Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Lawyers’ coalition provides new messengers to Black voters

WASHINGTON — Young Black lawyers and law students are taking on a new role ahead of the general election: Meeting with Black voters in battleground states to increase turnout and serve as watchdogs against voter disenfranchisement. The Young Black Lawyers' Organizing Coalition has recruited lawyers and law students and is sending them to Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas to meet with Black voters, aiming to better understand the barriers that the historically disadvantaged voting bloc faces when registering to vote and accessing the ballot. The recruits are leading educational focus groups with an ambitious goal: restoring fatigued Black voters' faith in American democracy. "I think what makes us unique is that we're new messengers," said Abdul Dosunmu, a civil rights lawyer who founded YBLOC. "We have never thought about the Black lawyer as someone who is uniquely empowered to be messengers for civic empowerment." Dosunmu, who shared the coalition's plans exclusively with The Associated Press, said recruits will combat apathy among Black voters by listening, rather than telling them why their participation is crucial. The focus groups will inform "a blueprint for how to make democracy work for our communities," he said. According to a Pew Research Center report, in 2023, just 21% of Black adults said they trust the federal government to do the right thing at least most of the time. That's up from a low of 9% during the Trump administration. For white adults, the numbers were reversed: 26% of white adults expressed such trust in 2020, dropping to 13% during the Biden administration. The first stop on the four-state focus group tour was Michigan in February. This month, YBLOC plans to stop in Texas and then North Carolina. Venues for the focus groups have included barbershops, churches and union halls. Alyssa Whitaker, a third-year student at Howard University School of Law, said she got involved because she is dissatisfied with the relationship Black communities have with their democracy. "Attorneys, we know the law," Whitaker said. "We've been studying this stuff and we're deep in the weeds. So, having that type of knowledge and expertise, I do believe there is some level of a responsibility to get involved." In Detroit, Grand Rapids and Pontiac, Michigan, the recruits heard about a wide variety of challenges and grievances. Black voters said they don't feel heard or validated and are exasperated over the lack of options on the ballot. Despite their fatigue, the voters said they remain invested in the political process. "It was great to see that, even if people were a bit more pessimistic in their views, people were very engaged and very knowledgeable about what they were voting for," said another recruit, Awa Nyambi, a third-year student at Howard University School of Law. It's a shame that ever since Black people were guaranteed the right to vote, they've had to pick "the lesser of two evils" on their ballots, said Tameka Ramsey, interim executive director of the Michigan Coalition on Black Civic Participation. "But that's so old," said Ramsey, whose group was inspired by the February event and has begun holding its own listening sessions. These young lawyers are proving the importance of actually listening to varying opinions in the Black community, said Felicia Davis, founder of the HBCU Green Fund, a non-profit organization aimed at driving social justice and supporting sustainable infrastructure for historically Black colleges and universities. YBLOC is "teaching and reawakening the elements of organizing 101," she said. The experience also is informing how the lawyers navigate their careers, said Tyra Beck, a second-year student at The New York University School of Law. "It's personal to me because I'm currently in a constitutional law class," Beck said. Kahaari Kenyatta, a first-year student also at The New York University School of Law, said the experience has reminded him why he got into law. "You care about this democracy and civil engagement," Kenyatta said. "I'm excited to work with YBLOC again, whatever that looks like."

Bill would protect NCAA, leagues from lawsuits

Two Republican congressmen introduced a bill Wednesday that would provide the NCAA, college conferences and member schools with federal protection from legal challenges that stand in the way of their ability to govern college sports. The Protect the Ball Act is sponsored by Reps. Russell Fry of South Carolina and Barry Moore of Alabama and is intended to provide legal safe harbor for the entities that run college sports, which has been under siege from antitrust lawsuits. Fry and Moore are members of the House Judiciary Committee. The NCAA and Power Four conferences are considering a settlement agreement that could cost billions. House vs. the NCAA seeks damages for college athletes who were denied the right to make money from sponsorship and endorsement deals going back to 2016, five years before the NCAA lifted its ban on name, image and likeness compensation. Almost as problematic for the NCAA are recent lawsuits filed by states that attack some of the association's most basic rules related to recruiting inducements and multiple-time transfers. The Protect the Ball Act would give the NCAA protection from litigation and allow the association and conferences to regulate things like recruiting, eligibility standards and the way college athletes are compensated for name, image and likeness. "NIL rules are ever-changing, heavily litigated and essentially unenforceable — causing confusion and chaos for everyone involved," Fry said. "We must establish a liability shield on the national level to protect schools, student-athletes and conferences as they navigate this new set of circumstances. This legislation is an integral component of saving college sports as we know it." College sports leaders have been asking Congress for several years for help in regulating how athletes can be paid for NIL, though NCAA President Charlie Baker and others have shifted the emphasis recently to preventing college athletes from being deemed employees. The lawsuit settlement being considered would create a revenue-sharing system for college athletes, but the NCAA and conferences would still need help from federal lawmakers to shield them from future lawsuits and possibly to create a special status for college athletes. "It is imperative we reach a uniform standard of rules around competition soon and I'm really pleased to see that our congressional engagement efforts are being heard and action is being taken," said former Oklahoma State softball player Morgyn Wynne, who has served as co-chair of the NCAA's Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. At least seven bills have been introduced — some merely as discussion drafts — by lawmakers in both the House and Senate since 2020, but none has gained any traction. The Protect the Ball Act is a narrow bill intended to support broader legislation that would create a national standard for NIL compensation in college sports.

$34.6 million verdict: Patent infringement case protects, rewards SC company

Action: Infringement Injuries alleged: Patent infringement with trade dress allegations Case name: GeigTech East Bay LLC v. Lutron Electronics Inc. Court/case no.: U.S. Southern District of New York / 18 civ 5290 Judge: Colleen McMahon Amount: $34.6 million Date: March 15, 2024 Most helpful expert: Douglas Kim, patent attorney, of Kim, Lahey & Killough, Greenville Attorneys: Gary Sorden of Cole Schotz, Dallas (for the plaintiff); Scott W. Breedlove of Carter Arnett, Dallas (for the defendant) GeigTech East Bay, a South Carolina company that makes modern window shades, obtained U.S. Patent No. 10,294,717, for a "shade bracket with concealed wiring" on May 21, 2019. The patent was originally filed by Richard J. McKenna of Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee, and obtained by Douglas Kim, a registered patent attorney, of Kim, Lahey & Killough, Greenville. GeigTech filed a federal patent infringement complaint with trade dress allegations against Lutron Electronics Co. Inc. One of the tactics Lutron used to try to invalidate the patent. However, the patent written by Kim withstood two challenges in the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board and a jury trial. On March 12, the jury returned a verdict stating that Lutron had infringed on GeigTech’s patent and awarded $34.6 in damages. According to the jury verdict form, “Lutron opted to poach (GeigTech’s) patented designs and intellectual property to try and remain competitive in a segment of the market that (GeigTech) cornered.” As the finding of infringement was willful, GeigTech can ask the judge to triple the damages.

Defense verdict: Jury turns back lawsuit from pandemic-inspired claim

Action: Breach of contract and violation of South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act Injuries alleged: Breach of contract, unfair trade practice act, breach of warranty Case name: HHBC Inc. v. Jamis Bicycles Court/case no.: Beaufort County Common Pleas / 2021-CP-07-00143 Judge: Bobby Bonds Injuries alleged: $1.03 million (subject to tripling and addition of attorney’s fees to an estimated $4.5 million) Date: March 19, 2024 Most helpful expert: George Durant, CPA, Columbia Attorneys: Ashley Twombley and Thomas Iandoli of Twenge + Twombley, Beaufort (for the defendant); John Bowen of Laughlin & Bowen, Hilton Head (for the plaintiff) In 2021, plaintiff Hilton Head Bicycle Co. sued Jamis Bicycle Corp., alleging defendant breached a bicycle supply contract and caused plaintiff more than $1 million in damages. Plaintiff further alleged that the manner in which defendant breached the contract violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, allowing plaintiff to seek treble damages and attorney’s fees. The total exposure was estimated to be $4.5 million. A central issue at trial involved the unforeseen effects of COVID-19 pandemic on the supply chain, and whether these effects excused defendant from the alleged breach. This is one of the few known jury verdicts dealing with the unforeseen effects of COVID-19 and the South Carolina Uniform Commercial Code’s “commercial impracticably” provisions. Another central issue involved plaintiff's alleged damages, which were ultimately limited by the trial court judge before being presented to the jury. When plaintiff’s damages were presented to the jury, defendant alleged plaintiff’s damages claims were not supported by sufficient documentation (a calculation methodology, receipts, invoices, etc.) and amounted to little more than a homemade list of numbers set forth on a single sheet of paper. In closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel Ashley Twombley argued, “My children have prepared Christmas list with more detail than this wish list prepared by .” After a six-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of defendant, concluding it did not breach the contract, and that plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.