Emerging Litigation Podcast
The Intersection of Generative AI and the Legal Profession with Niki Black
In this episode, we discuss the current state and future of generative artificial intelligence and the practice of law with Nicole Black, attorney, legal tech journalist, and author. As she notes, "The legal field is one of the most likely to be impacted by generative AI because the technology can significantly replace certain workflows or assist with those workflows in impactful ways". Listen and learn more!
The Corporate Transparency Act: A New Effort to Fight Money Laundering with Lori Smith
In this episode, we discuss the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) with Lori Smith of Stradley Ronon, including the key facets of the Act's requirements, potential penalties, and chances for litigation. As Lori notes, "the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where you can form entities, and nobody can tell who owns them". The CTA aims to prevent this from being the case. Listen and learn more!
Litigators, YES Litigators: One Attorney’s Journey Within and Without the Legal Industry
In this episode, we discuss all the things one former litigator, Somya Kaushik, Senior Corporate Counsel at Mineral and Adjunct Professor of Law at Lewis & Clark Law School has done, and the advantages she feels a litigator can bring to a small company – one that isn’t embroiled in litigation (and would like to keep it that way). As she notes, "a litigator is well-positioned to identify actual but often overlooked legal risks, effectively mitigating issues and reducing both business and legal risks". Listen and learn more!
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
Facing PFAS lawsuit, Apple claims watch bands are safe, but what does the evidence say?
Amid rising concerns about toxic chemicals in consumer products, Apple finds itself under scrutiny. Guest contributor Justin Ward examines the controversy surrounding Apple’s smartwatch bands after researchers detected elevated levels of PFAS, or “forever chemicals.” While Apple insists its products are safe, a class action lawsuit alleges deceptive marketing and health risks, raising broader questions about accountability and chemical transparency in tech and apparel.
AI tool that summarizes evidence from cracked phones wades into uncharted constitutional waters
As law enforcement agencies adopt cutting-edge AI to process digital evidence, constitutional questions are quickly coming into focus. Guest contributor Justin Ward explores how Cellebrite’s new AI-driven tool—capable of scanning and summarizing entire phone contents—may clash with Fourth Amendment protections. While the tech promises efficiency, civil rights advocates argue it opens the door to warrantless digital dragnets, with court interpretations varying widely across jurisdictions.
Valid Antitrust Concerns or Partisan Objectives: Which Will Guide Trump’s FTC?
Concerned that the spirit of retribution that drove executive orders against some of the nation's largest law firms will carry over to business deals, Tom Hagy writes about recent changes at the Federal Trade Commission and some of the comments from the new chair that suggest infusion of retribution into the process of examining business deals is inevitable.
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Assessing Risk in Medical Malpractice Mediation
HB Litigation Conferences presents Assessing Risk in Medical Malpractice Mediation CLE-eligible on demand webinar | Recorded 2021 Lawyers and claims professionals assess litigation outcomes all the time. The parties do not. You can help. Understandably, parties in medical malpractice disputes do not fully appreciate the risks inherent in litigation and are not aware of how continued litigation affects their underlying interests in the dispute. For example, some parties see the outcome as a reflection of their personal character. These challenges can hamper the parties' ability to make good decisions in litigated medical malpractice cases. Even organizations that are experienced in assessing litigation risk can make more decisions in these cases with adverse outcomes. Hear our panel of medical malpractice and insurance attorneys and litigation experts as they share their insights on successfully guiding individuals and organizations through these disputes. Registration Includes Nearly 90 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. REGISTRATION Key Points What are the intangible costs of medical malpractice litigation for individuals and institutions? How can advocates, claims professionals, and parties make better decisions in these cases? How are medical malpractice claims mediated? How can advocates use risk assessments in settlement negotiations? What do participants want from mediators? Meet the speakers. Gregory K. Wells Gregory K. Wells is a Maryland-based personal injury lawyer and partner with Shadoan, Michael & Wells LLP. His practice focuses on Plaintiff’s medical malpractice, serious personal injury and wrongful death cases, as well as commercial and business litigation. Greg [...]
The Antitrust Case Against Google
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 to actual or potential rivals, ad buyers, consumer, developers, and device makers in three markets Search Service, Search Advertising, and Search Text Advertising? What type of defense might Google mount? What might the ultimate resolution look like? Join our panel, led by competition law thought leaders, as they address the potential impact of the litigation and answer your questions via live chat. • Setting the stage: What constitutes an illegal monopoly? • Lessons from United States v. Microsoft? • How does the government define the three markets? • What is in the [...]
Organizational Values & Business Risks: Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns
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 serious attention to the processes of doing so. Join Professor Edward L. Queen from Emory University for invaluable insights. Emory's medical team was on the frontline of the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic, which began in December 2013 when an 18-month-old Guinean boy contracted the disease. According to the CDC, the outbreak ended with more than 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths. Eleven people were treated for Ebola in the United States. Edward L. Queen Director of Ethics and Servant Leadership Emory University Professor Edward L. Queen Edward L. Queen is director of [...]
Content Partners
