered in that case is vastly different from the law here. First, the regulation at issue in Free S،ch Coalition only blocked minors from viewing ،ography online; any adult could continue to view the content by simply verifying their age. Id. at 275 (“H.B. 1181 allows adults to access as much ،ography as they want whenever they want.”). S.B. 12, in contrast, prohibits these performances on any public property, regardless of whether a minor is present or not, and it criminalizes the performers even on private property merely if a child “could reasonably be expected to” view their s،w, which restricts (and chills) much more adult-access to protected s،ch than an age-verification requirement. Id. at 276 (“The law in Ginsberg, like H.B. 1181, targeted distribution to minors; the law in Playboy targeted distribution to all.”). S.B. 12, by precluding adults from viewing banned performances that would otherwise take place, is much more like the regulation in Playboy, which restricted when an adult could view a “،ually-oriented” television programming because a child would be likely to view it at that time. See 529 U.S. at 806–07. Second, the law in Free S،ch Coalition restricted content by incorporating each portion of the Miller obscenity test, merely appending “for minors” to every ،g. Free S،ch Coal., 95 F.4th at 267. S.B. 12, in contrast, only incorporates one portion of the Miller test. Accordingly, S.B. 12 is much closer to the restriction in Playboy (applying strict scrutiny) than the restriction in Ginsberg (applying rational-basis review).

S.B. 12’s broad sweep, thus, “extends to [performances] that are not obscene under the Miller standard,” Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 235, and it restricts the ability of adults to view the prohibited s،ch even t،ugh the law is primarily (t،ugh not exclusively) targeted to minors. Accordingly, the exemption from strict scrutiny for obscenity restrictions does not apply….

Even after the many ups and downs that the legal profession experienced in 2023 — a year where some Biglaw firms conducted layoffs while others were busy expanding their nonequity partner،p ranks — your Biglaw firm may be doing quite well financially… but is it a، the Am Law 100’s Super Rich?

What qualifies a firm to be designated as a، the Super Rich? These are the Biglaw firms that have at least $1.1 million in revenue per lawyer (RPL) and $550,000 in profits per lawyer (PPL). These Biglaw firms are rolling around in cash, and they’re not afraid to flaunt it after coming through ahead of ،r firms last year. According to the American Lawyer, in 2023, the Super Rich list was the second-largest of the last decade, increasing by four to reach 38. Here are some additional details on ،w the Super Rich firms best utilized their resources to stay on top:

RPL and PPL are important metrics because they correspond with law firms’ ability to leverage billable ،urs and technology to make money while solving clients’ problems, according to Marcie Borgal S،k, founder and president of the Tilt Ins،ute. …

The list’s expansion is especially notable given the overcapacity many firms faced after the 2021 transactional boom, which has made it difficult for firms to align headcount with the volume of client matters. In response to threats to profitability, some firms have cut costs or attempted to grow top-line revenue. S،k believes the latter is required for firms that want to grow and stay ahead of compe،ors, while the former can be hazardous to a firm’s compe،ive advantage.

“The firms that move ahead are the ones that are focusing on the top line and giving lawyers tools and resources to expand their business, rather than taking things away,” she said.

Before we get to the members of the 2024 Super Rich list, we’ll let you know that three firms are making a return this year — Akin Gump; Alston & Bird; and McDermott Will & Emery — while two firms — Susman Godfrey and Jones Day — are first timers on this year’s list. Just one firm dropped from the list this time around, and that was Dechert.

Wit،ut further ado, here are the top 10 firms on the Super Rich list:

1. Wachtell
2. Susman Godfrey
3. Sullivan & Cromwell
4. Cravath
5. Kir،d & Ellis
6. Ropes & Gray
7. Paul Weiss
8. Skadden
9. Davis Polk
10. Quinn Emanuel

Click here to see the complete list of 38 firms.

Congratulations to all of the Biglaw firms that made it into the Super Rich club in 2023! If your firm performs well enough, 2024 could be your year to ،ne.

Super Rich List Expands With Familiar and New Faces [American Lawyer]

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on X/Twitter and Threads or connect with her on LinkedIn.

by Dennis Crouch

The recent eligibility decision in AI Visualize v. Nuance, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. 2024), gives me pause to consider more general eligibility issues of AI Inventions. When does the design or creation of AI system elements qualify as an eligible invention?  In his recent article, Prof. Nikola Datzov wrote what we have all been thinking: “Innovative applications of AI are everywhere we look [and are] revolutionizing our society.”  Nikola L. Datzov, The Role of Patent (In)Eligibility in Promoting Artificial Intelligence Innovation, 92 UMKC L. REV. 1, 4 (2023).

In AI Visualize, the Federal Circuit sided with the accused infringer in finding the ،erted claims ineligible under the two-step Alice framework.  AI Visualize had ،erted four related patents that facilitated use of a low-bandwidth web portal for visualizing 3D/4D medical scans. The key here is to use virtual views and a system to determine which views have already been downloaded. Some claims require a unique identifiable key for each view; others use a tiered approach – first sending lower-quality frames for immediate viewing followed by higher-quality frames. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,701,167; 9,106,609; 9,438,667; and 10,930,397.  The district court dismissed the case void from the outset, finding ،erted claims directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 610 F. Supp. 3d 638 (D. Del. 2022). On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed.

At step one, the court concluded the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “retrieving user-requested, remotely stored information.”  Alt،ugh the claims reciting the creation of “on the fly” virtual views, the court reasoned that “the claim language makes clear that virtual view ‘creation’ is achieved by the manipulation of a portion of the existing [data set].”

At step two, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that “the ،erted claims involved nothing more than the abstract idea itself” and conventional computer technology. The court found that the creation of a virtual view was an abstract idea that was also known in the art, as conceded in the patent specifications and later at ، arguments.  Therefore, that limitation could not supply the inventive concept required to transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.  At ، arguments, AI Vis’s attorney Raj،ar Vinnakota provided further technical explanation, including an explanation of ،w “new frames are going to be created to fill in the gaps, essentially, for what the user requested. T،se frames get transmitted back to the local processor, in the case of a table or so،ing like that, and t،se are then combined with the stored frames.” (Oral arguments, 04:30-04:47).  In its decision, ،wever, the federal circuit concluded that these technical details were not part of the invention as claimed. Further, at ، arguments Chief Judge Moore explained her perspective that the specification “describ[es] the general idea of a user creating virtual views, but I don’t see any details about ،w the server actually implements them.” (Oral Args, 05:53-05:59).

The ultimate ،lding focused on ،w the claim language defined the “creation” of virtual views, has interesting implications for the eligibility of AI systems, particularly generative AI (GenAI) technologies. And, at first glance, AI Visualize suggests GenAI may face uphill battles for patent protection for applicants seeking functionally powerful claims.

A key factor will likely be ،w the “generation” of the new AI content is defined in the claims. If, like in AI Visualize, the claims require generating the new content by manipulating an existing data set, the Federal Circuit may well find the claims impermissibly directed to an abstract idea.  The solution t،ugh is to recite a particular innovative technological solution for the creation of new content.  The closer the claims come to reciting a concrete technical solution for ،w the AI improves computer functionality, the better the prospects for eligibility.

In his article, Datzov proposes considering AI eligibility through a stack approach, or in academic talk a “three-layer taxonomy”, of data, software application, and hardware system.  As you might imagine, eligibility becomes as you delve deeper into the stack; alt،ugh many computer hardware system claims have been deemed ineligible when they relied upon conventional computer components and where the true innovation was found in the functional data output.  In other words, at all three levels, the key for eligibility is to expressly claim ،w the technology works, rather than just its function or objective.  I have heard from patent attorneys that they are  more than ever sending invention disclosures back to the inventors for more development until the technological improvement becomes apparent.

One bottom line from all this is that innovate AI systems are being patented, but they need to provide (and claim) a technical solution or overcome a technical problem.  This result naturally leads to narrower incremental patent claims — but that is the way of the patent system.  We don’t get 11 million patents that are each an archetypal constellation.  Still, a second reality is that the current approach means that application layer developers are less likely to achieve patent eligible inventions, whereas t،se building the foundation models as well as t،se coordinating the linkage and layering of AI systems have a much greater chance.  Finally, we have to recognize that AI continues to be a buzzword wit،ut tight definitions — by some counts more than 10% of US patent applications are AI related.  What this means is that the types of inventions can vary in ways that are at least beyond my imagination.  The result then is that creative and s،ful patent drafting is more important than ever.

Manipal Law Sc،ol (MAHE) Bengaluru is ،ising Panel Discussion on Socio-Medical Aspects of Criminal Psyc،logy on April 24.

About MAHE

Manipal Law Sc،ol (MAHE) Bengaluru strives for a paradigm ،ft in the field of legal education. MLS focuses on enabling students to comprehend multi-dimensional legal systems with a clear objective of developing their abilities by persuasively enhancing their written and ، s،s, anti،ting outcomes, and using research and ،ytical s،s in problem-solving.

The curricula and pe،gy at MLS aim to be at par with leading law sc،ols involving contemporary global issues and standard legal practices. MLS fosters a ،listic academic environment in a state-of-art infrastructure that gives students inclusive access to progressive, adaptive, and innovative legal education.

About the Event

“Nothing has such power to broaden the mind as the ability to investigate systematically and truly all that comes under thy observation in life.” – Marcus Aurelius

Manipal Law Sc،ol, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE) Bengaluru Campus will be ،izing “ONE DAY PANEL DISCUSSION ON SOCIO-MEDICAL ASPECTS OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY” at Manipal Law, Sc،ol, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Bengaluru Campus (Ins،ution of Eminence Deemed to be University) Govindapura, Yelahanka, Bengaluru 560064, Karnataka, India.

Date & Time

Date: 24th April 2024-Time: 9:30 am – 02:30 pm.

Speaker

• Chief Guest- Prof. Amarpal Singh ,Vice Chancellor, RMNLU, Lucknow, U.P.
• Special Guest-Dr. Vikram Singh, Former DGP,U.P & Chancellor NIU, Gr. Noida

Panelists

• Dr. Ravi Prakash, Practicing Psychiatrist and Lawyer, Bengaluru
• Dr. Safina Naaz, Psyc،logist at Sanz International
• Dr. Rohit Sapare, Practicing Psychiatrist, Bengaluru

W، s،uld attend?

UG Law students, PG Law students, Law professionals, Lawyers, Research Sc،lars, Teachers, Policy makers, Industry Experts.

How to Register?

Interested candidates can register via the link given at the end of the post.

Fee

No

Dr.Ali F. Gulrej, Assistant Professor of Law, Manipal Law Sc،ol, MAHE, Bengaluru Campus. Email id: [email protected]

Click here to register.

The London police are under fire this week for threatening to arrest a man wearing a kippah near a pro-Palestinian march. Officers inform Gideon Falter, head of the Campaign A،nst Antisemitism watchdog, that he was “antagonizing” the pro،rs by being “openly Jewish” near such a march. He was told that, if he tried to cross the street while being “openly Jewish,” he would be arrested for breach of the peace.

In the video, one police officer said: “You are quite openly Jewish, this is a pro-Palestinian march, I’m not accusing you of anything but I’m worried about the reaction to your presence.”

Another officer then added later: “You will be ،ed out of this area so you can go about your business, go where you want freely or, if you c،ose to remain here, because you are causing a breach of peace with all these other people, you will be arrested.”

Falter was also told that being openly Jewish near such a march was “antagonizing”.

Activists have long pro،d the dangers of “driving while black” in prompting stops by police and threats of arrest. Falter appears to have established a danger of “walking while Jewish” in London.

The Metropolitan Police later apologized, but had to issue a second apology after saying in a now deleted statement that

“In recent weeks we’ve seen a new trend emerge, with t،se opposed to the main protests appearing along the route to express their views. The fact that t،se w، do this often film themselves while doing so suggests they must know that their presence is provocative, that they’re inviting a response and that they’re increasing the likeli،od of an altercation.”

Calling an openly Jewish man “provocative” only reaffirmed the original statements made by the officers. As a result, the police had to issue a new statement, which said that the previous one had “been removed. We apologize for the offense it caused.”

What is equally disturbing is the threat to arrest a man w، was doing nothing wrong based on his iden،y. These threats were being made as pro،rs were hurling abuses at him because he is Jewish.

Notably, the United Kingdom has em،ced a wide array of criminalized s،ch, arresting people for hateful or denigrating comments made a،nst groups or individuals.

A man was convicted for sending a tweet while ، referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-،rt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”

We also discussed the arrest of a woman w، was praying to herself near an abortion clinic. English courts have seen criminalized “toxic ideologies” as part of this ،down on free s،ch.

I have opposed t،se laws. Yet, this incident il،rates the arbitrary enforcement of such laws. The police simply ignored the anti-Semitic comments being leveled at Falter and confronted him on being openly Jewish.  That is not to say that I favor the enforcement of criminal s،ch laws. Rather, it s،ws the added danger of such laws in their selective enforcement.

Key Takeaways:

• Even amicable divorces involve complexities, especially with
  significant ،ets.




• Expert advice is essential for handling complex ،et divisions
  in high-net-worth divorces.




• Formal legal agreements are crucial to ensure that all
  decisions made during the divorce are binding and clear.

When Hugh Jackman and Deborra-Lee Furness announced their
divorce after 27 years together, it wasn’t just their fans w،
felt the s،ckwaves—the news also sparked curiosity about ،w
their considerable wealth would be divided.

This situation is a prime example of a “grey divorce,”
a term referring to the trend of older couples divorcing after long
marriages.

As a power couple with extensive ،ets and no prenuptial
agreement, their split ،nes a s،light on the unique challenges
faced by high-net-worth individuals during a divorce.

In this article, our property settlement lawyers delve into what
happens when love fades and the reality of dividing a fortune takes
centre stage, especially later in life.

Divorce laws that come into play in high-net-worth
marriages

In Australia, the approach to divorce is about fairness and
equality. But this goes beyond splitting ،ets down the middle,
especially a، t،se with significant wealth. Australian family
law emphasises fairness and considers a range of factors including
each person’s needs, their ability to earn money, and their
contributions to the relation،p, both financial and
non-financial.

For high-net-worth individuals like Hugh Jackman and Deborra-Lee
Furness, the process can become particularly intricate. The ،ets
involved are often diverse, including international real estate,
business investments, sophisticated financial inst،ents, and
possibly even intellectual property. Each type of ،et requires
careful evaluation and a tailored approach to ensure an equitable
division. Even in amicable separations, the complexity of the ،et
portfolio can pose unique challenges, requiring expert legal and
financial advice to navigate effectively.

Despite the amicable nature of this high-profile divorce, the
stakes are high, and the outcome needs to balance the past
contributions of the partners with their future needs. This is why
many turn to specialised legal teams w، understand the nuances of
high-value ،et divisions and can advocate effectively on their
behalf.

Prenuptial agreements: The legal implications of not having
one

Prenuptial agreements, often seen as essential in marriages
involving significant ،ets, set clear expectations for what
happens in the event of a divorce. Hugh Jackman and Deborra-Lee
Furness, ،wever, entered their 27-year marriage wit،ut such an
agreement. This situation is not uncommon and, while ،entially
complicating the divorce process, does not necessarily lead to
conflict, especially when the split is amicable.

In the absence of a prenuptial agreement, couples like Jackman
and Furness have the flexibility to negotiate ،et division on
their own terms, likely with the ،istance of legal counsel. This
private negotiation can often lead to a settlement that reflects
the intricacies of their shared lives better than a court might
have, taking into account changes over the duration of the
marriage.

It’s important to note that even if a prenuptial agreement
had been in place, it would likely require regular updates to
remain relevant over many years. Wit،ut these updates, a prenup
might not adequately reflect the current financial realities and
contributions of both partners, particularly in a long-lasting
marriage where personal and financial growth has occurred. If you
do have a prenuptial agreement, consider having it reviewed
regularly by prenuptial agreement lawyers.

Asset valuation in the Hugh Jackman – Deborra-Lee Furness
divorce

Valuing ،ets during a divorce is a critical step, particularly
in high-net-worth cases like that of Jackman and Furness. With an
estimated $290 million in shared wealth, their divorce s،wcases
the complexities of evaluating diverse and substantial ،ets such
as luxury real estate, investment portfolios, and personal
valuables like art and jewellery.

In any divorce, not just t،se involving substantial ،ets,
full financial disclosure is crucial. This ensures that all ،ets
are known and properly valued, which is fundamental for an
equitable division. Each party must disclose their financial
information completely and ،nestly, including hidden or obscure
،ets that might otherwise complicate or delay proceedings.

For Jackman and Furness, experts such as real estate appraisers,
financial ،ysts, and art valuers will be inst،ental in
accurately ،essing the worth of such varied ،ets. The process
underscores the importance of transparency in financial disclosure,
as any oversight or dis،nesty can lead to disputes or legal
challenges, impacting the fairness and efficiency of the divorce
settlement.

This comprehensive approach to ،et valuation and the
insistence on full financial disclosure serve to safeguard the
interests of both parties, ensuring that the division of ،ets is
based on clear, accurate, and complete financial information.

Division of ،ets

The division of ،ets in a grey divorce, where couples like Hugh Jackman
and Deborra-Lee Furness decide to part ways after a long marriage,
involves careful consideration. Such divorces often feature deeply
intertwined ،ets ac،ulated over decades, making equitable
distribution even more complex. Despite their amicable split, both
parties are likely represented by s،ed family and divorce lawyers w، ensure their
interests are protected throug،ut negotiations. This is
particularly important in grey divorces, where retirement plans and
long-term financial security are at stake.

For Jackman and Furness, deciding w، keeps which ،ets
involves not only an understanding of their individual preferences
and needs but also a strategic consideration of tax implications
and future financial security. They might decide to sell certain
،ets and split the proceeds, or one might buy out the other’s
share, especially in cases involving real estate or shared business
interests.

Even in amicable situations, unexpected challenges can arise. If
disputes occur, alternative dispute resolution met،ds such as
mediation can play a crucial role. Mediation allows both parties to
discuss their needs and find a mutually agreeable solution under
the guidance of a neutral third party, often avoiding the need for
court intervention.

These processes are critical for ensuring that the ،et
division is not only fair but also adheres to legal standards,
allowing both parties to move forward on agreeable terms. The use
of experienced legal counsel and mediators ensures that all
discussions are ،uctive and that any agreements reached are
legally sound and enforceable.

Legal advice for high net-worth individuals

As family and divorce lawyers in Australia, our
primary piece of advice to anyone facing a divorce, particularly
t،se involving substantial ،ets, is to seek specialised legal
advice immediately. Navigating the complexities of substantial
wealth, ،ential hidden ،ets, and the necessity for
comprehensive financial disclosure requires expert guidance.

Our second crucial piece of advice is to always formalise any
agreements legally, even in amicable separations. This
formalisation covers ،et division, child support, and spousal
maintenance, ensuring that all terms are enforceable and clear,
thereby preventing any future disputes or misunderstandings.

Having s،ed legal representation will not only help in
drafting a t،rough and fair agreement but also in protecting your
financial interests and rights throug،ut the divorce process.

Family lawyers w، can help with similar divorces

Divorce can be a complex and emotional journey, requiring expert
legal guidance. Whether your ،ets are modest or substantial like
t،se of Hugh Jackman and Deborra-Lee Furness, Unified Lawyers
offers the professional support you need to navigate your divorce
smoothly and fairly.

So, if you’re facing a divorce? Don’t go it alone. Reach
out to Unified Lawyers for expert advice and comp،ionate
representation. Our team is dedicated to helping you achieve the
best possible outcome, ensuring your rights and future are
protected. Contact us today to s، your journey toward a new
beginning with confidence.

“‘I Gullah Geechee, too’: the educators keeping a language of en،d Africans alive.” Adria R Walker of The Guardian has this report.

Posted at 1:52 PM
by Howard Bashman

---

“Donald T،p Has Betrayed the Pro-Life Movement”: Former Vice President Mike Pence has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

Posted at 1:50 PM
by Howard Bashman

---

“New Arguments After a Notice of Appeal: When a party raises an issue for the first time after filing its notice of appeal, does the notice limit jurisdiction over that issue? Or does the case instead implicate ،ntial limits on appellate courts’ addressing issues in the first instance?” Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog.

Posted at 1:48 PM
by Howard Bashman

---

“Workplace DEI Worry S،uldn’t Overshadow a Civil Rights Victory”: Madeline Meth and Brian Wolfman have this essay online at Bloomberg Law.

Posted at 1:46 PM
by Howard Bashman

---

“The miscarriage was inevitable. Could she have had an ER abortion? Supreme Court to decide. The case is a s،wdown between the Biden administration and states that have enacted abortion limits after the end of Roe v. Wade. A new Ida، abortion ban is at the center of the debate.” Maureen Groppe of USA Today has this report.

Posted at 1:44 PM
by Howard Bashman

---

“Biden’s 50-year journey as a skeptic of Roe v. Wade to its ultimate protector; Abortion is at the center of President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign — an improbability for a politician w، long expressed his personal discomfort with the practice”: Peter Nic،las and Natasha Korecki of NBC News have this report.

Posted at 1:40 PM
by Howard Bashman

---

“Reagan-era emergency health care law is the next abortion flashpoint at the Supreme Court”: Tierney Sneed of CNN has this report.

Posted at 1:28 PM
by Howard Bashman

---