It’s been our tradition since day one. Fourteen years ago we opened our doors, and every year since, we’ve paused for an afternoon to do it all over again — good food, better company, and a lot of laughs with the people we spend our days (and let’s be honest, plenty of nights) working alongside.

This year’s celebration kept the streak alive. Attorneys and staff from every corner of the firm swapped the conference room for the party room, traded case updates for old stories, and took a well-earned moment to enjoy each other’s company. Whatever seriousness we bring to the work, we bring just as much joy to celebrating it.

Fourteen years down. Here’s to many more.

And pardon the redacted photo, we had to hide our new brand. Stay tuned for its official launch!

The post 14 Candles, Zero Billable Hours: Morningstar Law Group Celebrates Its Anniversary appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Best Lawyers® is the oldest and one of the most respected peer-review publications in the legal profession. Recognition is based entirely on peer nominations and evaluations from other attorneys in the same practice areas and geographic regions — lawyers cannot buy or apply for inclusion. Being selected by one’s own peers is one of the most meaningful forms of professional recognition in the field, and being named Lawyer of the Year is rarer still, reserved for a single attorney per practice area, per metro region.

We’re honored to see so many of our colleagues recognized this year, and even more pleased to see that recognition span across practice areas and career stages — from long-established partners to attorneys just beginning to build their reputations.

2027 Best Lawyers

• Alexander Horn
• Amanda Bambrick
• Amie Flowers Carmack
• Ann Anderson
• Christopher Fulmer
• Christopher T. Graebe
• David Nahm
• Gene A. Jones Jr.
• Grayson S. Hale
• Harrison M. Gates
• J. Christopher Jackson
• Jason L. Barron
• Jeffrey L. Roether
• Jennifer Ball
• Jennifer Collins Van Doren
• John Kivus
• Keith P. Anthony
• Lee A. Patterson III
• Mack A. Paul IV
• Michael J. Ovsievsky
• Mitchell A. Tuchman
• Nil Ghosh
• Patrick L. Byker
• Randy Whitmeyer
• Scott Ryan
• Shannon R. Joseph
• W.H. “Kip” Johnson III
• William J. Brian, Jr.

2027 Lawyers of the Year

• Gene A. Jones Jr.
• Jason L. Barron
• W.H. “Kip” Johnson III

2027 Ones to Watch

• Alexandria Jakubiak
• Britney Weaver
• Leticia Shapiro
• Nick Bogdash

Congratulations to all of our recognized attorneys. This kind of acknowledgment from fellow practitioners reflects the trust our clients place in this firm every day, and we’re grateful to have such a deep bench of talent to celebrate.

The Best Lawyers in America© is published annually by Best Lawyers®, based on an exhaustive peer-review survey of practicing attorneys. Learn more at bestlawyers.com.

The post Morningstar Law Group Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2027 appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

While we appreciate the recognition, we have never measured our success simply by the size of our roster. To us, client service will always be more important than our headcount.

However, we view this growth as a direct reflection of the trust our clients place in us. It is a testament to the quality of legal services we strive to provide every day and, most importantly, the deep talent and dedication of our attorneys and professional staff.

Thank you to our clients for your continued partnership, and to our incredible team for making this milestone possible.

The post Growth Driven by Client Trust – Morningstar Law Group Ranked 10th Largest Firm in the Triangle appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

The post Attorney Jennifer Ball Presents at Warwick Legal Network Conference appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Jenn is a Raleigh attorney with a background in biology and a lifelong interest in innovation. She advises life sciences and healthcare companies on a range of regulatory and transactional matters, including licensing agreements, product development, and strategic growth initiatives. Known for her ability to simplify complex legal and technical issues, Jenn provides tailored, pragmatic counsel that aligns with each client’s goals and stage of development.

Her industry insight comes from years of in-house legal roles at leading life sciences and healthcare organizations — including Syngenta, where she worked on global R&D, licensing, and M&A matters, as well as leadership roles at a clinical research organization, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, a gene therapy company, and a metabolomics lab. This hands-on experience gives her a deep appreciation of how innovative companies operate and the regulatory challenges they face.

Jenn began her legal career in Delaware, advising business entities at one of the state’s largest firms, and later worked with North Carolina startups through a boutique practice focused on early-stage company formation, funding, and exit strategy.

We’re excited to have Jenn on board and know our clients will benefit from her thoughtful, business-minded approach to regulatory and transactional counsel.

The post Morningstar Law Group Welcomes Attorney Jennifer Ball to FDA & Healthcare Regulatory Practice appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Petitioner Sgt. Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow worked as a plainclothes officer for the St. Louis Police Department for nine years in its specialized Intelligence Division.  During this time, she showed strong performance, worked with high-ranking officials, and had a consistent weekday schedule, along with access to FBI credentials, an unmarked take-home vehicle, and the authority to pursue investigations outside of St. Louis.  In 2017, the Intelligence Division commander transferred Muldrow out of the unit and into a uniformed position and replaced her with a male officer.  Though her rank and pay remained the same in her new role, her perks, scheduling, responsibilities, status, and professional relationships did not.   

Muldrow sued the City of St. Louis under Title VII, claiming that the transfer was a discriminatory employment action.  The District Court held, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, that Muldrow was required and had failed to show “significant” change in her working conditions, because the transfer caused only minor changes that did not reduce her title, salary, or benefits.  The case made it to the Supreme Court, which ultimately vacated the lower courts’ judgment, holding that a job transfer can be deemed discriminatory even if the employee’s pay and title remain the same, and that a loss of perks, change of duties, and transfer to a position of less favorable status are enough to demonstrate the level of harm required for a discriminatory employment action.  The Court found that the language of Title VII only required Muldrow to show that the transfer brought about some “disadvantageous” change in an identifiable term or condition of her employment based on her protected characteristic(s), and that Muldrow was not required to show an elevated threshold of harm or that the injury incurred satisfied a “significance” test, as “Title VII’s text nowhere establishes that high bar,” and requiring such would demand more of Title VII plaintiffs than the law as written requires.  Accordingly, while Muldrow represents a victory for Title VII claimants, it also represents another victory for the principles of textualism in statutory interpretation, whereby courts must interpret and apply a statute’s express and plain language and may not add limitations or additional proof requirements not contained within the text.  

When making employment decisions, employers should remember that keeping an employee’s title/rank the same and/or maintaining their salary at the same level, while making other changes to their role, compensation opportunities, or benefits, will not be enough alone to stave off a discrimination claim.  All changes will need to be considered.  In addition to Title VII discrimination claims, the Muldrow standard of harm could also apply to discrimination claims in the context of ADA accommodation discrimination and failure to accommodate claims.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our firm. 

Special Thanks to Legal Intern, Alexandra Carmack

The post Employment Law Alert: “Materially Significant Disadvantage” No Longer Required for Race or Gender Discrimination Claims (Muldrow v. St. Louis) appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

The post Crowdstrike, Contracts and Liability appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Ongoing Litigation:  On July 3, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas postponed the effective date of the Final Rule.  The Court is currently hearing the case filed against the FTC by Ryan LLC and its intervenors (Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Business Roundtable, Texas Association of Business, and Longview Chamber of Commerce), and the judge has announced that she intends to issue a decision about whether to permanently enjoin the rule by August 30, 2024.  While the current preliminary injunction applies only to the named Plaintiffs, Judge Brown’s final decision on August 30^th may apply to non-parties as well under Fifth Circuit precedent.  The presiding Judge requested that the parties brief the issue of nationwide application of the injunction before she issues her merits disposition.  Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission.  There are differing opinions among experts as to whether a federal circuit court has the authority to enter a nationwide injunction, so it’s possible the case could ultimately go to the Supreme Court, leaving a nationwide stay of enforcement in the grey zone for a longer period. 

Opponents of the rule argue that the FTC has exceeded its rule-making authority conveyed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and intruded on an area usually legislated by state governments.  They claim that non-competes safeguard companies’ trade secrets, protect them from client losses, and ultimately help workers by increasing retention of highly trained employees.   

Proponents (workers’ rights organizations, etc.) claim that non-competes are exploitative, that non-disclosure and solicitation agreements are sufficient to protect businesses, and that banning non-competes will increase workers’ wages, innovation from locked up talent, and new startups. 

Either Way, the Ball Bounces:  Regardless of the outcome in the Texas Court, it is likely that there will be continued activity on this issue as public support for advancing workers’ bargaining positions is growing.  If the Final Rule is invalidated, it’s likely that the FTC will propose a new version that more closely mirrors certain existing state laws, which limit the applicability of non-competes, for example, with salary thresholds.   

Looking Ahead: Now is a good time to reassess your approach to restrictive covenants in case the Final Rule is not blocked.     

• Focus non-compete requirements on categories of workers with intimate access to competitive information and relationships, and the types of covenants that protect those assets.   

• Be sure covenants are narrowly tailored for enforceability based on the Final Rule’s language, and severable so that language found to be invalid will not invalidate other language.   

• Since non-competes with senior executives (those with over $151,164 annual compensation and in a policy making position for the business) and those entered in the context of a bona fide sale of a business interest (requiring sufficient bargaining power in the transaction) will be grandfathered, but new ones prohibited, make sure you have those in place before the Final Rule’s new effective date (TBD). 

• Stay up-to-date with the ongoing litigation surrounding the Final Rule, particularly the decision set to come August 30, 2024, and prepare to notify employees that their non-compete covenants will be unenforceable if the Court is unable to block the FTC’s non-compete ban

Should you need assistance with any of these matters, please do not hesitate to contact our firm.

Special Thanks to Intern, Alexandra Carmack

The post Employment Law Alert: FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Stayed by Court appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Wood explains that the hard-fought agreement, based on claims that Purdue Pharma sales of OxyContin played a major role in creating the U.S. opioid crisis, brought together all 50 states and thousands of other public entity-claimants to provide nearly $7 billion in much-needed relief to help local communities across the country fight the opioid epidemic.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to throw out the Purdue settlement threatens to turn $7 billion in desperately needed relief into nearly nothing.

Claimants will now face formidable obstacles to effectively pursue the Sacklers individually. Even if a substantial collective recovery is somehow achieved, thousands of people who could have been helped will suffer – and some will die – during the time it takes for those efforts to play out.

Read the entire article HERE.

Article By:

The post Swain Wood: SCOTUS’s decision to throw out the Purdue Pharma settlement agreement was a profound mistake. appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.