The Importance of Incorporating “Soft Skills” Into Your Legal Writing

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JULIE SCHRAGER

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and Schiff Hardin writing coach Julie S. Schrager explain the importance of incorporating “soft skills”—rooted in emotional intelligence and viewing your writing from your reader’s perspective—into legal writing. Amar and Schrager offer four key tips to help legal writers, whether first-year law students or seasoned attorneys, become more effective communicators.

Read More

Mitchell v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota

Dockets: 18-2784, 18-2890

Opinion Date: March 20, 2020

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: ERISA

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), alleging that Blue Cross abused its discretion by partially denying their claim for air-ambulance benefits under an employee health plan. The district court granted summary judgment in part to Blue Cross and in part to plaintiffs. The Eighth Circuit held that the wrongful denial of plan benefits breaches the parties' contract and deprives the participant of the benefit of their bargain. Therefore, this constitutes an injury to the participant—even if the benefits are assigned to a third party. In this case, plaintiffs satisfied the injury-in-fact component of constitutional standing. The court also held that plaintiffs had statutory standing, because they have alleged a colorable claim that Blue Cross unreasonably prevented the "Allowed Charge" for "Ambulance Services" and denied their claim for benefits based on that interpretation. On the merits, the court held that Blue Cross did not abuse its discretion by partially denying plaintiffs' claim. The court wrote that the plan gave Blue Cross broad discretion to determine the "Allowed Charge" for air-ambulance services, and Blue Cross has adopted a consistent interpretation, tied to an external benchmark, which is compatible with both the plan's language and its purpose. Finally, the court held that Blue Cross did not abuse its discretion in interpreting the "medical supply" fee language.

Green Plains Otter Tail, LLC v. Pro-Environmental, Inc.

Docket: 18-3357

Opinion Date: March 20, 2020

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Personal Injury, Products Liability

Green Plains, owner and operator of an ethanol production facility, filed suit against PEI for negligence and products liability, alleging defective design and failure to adequately instruct and warn users. The district court granted summary judgment to PEI. The Eighth Circuit held that reasonable minds could differ about whether the regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) was defective, and thus Green Plains submitted sufficient evidence of a defective design to survive summary judgment. Furthermore, reasonable minds could disagree as to whether PEI could foresee that a company would view the "suggested" maintenance as mandatory, or would ignore it due to the effort required. Therefore, under Minnesota law, the court held that PEI was not entitled to summary judgment on proximate cause. Finally, the court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.