Emerging Litigation Podcast
ESG Programs and the Lawyer’s Role
In this episode, we discuss the role of attorneys and in-house counsel in the courageous new world of Environment, Social, and Governance Issues, or ESG. How can law firms themselves adopt ESG practices and what role do they play with clients? How can in-house counsel drive ESG initiatives? What are the pitfalls and risks? And have you ever wondered how rating organizations work? Listen now!
Natural Gas Bans and Bans on Bans
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently struck down Berkeley, California's ban on natural gas infrastructure in new buildings as a violation of federal law. As we will continue to see more such bans, our guest shares insights on how similar cases may be treated -- and much more.
Pixel Litigation Tests Old Privacy Law
New litigation alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act -- which came well before online video streaming -- demonstrates how plaintiff attorneys are creatively applying traditional causes of action to litigate modern privacy issues in the absence of a federal law. Listen now for insights.
A Shameless Plug for Our Content Services
Your content marketing is everything you’ve ever dreamed of. Right?
Sara is marketing director at a boutique law firm. When we asked her how their blog was going, she made a sad face. But then, we made Sara smile.*
Critical Legal Content was founded by Tom Hagy, former Editor & Publisher of Mealey’s Litigation Reports and VP at LexisNexis, founder of HB, current litigation podcaster and editor-in-chief. CLC’s mission is to help smaller firms and service providers not only create content — blogs, articles, papers, webinars, podcasts (like the stuff on this site) — but also to get it out there. How? Via social media, this website, your website, and potential via our podcast and journal which we publish in collaboration with vLex Fastcase and Law Street Media. The goal is to attract readers and dizzy them with your brilliance.
*Inspired by actual events.
Create content like a real legal publisher.
Emerging Litigation Journal
Ohio Supreme Court Ruling Sends Important Reminder: Long-Standing, Fundamental Principles of Insurance Policy Construction and Law Are Applicable to Cyber Claims GalleryOhio Supreme Court Ruling Sends Important Reminder: Long-Standing, Fundamental Principles of Insurance Policy Construction and Law Are Applicable to Cyber Claims
Ohio Supreme Court Ruling Sends Important Reminder: Long-Standing, Fundamental Principles of Insurance Policy Construction and Law Are Applicable to Cyber Claims
The Authors Judy Selby (judy.selby@kennedyslaw.com) is a Partner at Kennedys (New York) where she focuses her practice primarily on insurance coverage matters with a concentration in coverage for exposures arising out of emerging technology, digital, and compliance risks. Tracey M.Kline (tracey.kline@kennedyslaw.com) is an Associate at Kennedys (Philadelphia) where she focuses her practice primarily on insurance coverage litigation and cyber matters. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Ohio Supreme Court Ruling Sends Important Reminder: Long-Standing, Fundamental Principles of Insurance Policy Construction and Law Are Applicable to Cyber Claims Abstract: On December 27, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a business owner’s property insurance policy issued by Owners Insurance Co. to EMOI Services, LLC did not afford coverage for losses sustained in a ransomware attack because computer software is “entirely intangible” and “cannot experience ‘direct physical loss or physical damage.’” EMOI Servs., LLC. v. Owners Ins. Co., 2022-Ohio-4649 (Ohio 2022). In doing so, the court reversed an attention-getting split decision by the lower appellate court. This article takes an in-depth look at the case and discusses its significant implications. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision was based on its commonsense conclusions that software (as intangible property) cannot suffer physical damage, and that coverage for restoration of information under the Electronic Equipment Endorsement could not be triggered absent the threshold requirement of “direct physical loss or damage” to the media on which the information was stored. Although claims involving cyber events may be relatively new, this decision is an important reminder that long-standing, fundamental principles of insurance policy construction and law are applicable to cyber claims. Download the article now!
Unarmed or Unwell: How Federal Law Infringes Medical Marijuana Users’ Second Amendment Rights
The Author Griffen Thorne (griffen@harrisbricken.com) is an attorney in the Los Angeles office of Harris Bricken Sliwoski LLP, an international emerging markets law firm. He represents clients in highly regulated emerging industries, such as cannabis, in corporate and commercial transactions. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Unarmed or Unwell: How Federal Law Infringes Medical Marijuana Users’ Second Amendment Rights As Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted while on the Seventh Circuit, “legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.” In the coming years, the government’s ability to write off all medical marijuana users as dangerous is likely to be curtailed, even if the Controlled Substances Act continues to make marijuana use a federal crime. Abstract: In the wake of the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, federal courts have reached opposite outcomes on whether federal prohibitions on marijuana users’ rights to own or possess firearms are constitutional. As a result, there is a high likelihood of a circuit split that results in the overturning of those federal laws. The author discusses Bruen and several other cases at the intersection of drug laws and gun laws. Download the article now!
Digital Health Care Companies, Beware: Federal Agencies Are Tracking Your Use of Online Tracking Technologies
The Authors Patricia A. Markus (trish.markus@nelsonmullins.com) represents health care providers and health technology companies across the country on wide-ranging regulatory compliance, reimbursement, licensure, and operational matters, with a special focus on issues surrounding health information privacy, security, and technology. Shane Duer (shane.duer@nelsonmullins.com) focuses his practice on healthcare regulatory and corporate matters, with an emphasis on data privacy, cyber security, and information management concerns within and beyond the health care industry. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Digital Health Care Companies, Beware Federal Agencies Are Tracking Your Use of Online Tracking Technologies. Abstract: Health care industry stakeholders have regularly used online tracking technologies to help improve patient experience. However, growing scrutiny by the Office for Civil Rights, which enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), requires covered entities and business associates to proceed cautiously in their use of such technologies. In addition, recent enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission make clear that a wide range of digital health companies, whether or not regulated by HIPAA, must tread carefully when collecting and disclosing personal information related to health, especially where consumers’ location data is to be used for a company’s advertising purposes, as they may be held accountable for failing to maintain the privacy and security of individuals’ protected and individually identifiable health information. The increasing number of lawsuits and news articles regarding use of these technologies demonstrates that third-party technology tracking vendors who receive PHI often are not operating under Business Associate Agreements (BAAs). The vendors in most instances disavow any need to collect PHI and accordingly instruct users to avoid sending PHI or other personally identifiable information. Under HIPAA, covered entities and business associates generally may [...]
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
