Horizontal Stare Decisis v. Certifying Questions to the Supremes

In today's DJ, H&L's Felix Shafir and Peder Batalden present When the 9th Circuit Turns to the California Supreme Court, about certified questions. In particular, "what happens when one panel of the 9th Circuit decides an issue of California law in a binding, published opinion — without resorting to the certification procedure — and a later panel expresses doubts about the prior panel decision and would prefer to certify the issue to the California Supreme Court?"

"For years, circuit precedent indicated that the later panel may not disregard the prior panel’s decision, and may certify the question of state law only if intervening developments in state law, occurring after the earlier panel’s decision, warrant certification. Recently, however, a panel in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 680 F. App’x 511 (9th Cir. 2016), employed a different standard. The panel certified an issue to the California Supreme Court based on state appellate decisions predating (not postdating) 9th Circuit precedent that had resolved the same state law question without certification."

In other news, consider an associate who's had a slow year and is behind on billable hours? How to make up that time? Well, one (former) associate tried to 'make up' that time literally. Details on this sad saga appear in After Wedding, An Associate's Overbilling Leads to a Suspension.