There are legal conferences. There are legal technology conferences. And there is the annual Clio Cloud Conference, which after wrapping up a week ago in Chicago has set itself apart from the pack — in a big way.

When you’re focused on providing the American lawyer inspiration, information, and innovation from the most interesting professionals, lawyer or not, you create energy and a vibe that’s not matched by tradional legal conferences, including legal technology conferences.

We at LexBlog had the privilege of serving as a media partner for the conference. By leveraging the social coverage of the 700 lawyers in attendance and our own Facebook Live interviews we aimed to share the ClioCon experience with our LexBlog Network and all of you,

On Monday, keynotes from Clio CEO, Jack Newton, kicking things off and introducing their Legal Trends Survey, and Kim Mottley, the first international litigator in Afghanistan and one the few lawyers who has had a grenade thrown through her window, bookmarked six other sessions.

Here’s our curation of tweets capturing the essence of of the speaker’s message in a “Storify” for each session.

Keynotes from Bloomberg’s Melanie Heller to the to sensational and high energy, Gary Vaynerchuk, sandwiched six more sessions on Tuesday. Here’s the LexBlog Network’s “Storify” capturing the best in Twitter for each session.

I had pleasure of catching up with a number of our industry’s leaders for Facebook Live discussions.

A big kudos to LexBlog’s Zosha Millman, Amelia Cornfield, and Mellina White-Cusack for their work in providing social media coverage of ClioCon. Storifies of each session, interviews of speakers in advance of the conference, and posts of sessions across our network’s Twitter and Facebook accounts — a job very well done.

If you’re interested in reading all the social recaps, as well as pre-conference interviews we featured, you can find them under the 2016 Clio Cloud Conference tag on LXBN. And it’s not too early to preregister for next year’s event, which will be held in New Orleans.

As I’ve said numerous times, including in yesterday’s roundup, it is Supreme Court season both in Washington, DC and on LexBlog Network as our members have been on a tear when it comes to providing detailed analysis of major decisions. It’s impossible for me to accurately describe, so do go visit LXBN’s Supreme Court section for the full view. In the meantime, here’s two of the most interesting cases covered—ones we’ve been tracking all the way up through the circuit courts—and another trending topic on our network.

Social media in a corporate setting, and the National Labor Relations Board—yep, those are both right in the LexBlog Network’s wheelhouse. It should come as no surprise then that each of these two stories have generated the most conversation on LXBN this week.

  •  Last week, the Seecurities and Exchange Commission released guidance on social media use in corporate disclosures. This comes on the heels—well, if you can call something six months later “on the heels”—of NetFlix CEO Reed Hastings getting in trouble for sharing some big viewership numbers in a Facebook status update. The SEC has relaxed on the issue a bit,  validating the use of social media in certain situations for disclosure of information by publicly traded companies. They encourage companies to be cautious though.
  • It seems as though the National Labor Relations Board is always trending on LXBN, but that’s even more the case this week as President Obama nominated three appointees to the NLRB. The appointees include current NLRB Chairman NLRB Chairman, Mark Gaston Pearce, and two Republicans, Harry I. Johnson, III, and Philip A. Miscimarra. It remains to be seen though, if the Senate will confirm the appointees.

As I’ve remarked in a number of introductions to Top 10 roundups, LXBN members have grown increasingly more impressive in their ability to provide quick and strong analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court. This week may mark the Network’s strongest period ever for such coverage as we’ve seen a remarkable level of commentary on a number of cases. Without further adieu, here’s this week’s all-SCOTUS Trending on LXBN:

  • Though the coverage on same-sex marriage isn’t as deep as I’d like considering the profound impact of the case, it is somewhat expected considering its sensitive nature. Nonetheless, we do have some interesting commentary on both Hollingsworth v. Perry (the Prop 8 case) and United States v. Windsor (the DOMA suit). Among that, we actually spoke with Ted Olson—who’s representing the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth—at LegalTech. We’ll have a quick breakdown of the oral arguments in each tomorrow on LXBN TV.
  • Receiving a bit more coverage—actually a startling level of coverage—is Comcast v. Behrend. In the case, the Supreme Court reversed the certification of a class of Comcast customers in Philadelphia because the class failed to proved that damages could be determined on a classwide basis.
  • Next up, in a case decided last week, we have the interesting and quite funny Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., in which Taiwanees immigrant Suadp Kirtsaeng made $1.2 million by having his Thai friends and family cheap English-language textbooks that he’d sell at a marked-up price on eBay. The Court found that first sale defense of the Copyright Act, which says a copyright owner’s interest is exhausted after the first sale, does also apply to goods sold internationally.
  • Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center was also decided last week by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Supreme Court backed the Environmental Protection Agency’s view that stormwater runoff from logging roads is not a form of water pollution that needs a permit. This was a big victory for the timber industry.

This is by no means all of the Supreme Court cases discussed on LXBN this week. Be sure to visit our full U.S. Supreme Court section to see everything.

When the case is in their wheelhouse, LXBN members have become incredible adept and responsive at covering rulings from the Supreme Court. This week we had just such an example as Standard Fire v. Knowles, a case with major implications for class actions, has generated a remarkable amount of discussion. Also trending on LXBN: the FTC updating its online advertising guidelines and an interesting suit on LinkedIn account ownership.

  • Since the Standard Fire v. Knowles decision was handed down on Tuesday by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, we’ve seen a remarkable sixteen posts from LXBN members offering analysis on the ruling—with more coming in constantly. In the big Class Action Fairness Act case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously to close a notorious loophole used to avoid federal jurisdiction on class action suits.
  • Eagle v. Edcomm—in which whether an employee or employer owns a LinkedIn account and its contacts is at dispute—is a case we’ve been tracking on LXBN for some time, having actually done an LXBN TV interview on the case with Mintz Levin’s Martha Zackin. The employee here, Dr. Linda Eagle did end up winning the suit but the victory was a hollow one as she was not awarded any monetary damages for her former employer taking over her LinkedIn account.
  • The Federal Trade Commission has been quite active as of late, and that continues with the FTC updating their online advertising guidelines, or what they call their “.com Disclosures.” As we mentioned in our LXBN Roundtable on the matter, the vast array of technology at consumers’ disposal means it’s hard to set any firm guidelines with such technological variance and, as a result, the onus here is really shifted onto the advertisers.

Sequestration negotiations have, of course, been big in the national news as of late and it’s no different on the LexBlog Network. In our other two trending topics we have the usual FTC privacy settlement with a technology company and the U.S. Steel Corporation being involved in two peculiar but interesting cases.

  • Sequestration Negotiations have dominated U.S. news this week and it’s been a big topic on The LexBlog Network as well. Adding to our section on the issue, I’m actually interviewing John W. Chierichella on its impact on government contractors immediately following putting together this post. That also happened to be the subject of this week’s LXBN Roundtable.
  • It’s impossible to do one of these posts without having at least one story from the privacy lawyers on LXBN. This week’s it’s FTC’s Settlement with HTC, the first enforcement action taken by the Federal Trade Commission against a mobile manufacturer. In the case, the FTC alleges “that the company had engaged in unfair practices and falsely or misleadingly represented whether third-party and HTC applications could access users’ personal information”, per Hogan Lovells’ Harriet Pearson and Mark Brennan.
  • And lastly, we have two cases involving United States Steel Corporation generating buzz on LXBN: Sandifer v. U.S. Steel and EEOC v. U.S. Steel. In the former, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the definition of “clothes” in wage and hour law but, as noted in an episode of LXBN TV, it could have a bigger impact on the judiciary’s level of deference to the Department of Labor. And in the latter, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that the company had the right under the Americans with Disabilities Act to conduct random alcohol tests on probationary employees.

As could be expected, the biggest legal news of the week came via President Barack Obama’s State of the Union, as we have a section on LXBN devoted to just that and another devoted to the subject stemming from it that was of the most importance to LexBlog Network authors. Then, of course, we have Valentine’s Day.

  • On Tuesday evening, President Barack Obama gave his second term’s first State of the Union. During which, he discussed a number of subjects of interest to lawyers on the LexBlog Network: comprehensive immigration reform, an increased focus on infrastructure, his energy plan and a push for a federal $9/hour minimum wage.
  • While all of the aforementioned State of the Union subjects were discussed by LexBlog Network authors, none got the attention the Cybersecurity Executive Order did. This has been a long time in the making, with discussion of it as a possibility coming out immediately following the failure of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. At that time, we spoke with Stewart Baker on why it failed and he then predicted this executive order would eventually come.
  • And finally, on a slightly lighter note, today is Valentine’s Day and our lawyers—especially the employment ones—have been chiming in on what today means in the law. As could be expected, there’s much insight on how employers should deal—or head-off—interoffice romance.

As we look once again at the topics that have seen an uptick in discussion on the LexBlog Network, this week brings a good mix. With the first two topics, we see a great deal of discussion and meticulous analysis while with the latter two topics don’t see quite the same depth of conversation, but we do see select pieces presenting some very poignant opinions.

Though we missed this post last week, we return once again to examine the most-discussed topics on LXBN this week. The first two subjects here have been grounds for discussion going on close to a month now but the commentary remains strong. With the latter two, the NLRB on At-Will Employment and California’ Cap and Trade activities, these are stories that have flared up just recently but have seen a wealth of insight.

  • Obama’s Second Term & The Law is a topic we’ve focused on extensively on LXBN TV, but also an area we’ve seen an abundance of coverage on from our own authors. Almost every area of the law has at least one post, including employment law, health care law (lots on the Affordable Care Act), privacy and cybersecurity, environmental law, immigration and energy.
  • Yes, this is a section we’ve linked to in each of our ‘Trending on LXBN’ posts thus far but the amount of commentary we’re seeing on the legal side of the Hurricane Sandy Recovery is astounding. The Hurricane Sandy section, as a whole, now features a whopping 88 posts. Going even deeper with the curation, our LXBN Roundtable this week also featured commentary on this subject. Have a look—there’s some interesting points from insurance lawyers (both with insurance companies and policyholders), construction attorneys and those engaged in the utilities industries.
  • The NLRB’s Memo on At-Will Employment Clauses is a subject that’s garnered a great deal of discussion over the past few weeks that’s picked up intensity recently. A quick briefing: the National Labor Relations Board released an advice memo (as they’re wont to do) on employers’ at-will employment disclaimers, ones reminding employees that they are employed “at-will” and can be fired for any reason. The NLRB is worried such disclaimers may make employees feel as though they’re losing some of the rights afforded to them under the National Labor Relations Act.
  • This section isn’t as deep as the aforementioned ones but discussion surrounding California Cap and Trade is worth keeping an eye on. Just yesterday, The Golden State held its first auction for pollution permits, which will be bartered to more than 350 businesses—including utilities and refineries. In related news, the California Chamber of Commerce has already filed suit, asserting “that AB 32, California’s global warming law, did not authorize the state to raise funds by allocating GHG emissions allowances to itself and to auction them off to raise revenues for the state to use.”

This week’s trending topics on LXBN draw insight from some of the LexBlog Network’s strongest areas. It’s no surprise that the election has garnered the level of conversation it has with the important date drawing ever closer. Meanwhile, we see another huge case at the intersection of social media and employment law, Google is once again in trouble for its privacy practices, robocallers draw the ire of the FTC and the “Blue Ivy” trademark dispute is still alive.

  • Election 2012 has consistently been one of the most popular topics of discussion on the LexBlog Network for more than a month. As posts previously discussed the issues at stake, many employment lawyers have now chimed in to offer thoughts on what the election means for the workplace. In this area, the employment lawyers have offered guidance for employers on allowing employees to vote, provided advice on how to deal with political arguments in the workplace and weighed in on whether or not employers can influence how their employees vote.
  • Eagle v. Edcomm is a subject covered by both the LexBlog Network and by LXBN itself as we had both the LXBN Roundtable and an LXBN TV discuss the case. This is an interesting one involving a departing CEO having her LinkedIn account taken over by her employee. You’d think this would be foul play but a federal judge ruled, under the hacker-intended Computer Fraud and Abuse Act—that this is perfectly lawful.
  • Our Google section also saw an uptick in activity as the search giant faced scrutiny from European data authorities, with the French CNIL leading the way in the investigation. The authorities claim Google does not give users enough control over what data is collected from their internet-searches and YouTube video preferences. This all stems from a change in Google’s privacy policy, in which Google consolidates user data collected from each of its products.
  • While it isn’t the juiciest of subjects, it is something just about everyone has to deal with: Robocalling. The FCC is taking a close look at the practice as it creates a do-not call-registry for numbers used for public safety, posts a bounty for illegal robocallers and sets an effective date for new rules surrounding the practice, ones that include obtaining consent from consumers before hitting wireless numbers and including an automated opt-out feature in all robocalls.
  • This section has only seen a couple of new posts but I expect a few more as the Blue Ivy Carter Trademark Dispute is back in the news. For those of you who don’t know, Blue Ivy is the daughter of entertainers Jay-Z and Beyonce. It was initially thought that the pair had lost out on the opportunity to trademark the phrase “Blue Ivy” as an event company was granted rights to it. However, it turns out now that trademark registration only covers a specific set of services.