(This is a website section, not category: sandbox) LegalEdge Hosted Webinars for Continuing Legal Education. Emerging legal issues, skills, professional conduct, ethics, practice area education.

Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class

February 15th, 2023|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Emerging Issues Webinars, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts, New Webinars, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , |

Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery, Resolving Discovery Disputes Wage and hour class and collective actions are complex and discovery intensive. Discovery requests are often burdensome, seeking information concerning a broad swath of workers. This causes the discovery process to sometimes linger for years and creates a significant expense for employers.In recent years, courts have emphasized that parties must rein in extensive and expensive discovery requests. Employment litigators are increasingly raising proportionality arguments as a basis for objecting to opposing counsel's discovery requests. Drafters are responding by tailoring requests to anticipate such challenges. Drafting discovery requests that are likely to withstand burden and proportionality challenges and objections to broad discovery requests is critical for litigators representing employers in wage and hour class and collective actions. Employment litigators must develop and implement effective discovery strategies both before and, as applicable, after certification of the putative class. These strategies often must anticipate the possibility of a future summary judgment motion, further certification practice, and trial on the merits. Listen as our authoritative panel of employment law attorneys explains effective strategies for pursuing or objecting to discovery requests in wage and hour collective and class actions and resolving discovery disputes that arise during litigation. Questions Addressed: What are the most common discovery [...]

U.S. Government Enforcement Actions: Regulatory remediation settlement trends and claims administration best practices

December 1st, 2022|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Emerging Issues Webinars, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Featured On-Demand, Tort Webinars, Torts-On-Demand-CLE|Tags: , , , , |

HB Litigation Conferences presents a complimentary CLE-eligible webinar on-demand Government Enforcement Actions Regulatory Remediation Settlement Trends and Administration Best Practices Government enforcement actions are increasing. It’s important for attorneys to understand regulatory trends and best practices for remediation and administration, and how these actions differ from traditional class action settlements. Here are some of the questions our speakers will address in this CLE-eligible webinar:  Why are government enforcement actions increasing? What are the common types of government consumer enforcement actions and how do they proceed? How do government enforcement actions differ from class actions? What are the key considerations in settlement negotiations in government enforcement actions? What are the components of settlement agreements in a government enforcement action? What notice efforts are required to help satisfy expected participation rates? Plus, answers to your questions via live chat. Webinar On Demand Recorded January 2023 What you get:  PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers directly. 1 CLE credit*. CLE assistance. *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys.  Register Meet the Speakers Mark Rapazzini Senior Director | Kroll Mark has more than 25 years of legal experience in cases ranging from individual [...]

Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Certification: Reconciling the Conflict With the Predominance Requirement

November 16th, 2022|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , |

Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Certification: Reconciling the Conflict with the 23(b)(3) Predominance Requirement  Proposed class actions seeking monetary damages are often difficult to certify because common issues do not predominate over individualized issues as required by Rule 23(b)(3). Rule 23(c)(4) provides that "[w]hen appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues."Although Rule 23(c)(4) has been part of the rule since the landmark 1966 amendments, it was often overlooked until the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. Plaintiffs now routinely seek limited issue certification for purported common issues, such as liability, arguing that questions of injury, reliance, or causation should be left for individual cases. When approved, this approach increases defendants' exposure by permitting certification in some cases that would otherwise fail the Rule 23(b)(3) standards.The federal circuits are now in a three-way split on how issue certification should be treated under Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. While the Fifth Circuit has taken the textual view in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. that permits issue certification only if the class first qualifies under Rule 23(b)(3), the Ninth, Sixth, Second, and Seventh Circuits have adopted the opposite view that Rule 23(c)(4) certification does not require predominance. The Third Circuit has clarified and heightened the test in Russell v. Educ. Comm’n for Foreign Med. Graduates, 20-2128 (3d Cir. Sept. 24, 2021), but offers both sides [...]

Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation

October 28th, 2022|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Featured On-Demand, HB Risk Notes, News|Tags: , , |

An on-demand CLE-eligible webinar Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation   America’s senior population is growing. Nearly one in five U.S. residents will be 65 or older in 2030. Which means the average age of U.S. investors is climbing too. With that comes the risk that they will be exploited by people with access – or gain access through nefarious methods – to their investment portfolio. Seniors and vulnerable persons lose billions of dollars each year. Remarkably, 90% of the people to take advantage of senior investors are members of their own family. Attorneys who represent senior clients need to know the signs of vulnerability, red flags that their clients are being exploited, what laws apply, and rules lawyers must follow in these matters.   Questions our speakers answer: What is senior / vulnerable investor exploitation?   Who is protected by state and federal laws?   How prevalent is senior financial exploitation? What do the numbers tell us?  What is the pace of financial abuse SAR filings by securities firms?  What are the most popular scams?   What is diminished capacity?  What are the red flags indicating possible exploitation?  What are the laws, rules, and regulations governing law firms?  What are some best practices for law firms?  How can firms best protect their senior clients?   On Demand CLE Webinar [...]

Epiq Class Action Settlement Efficiency

August 19th, 2022|Categories: Class Actions, CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation|Tags: , , , , |

Epiq presents a CLE-eligible webinar Wait Wait ... Don't Settle! Essential elements of effective class action settlements. When it comes to complex class action litigation, once the hard work is done – litigation and settlement – more hard work begins – administering it.  But is the deal really ready? After years of arduous proceedings, discovery, motions, appeals, hearings, negotiations, and more, the scope and structure of your settlement has been drafted. Everyone is in agreement. The hard work of the courts, the attorneys, the legal teams, and the litigants is complete. Now it's time to administer the settlement. Send out notices. Cut the checks. Get people paid. Boom! Sit back and relax. Get a claims administrator to take it from there. But wait … you find out that the terms of the agreement, the promises made, the budget established, and the deadlines calendared are not only inefficient, they are completely unworkable. Now the settlement is in jeopardy. The clients are frustrated. The court is frustrated. And you have a headache. That is a situation you, as a class action attorney, never want to find yourself in. The best way to avoid this quagmire is for attorneys to work with a professional and experienced claims administrator before you agree on settlement terms, someone who has been to this rodeo [...]

Maximizing Insurance as Climate Change Intensifies

August 14th, 2022|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Environmental Torts, HB Risk Notes, Insurance, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , , |

HB presents an Anderson Kill webinar on-demand MAXIMIZING INSURANCE RECOVERY AS CLIMATE CHANGE INTENSIFIES As weather-induced disasters continue to intensify, maximizing insurance coverage after major storms, floods, wildfires, and other natural cataclysms is an essential survival skill for any business. In this session, attorneys who have successfully litigated property, business interruption and contingent business interruption claims from Hurricanes Katrina through Ida, along with wildfire and other major disaster claims, walk participants through all phases of insurance recovery, from buying the right policies to pursuing claims with persistence and awareness of pitfalls, to litigating successfully when necessary. Specific lessons from Hurricanes Sandy (2012), Harvey (2017) and Maria and Irma (2020) will be addressed. Topics: Developing a pre-storm preparedness plan, including mitigation efforts, assembly of a claims team, and insurance coverage review; Moving quickly to protect property from further damage, performing all emergency repairs, and documenting all losses in detail; Preparing and presenting well-supported property damage claims; Recognizing and including business interruption losses and extra expense outlays; Highlighting policy interpretation issues that affect the scope of available coverage; Outlining strategies for pursuing claims and incentivizing the insurance company to resolve them with due speed. On-Demand Registration Includes 1+ CLE credits (subject to bar rules). CLE codes are embedded in the video. CLE questions? [...]

The Antitrust Case Against Google

October 30th, 2020|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Mass Torts, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

The Antitrust Case Against Google Perspectives from highly regarded competition law attorneys, litigators, and economists. This overview and Q&A has been developed for advertisers, mobile device makers, app developers, corporate counsel, business writers, and search market participants. The U.S. Department of Justice and 11 states have filed a sweeping antitrust suit against Google alleging the tech giant  abuses its position as "monopoly gatekeeper for the internet" to block competitors. The complaint says Google has used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising. The federal and state governments charge Google uses "exclusionary agreements, including tying arrangements" to "lock up distribution channels and block rivals." Google's considerable wealth helps make this happen. Google pays billions of dollars a year to distributors to secure their position as the default search engine, and prohibits these companies from dealing with Google competitors. Google's exclusionary strategy is being applied more harshly in newer technologies, such as voice assistants, and in its goal of dominating other platforms in the IoT category, such as smart speakers, home appliances, and autonomous cars. Without a court order, the government plaintiffs say, "Google will continue executing its anticompetitive strategy, crippling the competitive process, reducing consumer choice, and stifling competition." What does all of this mean [...]

Organizational Values & Business Risks: Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns

August 6th, 2020|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Corporate Compliance, Employment, HB Risk Notes, Mass Torts, News|Tags: , , , , |

Accommodations. Appropriate accommodation for high-risk employees or employees with family members who are at a heightened risk. Mitigation. Attention to means of mitigating transmission and infection. Tracing. Contact tracing and management of data collected, including health data, as well as responses to employees who refuse to report. Patient Sensitivity. Duty to avoid discrimination and stigmatization. Preparedness. Developing plans to address possibility of re-occurrence in the fall and managing possible outbreaks in company’s offices. On-demand on the Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter as part of the HB catalog. Organizational Values & Coronavirus Business Risks: Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns Produced for Emory University Center for Ethics by HB Litigation Conferences The current pandemic confronts businesses, nonprofit organizations, governments, and the legal profession with innumerable ethical challenges.  Management issues and liability concerns, stakeholder demands and legal duties become even more complex in an environment of uncertainty and one where the consequences could result in serious illness or even death.  This program seeks to engage the participants in thinking through these challenges and developing processes of ethical response to them.  Managers must acknowledge and address the framework of fear associated with the pandemic, ranging from fear of contagion and death to fears of unemployment, childcare, and the duties of home-schooling.  Additionally, as the economy reopens there must be [...]

Contract Drafting Fundamentals

July 2nd, 2020|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Law Firm Operations, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , , |

Register Now Contract Drafting Fundamentals: What I Wish They Taught Me in Law School Speaker: Will Marshall | Partner UBM Law LLP Date: Thursday | July 23, 2020 Time: 2pm ET 1pm CT 12pm MT 11am PT Duration: 75 minutes Price: Early Bird Registration: $75 After July 14: $95 Special: Complimentary with discount code! What you get: CLE credit Course materials Webinar recording Answers to your questions! Contact CLE Manager Get practical insights on contract drafting. For new and seasoned attorneys alike, this 75-minute program will cover core, practical aspects of contract drafting, including a broad range of fundamental concepts, skills, and tips.  The program is designed to make you a more deliberate drafter and improve your ability to assess the purpose and effectiveness of each provision in your contract.  We will discuss not only what is on the page, but external dynamics that affect drafting and negotiation. Finally, we will reserve time to answer your questions. I am offering this program for free to my network to help you develop these foundational skills. If you haven't received it, please contact me directly for the complimentary pass code.  -- Will Marshall,  Partner, UBM Law Group LLP Key topics:  The goals and challenges of good drafting. The anatomy and building blocks of a contract. Categories [...]

The Intersection of Antitrust & Privacy | A MoginRubin Webinar | 10.31.2019

September 14th, 2019|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Mass Torts, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

[two-fifths-first] Recorded: Oct. 31, 2019 Duration: 100 minutes Presented by:  MoginRubin LLP Produced by: HB Litigation Conferences The Panel Moderator Daniel J.  Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions.  What you will get: At least 1 hour of CLE credit. Answers to your questions via email. The opportunity to share with others on your team. The complete Powerpoint. The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina Srinivasan's statement to the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law The Chicago Booth School Stigler Center Committee on Digital Platforms Final Report Write to us at CLE@LitigationConferences.com to: Ask about CLE Request the materials Send a question for the speakers [/two-fifths-first][three-fifths] Market Behavior and Data-Driven Market Power Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the [...]

Settlement Psychology: Who is in Control? Homer Simpson or Mr. Spock? | Complimentary Webinar

April 1st, 2019|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Law Firm Operations|Tags: , , , , , , |

Settlement Psychology Who's in charge? Homer Simpson or Mr. Spock? Cognitive obstacles to finding common ground. [two-fifths-first] Complimentary On-Demand Webinar From HB! 1 CLE credit CLE questions? CLE@LitigationConferences.com Questions for speakers? Questions@LitigationConferences.com SPEAKERS Jeff Trueman Mediator / Negotiator John Philip Miller Baltimore City Circuit Judge (ret.) This course is also available via the West LegalEdcenter. [/two-fifths-first] [three-fifths] Improve your negotiation strategy and outcomes. Mediator, arbitrator and settlement conference neutral Jeff Trueman says the lawyer’s mind can sometimes play tricks on them when it comes time to settle a claim. “The central question on the minds of counsel, their clients, and insurance professionals in civil litigation is, of course, ‘What’s the case worth?’ For mature torts there is enough historical settlement and verdict data exist for counsel to argue why a particular case should or should not fit within a certain settlement range. In the midst of these discussions, the human brain plays tricks on us. For example, litigators sometimes assume that their trial experience can determine how jurors will negotiate with one another and resolve factual discrepancies after closing arguments. This assumption is a ‘heuristic’ – a cognitive shortcut called attributional error or illusion of control.” Backed by his decades of psychological and economic sciences research, Trueman says there is a lot of room for [...]

Go to Top