Emerging Litigation Podcast
Reimagining the Administration of Justice with Qudsiya Naqui of Pew Charitable Trust
Before COVID-19 came to America in early 2020, “going to court” literally meant putting on your shoes and walking into a courthouse, typically a large building with courtrooms inside, and people in robes and business suits and, in some cases, more restrictive attire. Stoked by necessity, courts sprinted toward solutions for keeping the wheels of justice spinning while also keeping everyone away from each other. Until then it didn’t seem possible that attorneys could or would appear before judges via digital screens, like George Jetson getting yelled at by Mr. Spacely over some hilarious mishap at the sprocket factory. Pew Charitable Trust concluded an in-depth study of the courts with the 2021 release of a report, “How Courts Embraced Technology, Met the Pandemic Challenge, and Revolutionized Their Operations.” After examining emergency orders from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and court approaches to virtual hearings, e-filing, and digital notarization, the researchers wrote that it was a time for "reimagining how to administer justice.” Was the adoption of technology effective? Were there any hiccups? Was technology widely embraced? Were the effects of new efficiencies enjoyed evenly across the socio-economic spectrum? Do we think courts will continue to reimagine how they administer justice without the crushing pressure of widespread disease? Listen to my interview with Qudsiya Naqui who leads Pew’s research at the intersection of technology and civil legal system reform. In this role, she evaluates and tests new technologies to ensure that they further efficiency, equity, and transparency in the legal process. This work is part of Pew’s Civil Justice Modernization Project. Before joining Pew, Qudsiya designed and implemented immigration, housing, and disaster recovery legal services programs at Equal Justice Works and the Vera Institute of Justice. She began her legal career representing immigrant women and girls seeking relief from deportation. Qudsiya holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and human rights [...]
Modernizing Our Court System (but Don’t Attend Trial from Your Car) with Hon. Scott Schlegel
The judicial system is overburdened for a number of reasons, and greater efficiency is a must if court systems are to achieve their important objectives. Technology and openness to all that it offers is a key solution, something that was tried, tested and proven during the Covid pandemic which closed courthouses and law offices around the nation. Along with technology, improvements can be made by reexamining their orthodoxies about how things should be done based on decades of "that's how we've always done it." This is a matter of importance to judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, and numerous others whose lives are impacted directly or indirectly when either the civil or criminal justice systems are inefficient, cumbersome, costly, confusing, slow, and even inaccessible. If only we had an example of at least one judge who is trying to do something about it. But wait ... Listen to my interview with the Hon. Scott Schlegel who presides over criminal civil and domestic matters in Louisiana's 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish. Judge Schlegel was elected to the bench in 2013, and quickly earned a reputation as a modern judge using technology to bring his court into the digital age, even before the pandemic forced the change on other jurists. He partnered with tech companies to develop efficiency tools like chat bots and online forms software. He launched courtonline.us and onlinejudge.us to consolidate his processes for the public. Judge Schlegel has received numerous awards and accolades, like the National Center for State Courts' 26th Annual William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence. He was the American Bar Association's 2021 Legal Rebel. And he received the Fastcase 50 Award for his innovative approaches to the administration of justice. Prior to becoming a judge, he was a prosecutor and litigator. Judge Schlegel graduated with honors from Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. This podcast [...]
Greatly Exaggerated: The Impact of Bankruptcy on Mass Torts with Jennifer Hoekstra
When large companies face massive mass tort litigation, one way they can survive is to file for bankruptcy protection and reorganize. 3M recently put its Aearo Technologies subsidiary into bankruptcy in the face of more than 230,000 claims that's its defective earplugs caused hearing loss. When it came to filing bankruptcy 3M said Aearo was solely responsible for the product. But for several years of litigation 3M argued that it, as the parent, was solely responsible, not its various subsidiaries. That was a strategy that was beneficial to the company in multidistrict litigation. Why did 3M suddenly change course? What impact does bankruptcy have on claimants? Could corporations use bankruptcy law to neuter mass tort litigation for all eternity? And how did the strategy sit with the federal magistrate judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation? Joining me to discuss this incredibly complex litigation is Jennifer M. Hoekstra, a partner with Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz. Jennifer has been involved in all varieties of complex litigation since 2007, focusing on mass torts, drug and device litigation, and others. She has a J.D. from Tulane, which she earned while also completing a certificate in Environmental Law. She has actively served as trial counsel or an integral member of the trial team in several of the 3M Earplug trials securing nearly $300 million in compensatory damages for military veterans. Jennifer shared her insights on the intersection of complex mass torts and bankruptcy, an intersection that wasn't originally on her roadmap. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me [...]
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.
Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation
The Environmental, Social, and Governance Police Have Arrived: Is Your Insurance Ready? by Robert D. Chesler and Dennis J. Artese
The Authors Robert D. Chesler (rchesler@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in Anderson Kill’s New Jersey office and is a member of the firm’s Cyber Insurance Recovery Group. He represents policyholders in a broad variety of coverage claims against their insurers and advises companies with respect to their insurance programs. Dennis J. Artese is a shareholder in Anderson Kill’s New York office and chairs the firm’s Climate Change and Disaster Recovery Group. Both are members of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal. 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. The ESG Police Have Arrived: Is Your Insurance Ready? "ESG has become a major initiative for corporate America. In particular, the environmental prong of ESG calls for companies to institute sustainability goals and to invest in environmentally friendly companies. This emphasis has both economic and popular support. Environmental sustainability will make companies better able to compete and make their businesses less risky." Abstract: The environmental, social, and governance movement is a positive one, but like many well-intentioned efforts there is room for abuse and risk. As corporations endeavor to earn accolades and good will for “doing the right thing,” they must also be certain they truly are. In this article the authors discuss increased government scrutiny, the attendant risks of implementing and reporting on ESG initiatives, insurance coverage implications for directors and officers, the pollution and other exclusions, the potential civil fines and penalties, and what companies can expect in the era of ESG. Download the article now! Podcast 1 of 2 series: Insurance Coverage with Dr. Jaana Pietari and Jim Fenstermacher and Litigation with Bob Chesler. Podcast 2 of 2 series: PFAS Insurance Coverage with Robert D. Chesler of Anderson Kill. Sister [...]
Announcing the Complex Litigation Ethics Conference
A leading academic and practitioner, Joshua P. Davis (davisj@usfca.edu) is a nationally recognized expert on legal ethics and class actions, as well as on artificial intelligence in the law, antitrust, civil procedure, free speech, and jurisprudence. He has published more than 30 scholarly articles and book chapters on these subjects and is currently writing a book on AI titled Unnatural Law, which will be published by Cambridge University Press. He is Research Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law, and a Shareholder of the Berger Montague PC law firm and Manager of its new San Francisco Bay Area Office. Before taking these posts, for more than 20 years Davis was a tenured Professor of Law at University of San Francisco Law School, where he also served as the Director of the Center for Law and Ethics. Davis is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, published by Fastcase Full Court Press. Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief. An expert in civil procedure and federal courts, Professor Scott Dodson is the James Edgar Hervey Chair in Litigation and Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law at UC Hastings Law. He has published seven book titles, including The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Cambridge 2015) and New Pleading in the Twenty-First Century (Oxford 2013). He has written around 100 shorter works appearing in such journals as Stanford Law Review, New York University Law Review, Michigan Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, California Law Review, Virginia Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Northwestern University Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, American Journal of Comparative Law, American Journal of International Law, and Law & Society Review. His scholarly writings have been cited in more than 30 court opinions and have been downloaded more than 45,000 times. For 2010-14, he was listed as the 9th [...]
Litigating a Claim to Recover Liquidated Damages by Laura Fraher
The Author Laura C. Fraher (fraher@slslaw.com) is a senior attorney in the trial and construction group at Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram in Washington, D.C. She has extensive experience in civil litigation at both the trial court and appellate level. Competitive by nature, Laura played rugby for nearly 20 years. She puts this competitive spirit to work through her passion for the law and her clients. Education: St. John’s University School of Law, J.D., 2001, magna cum laude; SUNY College at Geneseo, B.A., Political Science, 1998. 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. Litigating a Claim to Recover Liquidated Damages: Enforceability Depends on Evidence of Good Faith Expectations "The tests and standards that courts apply to evaluate whether a particular liquidated damage provision is enforceable vary from state to state and it is imperative that litigants research and fully appreciate the particular standards that will be applied by the court in which they are litigating." Abstract: The liquidated damages provision in a contract is a useful mechanism for mitigating risk in the event one of the parties to an agreement breaches the contract, costing the aggrieved party sometimes significant difficulty and substantial expense. Unfortunately, these provisions are often challenged, allowing the party responsible for the beach to exacerbate the burdens on the other party. In this article, the author discusses concepts of enforceability, proof, and avoiding litigation over liquidated damage provisions. A liquidated damage provision is an advance agreement of the damages that a party will be entitled to recover in the event of a future breach by the other party to a contract. These provisions can be an important tool for risk allocation and mitigation between parties when entering into [...]
HB Webinars on the West LegalEdcenter
Content Partners
