Ready to Register?

MyLawCLE All-Access Pass

Best choice

Add the All-Access Pass and get this program —
plus 1,000+ live CLE programs every year.


All specialty & ethics credits included
38 practice areas
New sections: AI & the Law, Practice Management
100s of current and trending legal topics
Nationally recognized and highly experienced presenters

$395 / year — this program included
Register with the All-Access Pass

This program + 1,000+ CLE programs, all year

Or register for just this program

Live Video Broadcast

Live webinar of this one program.
$195 Register

On-Demand Video

Recorded access + self-study credit.
$195 Register

Federal Civil Bench Trials: Written Direct Testimony, Proposed Findings, and Judgments That Survive Appeal

Federal appeals courts are vacating parts of bench trial judgments built on thin findings. Draft affidavits that survive paragraph objections, build proposed findings element by element, time a Rule 52(c) motion, and write post-trial findings an appellate panel can trace.

2026-12-07 12:00:00

Program Details

2026-12-07 12:00:00

2026-12-07 12:00:00

2h CLE Credits

2026-12-07 12:00:00

Program Details

2026-12-07 12:00:00

Program Details

2026-12-07 12:00:00

Over 1,000+ webinars

2026-12-07 12:00:00

Course Overview

The Judgment Is Only as Strong as the Findings Behind It

2026-12-07 12:00:00

Jury trial instincts do not carry over to a federal bench trial. Many judges order direct testimony in writing and require proposed findings up front. The judge’s findings then become what an appellate panel reads line by line. In Orkin v. Albert (1st Cir. 2025), Urizar-Mota v. United States (1st Cir. 2026), and Bad River Band v. Enbridge (7th Cir. 2026), appeals courts vacated parts of bench trial judgments because findings were missing, too thin, or showed no arithmetic.

Submit an affidavit that draws paragraph objections, and your planned testimony may never reach the record. Leave a carried objection or Rule 702 challenge unresolved, and the record closes around it. Move under Rule 52(c) at the wrong moment, and you lose your early exit. Propose findings without transcript and exhibit citations, and the panel has nothing to trace. Leave the damages math unstated, and the remedy is exposed on appeal.

You walk out with work product for your next bench trial: an element-by-element findings matrix, an affidavit admissibility checklist, a post-trial findings audit checklist, and model redlines of the findings the winning side should have proposed. This is courtroom judgment, not doctrine a search engine can summarize.

Format

CLE Credit

2h CLE Credits

Level

Intermediate

Length

2

Key topics that will be covered

01
Reading the Trial Order
How the judge’s trial order becomes your trial plan, including which witnesses testify live and which come in by affidavit.
02
Written Direct Testimony
How to draft affidavits that hold up when opposing counsel objects paragraph by paragraph.
03
Findings by Claim Element
How to build proposed findings element by element, in neutral form with credibility reasons, cited to the daily transcript and admitted exhibits.
04
Rulings Before Record Closes
How to force rulings on carried objections and Rule 702 challenges before the evidence closes and the findings are written.
05
Timing Rule 52(c)
How to decide when a motion for judgment on partial findings under Rule 52(c) helps your case and when it should wait.
06
Findings That Survive Appeal
How Orkin v. Albert, Urizar-Mota v. United States, and Bad River Band v. Enbridge expose gaps in predicate findings, arithmetic, and remedy, and how a motion to add a finding closes them.

Program schedule

clock 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EST

Federal Bench Trials from Written Direct Testimony Through Judgment on Partial Findings

This session takes jury-trained litigators on either side through the first half of a federal civil bench trial,
from the trial setting through the close of evidence. It covers reading the judge’s trial order as the trial
plan, choosing between live and affidavit witnesses, drafting affidavits that survive paragraph-byparagraph objections, building proposed findings by claim element, forcing rulings on carried objections
and Rule 702 challenges before the record closes, and timing a motion for judgment on partial findings
under Rule 52(c). Attendees leave with an affidavit admissibility checklist and an element-by-element
findings matrix.

R. David DonoghueR. David Donoghue
Ed DuffyEd Duffy
clock 1:10 pm - 2:10 pm EST

Writing Post-Trial Findings That Hold a Federal Bench Trial Judgment on Appeal

This session shows federal civil trial lawyers on either side how to write post-trial findings that hold a bench trial judgment on appeal. It works through Orkin v. Albert, Urizar-Mota v. United States, and Bad River Band v. Enbridge as redlines of the findings the winning side should have proposed, covering predicate and alternative findings, lost-services arithmetic, and remedy method and equitable factors. It also covers building the record the findings cite, drafting findings the judge can sign, and closing the file with carried rulings, extra findings, and the motion to add a finding. Attendees leave with a post-trial findings audit checklist and model redlines.

R. David DonoghueR. David Donoghue
Ed DuffyEd Duffy
R. David Donoghue

R. David Donoghue

Holland & Knight

Ed Duffy

Ed Duffy

Baker Botts L.L.P.

R. David Donoghue

R. David Donoghue

Holland & Knight

R. David Donoghue is a first-chair intellectual property trial lawyer and partner in Holland & Knight’s Chicago office, where he serves as the firm’s nationwide intellectual property practice lead while maintaining an active trial docket. He was first chair in a standard essential patent (SEP) damages bench trial that ended in a significant defense victory for hardware manufacturers, and he has tried patent and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act cases to jury verdicts. His practice covers patent, trade secret, trademark, and copyright disputes in federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Recognition & Leadership

Recommended in Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Patent 1000 since 2014. Described as 'A practical lawyer who gets right to the heart of any matter, David Donoghue really understands the most technical aspects of patent law.' Founder and principal author of the Chicago IP Litigation and Retail Patent Litigation blogs.

Professional Involvement

Served as an adjunct professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, teaching legal research, writing and IP courses.

Experience

Advises clients from major corporations and midsize businesses on technology disputes including patent, trade secret, trademark, copyright and CFAA matters. Founding member of Aptiv's (f/k/a Delphi) Technology Licensing and Litigation Group where he handled substantial international IP litigation and licensing matters. Served as a law clerk to the Honorable Gordon J. Quist, federal district judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
Ed Duffy

Ed Duffy

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Ed Duffy is a first-chair antitrust trial lawyer and partner in Baker Botts’ Washington, D.C. office. As senior litigation counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, he was lead trial counsel in the challenge to JetBlue Airways’ attempted acquisition of Spirit Airlines and led the government’s team through a six-week bench trial in which the court enjoined the transaction. He has tried antitrust, commercial, tort, intellectual property, environmental, and other complex cases to judgment in bench trials, jury trials, and arbitrations, and has defended judgments on appeal.

Education & Credentials

Mr. Duffy earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center in 2010, where he took part in the Appellate Litigation Clinic and Moot Court, served on the Senior Board of the Georgetown Law Journal, was a Law Fellow, and was a member of the Order of the Coif. He earned his B.S.F.S. in International Politics, magna cum laude, from Georgetown University in 2007, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia, California, and Texas.

Recognition & Leadership

At the Department of Justice, Mr. Duffy served as Acting Assistant Chief of the Antitrust Division's Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section, where he oversaw a team of 35 attorneys and paralegals in civil enforcement and merger review and supervised merger and conduct investigations across numerous industries. Before his government service, he spent 11 years in private practice, including as a partner at a global law firm handling antitrust litigation, civil trials, criminal investigations, and antitrust counseling.

Professional Involvement

Mr. Duffy advises clients on antitrust liability and litigation risk across industries including airlines, financial services, power generation, oilfield services, travel management, shipping, and agriculture, and represents clients in criminal antitrust investigations. His recent thought leadership includes "Have You Tried Looking Harder? Seventh Circuit Directs Lower Courts to Go Beyond a Merits 'Peek' when Assessing Class Certification" (December 2025).

Experience

Mr. Duffy's trial work centers on U.S. v. JetBlue Airways, in which he was lead trial counsel for the Department of Justice through a six-week bench trial that ended with an injunction blocking JetBlue's proposed acquisition of Spirit Airlines. In U.S. v. American Airlines, he cross-examined multiple experts at trial in the Department's successful Section 1 challenge to the Northeast Alliance between American and JetBlue. In private practice, he represented the seller in FTC v. Henkel, a matter that included the first full federal court trial on the merits in an FTC action brought under Section 7. His experience spans the full life of complex cases, from complaints and dispositive motions through fact and expert discovery, trial, and appeal. He represents generic manufacturers Sun and Taro in In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Antitrust Litigation, a landlord in In re RealPage Rental Software Antitrust Litigation, and former investors in In re Fire Apparatus Litigation. He briefed a successful motion to dismiss and appeal for a group purchasing organization in Marion Healthcare v. Becton Dickinson, represented the Department of Justice in the early phases of U.S. v. Visa, and negotiated the unwinding of interlocking directorates between several pairs of competing corporations.
R. David Donoghue

R. David Donoghue

Holland & Knight

R. David Donoghue is a first-chair intellectual property trial lawyer and partner in Holland & Knight’s Chicago office, where he serves as the firm’s nationwide intellectual property practice lead while maintaining an active trial docket. He was first chair in a standard essential patent (SEP) damages bench trial that ended in a significant defense victory for hardware manufacturers, and he has tried patent and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act cases to jury verdicts. His practice covers patent, trade secret, trademark, and copyright disputes in federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Recognition & Leadership

Recommended in Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Patent 1000 since 2014. Described as 'A practical lawyer who gets right to the heart of any matter, David Donoghue really understands the most technical aspects of patent law.' Founder and principal author of the Chicago IP Litigation and Retail Patent Litigation blogs.

Professional Involvement

Served as an adjunct professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, teaching legal research, writing and IP courses.

Experience

Advises clients from major corporations and midsize businesses on technology disputes including patent, trade secret, trademark, copyright and CFAA matters. Founding member of Aptiv's (f/k/a Delphi) Technology Licensing and Litigation Group where he handled substantial international IP litigation and licensing matters. Served as a law clerk to the Honorable Gordon J. Quist, federal district judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
Ed Duffy

Ed Duffy

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Ed Duffy is a first-chair antitrust trial lawyer and partner in Baker Botts’ Washington, D.C. office. As senior litigation counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, he was lead trial counsel in the challenge to JetBlue Airways’ attempted acquisition of Spirit Airlines and led the government’s team through a six-week bench trial in which the court enjoined the transaction. He has tried antitrust, commercial, tort, intellectual property, environmental, and other complex cases to judgment in bench trials, jury trials, and arbitrations, and has defended judgments on appeal.

Education & Credentials

Mr. Duffy earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center in 2010, where he took part in the Appellate Litigation Clinic and Moot Court, served on the Senior Board of the Georgetown Law Journal, was a Law Fellow, and was a member of the Order of the Coif. He earned his B.S.F.S. in International Politics, magna cum laude, from Georgetown University in 2007, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia, California, and Texas.

Recognition & Leadership

At the Department of Justice, Mr. Duffy served as Acting Assistant Chief of the Antitrust Division's Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section, where he oversaw a team of 35 attorneys and paralegals in civil enforcement and merger review and supervised merger and conduct investigations across numerous industries. Before his government service, he spent 11 years in private practice, including as a partner at a global law firm handling antitrust litigation, civil trials, criminal investigations, and antitrust counseling.

Professional Involvement

Mr. Duffy advises clients on antitrust liability and litigation risk across industries including airlines, financial services, power generation, oilfield services, travel management, shipping, and agriculture, and represents clients in criminal antitrust investigations. His recent thought leadership includes "Have You Tried Looking Harder? Seventh Circuit Directs Lower Courts to Go Beyond a Merits 'Peek' when Assessing Class Certification" (December 2025).

Experience

Mr. Duffy's trial work centers on U.S. v. JetBlue Airways, in which he was lead trial counsel for the Department of Justice through a six-week bench trial that ended with an injunction blocking JetBlue's proposed acquisition of Spirit Airlines. In U.S. v. American Airlines, he cross-examined multiple experts at trial in the Department's successful Section 1 challenge to the Northeast Alliance between American and JetBlue. In private practice, he represented the seller in FTC v. Henkel, a matter that included the first full federal court trial on the merits in an FTC action brought under Section 7. His experience spans the full life of complex cases, from complaints and dispositive motions through fact and expert discovery, trial, and appeal. He represents generic manufacturers Sun and Taro in In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Antitrust Litigation, a landlord in In re RealPage Rental Software Antitrust Litigation, and former investors in In re Fire Apparatus Litigation. He briefed a successful motion to dismiss and appeal for a group purchasing organization in Marion Healthcare v. Becton Dickinson, represented the Department of Justice in the early phases of U.S. v. Visa, and negotiated the unwinding of interlocking directorates between several pairs of competing corporations.

Credits by state

AK2.0
AL2.0
AR2.0
AZ2.0
CA2.0
CO2.0
CT2.0
DC2.0
DE2.0
FL2.0
GA2.0
HI2.0
IA2.0
ID2.0
IL2.0
IN2.0
KS2.0
KY2.0
LA2.0
MA2.0
MD2.0
ME2.0
MI2.0
MN2.0
MO2.4
MS2.0
MT2.0
NC2.0
ND2.0
NE2.0
NH120.0
NJ2.0
NM2.0
NV2.0
NY2.0
OH2.0
OK2.5
OR2.0
PA2.0
RI2.5
SC2.0
SD2.0
TN2.0
TX2.0
UT2.0
VA2.0
VT2.0
WA2.0
WI2.0
WV2.4
WY2.0

Upcoming Live Online CLE Broadcasts

1000+

Live stream programs

24/7

Access to live webinars & recordings

70,000+

Trusted by Legal Professionals

1000+

Live stream programs

24/7

Access to live webinars & recordings

70,000+

Trusted by Legal Professionals

1000+

Live stream programs

24/7

Access to live webinars & recordings

10,000+

Trusted by Legal Professionals

1000+

Live stream programs

24/7

Access to live webinars & recordings

70,000+

Trusted by Legal Professionals

MCLE Credits

Alabama
Pending
Alaska
Approved
Arizona
Approved
Arkansas
Approved
California
Approved
Colorado
Pending
Connecticut
Approved
Delaware
Pending
District of Columbia
No Required
Florida
Approved
Georgia
Pending
Hawaii
Approved
Idaho
Pending
Illinois
Pending
Indiana
Pending
Iowa
Pending
Kansas
Pending
Kentucky
Pending
Louisiana
Pending
Maine
Pending
Maryland
No Required
Massachusetts
No Required
Michigan
No Required
Minnesota
Pending
Mississippi
Pending
Missouri
Approved
Montana
Pending
Nebraska
Pending
Nevada
Pending
New Hampshire
Approved
New Jersey
Approved
New Mexico
Approved
New York
Approved
North Carolina
Pending
North Dakota
Approved
Ohio
Pending
Oklahoma
Pending
Oregon
Pending
Pennsylvania
Approved
Rhode Island
Pending
South Carolina
Pending
South Dakota
No Required
Tennessee
Pending
Texas
Approved
Utah
Pending
Vermont
Approved
Virginia
Not Eligible
Washington
Approved
West Virginia
Pending
Wisconsin
Pending
Wyoming
Pending

Alabama

Requirements

The Alabama State Bar MCLE Commission requires attorneys to complete 12 credits, including 1 ethics, by December 31 of each year. All credits must be reported by February 15 of the following year. A maximum of 12 credits, including 1 ethics credit, may be carried over for 1 year only.  

Formats

  • Attorneys can earn unlimited “live” credit through live seminars, live webcasts, and co-sponsored locations with MyLAWCLE-Alabama approved programs
  • Attorneys are limited to 6 credits per compliance period of “online” programs through MyLAwCLE On-Demand programs