Emerging Litigation Podcast
The Plight of the Indirect Purchaser
Consumers and businesses -- indirect purchasers of products whose prices are fixed by those who supply the maker of your purchase may not collect damages in states that -- surprisingly, do not have antitrust laws that give them standing. But what about federal law? Why do some states provide for damages and others do not? Are there alternatives?
The IRS and Rules About Rules
The Administrative Procedures Act outlines the rules of rule making for federal agencies. Lately it has become a focal point in tax litigation, due in large part to the IRS’s record of refusing to comply with the law's notice-and-comment mandate. Listen to learn more about recent trends in tax litigation. Get an article, too.
Law Firm Technology Directors? Yes.
In this episode we talk about the advantages of having technology and software development capabilities inside your law firm. Can you imagine? And we’re not just talking about someone who is adept at unjamming the printer.
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
Spotting the Risk, Reaping Rewards: Avoiding Increased Antitrust Scrutiny
The Authors Katie has favorably represented antitrust clients in matters involving monopolization, conspiracy, price fixing, exclusive dealing, and other competition-related disputes, including trade secrets and non-compete actions. She has extensive knowledge of the regulatory hurdles and obligations her clients face. Katie earned her J.D. from the New York University School of Law, cum laude. Natalie West represents sophisticated clients in complex commercial disputes. She regularly serves as the lead brief writer in antitrust cases, employment and consumer class actions, and appellate matters. Natalie graduated with high honors from the University of Texas School of Law, where she served as a member of the Texas Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. 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. Avoiding Antitrust Scrutiny Spotting the Risk, Reaping Rewards The increase in aggressive antitrust enforcement has certainly received significant attention. For the moment, juries are not rewarding the prosecutors. That said, even an unsuccessful government investigation is itself costly and can motivate plaintiffs’ lawyers. Best practices involve not only following the law but also maintaining solid optics to avoid the need for an expensive, if ultimately successful, defense. Abstract: A decade ago, few lawyers across the country spent significant time thinking about antitrust law. But, since then, there has been an onslaught of antitrust attacks on businesses and executives across all sectors of the economy. Enforcement efforts have skyrocketed following President Biden’s July 2021 executive order directing a “whole of government” crackdown on competition abuses—and the trend shows no sign of letting up. Today, no matter the industry or the size of the business, everyone needs to understand these risks and have strategies to minimize them. This article will walk [...]
International Discovery Tool Kit Aims to Facilitate Discovery in Both Domestic and Foreign Litigation
The Authors Benjamin Daniels advises financial institutions and global corporations about litigation and dispute resolution. As a member of the Business Litigation Group, Ben provides creative and ardent advocacy during litigation, enforcement actions, investigations, crisis management, and white-collar defense matters. Ben’s clients often face complex, cross-border disputes. He has deep experience with the interplay between domestic and international courts, including discovery disputes and Hague convention proceedings. He also represents clients in international arbitrations and mediations. Jenna Scoville is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation Group. She focuses her practice on all aspects of general business litigation and dispute resolution, as well as government enforcement matters, and appellate work. She helps companies respond to a variety of business disputes, including claims for breach of contract, unfair trade practices and fraud. Jenna also has extensive appellate experience. Prior to joining the firm, she clerked for the Honorable Peter W. Hall of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 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. International Discovery Tool Kit Aims to Facilitate Discovery in Both Domestic and Foreign Litigation "At a time when litigants have increasingly relied on U.S. federal courts to obtain otherwise unobtainable evidence from entities located within the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has decisively closed the door to U.S.-style discovery in private arbitrations abroad. That means U.S. companies will no longer face the time, exposure, and expense of U.S.-style discovery that § 1782 had injected into those proceedings." Abstract: Business knows no borders. Every year companies increase their global reach and open new offices both domestically and abroad. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this process—remote employees spread documents and witnesses from Chicago to Shanghai to Sumatra. This [...]
The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal
The Authors John defends manufacturers in product liability litigation involving a range of products, e.g., ATVs, RVs, institutional chemicals, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. From single cases to mass tort litigation and class actions, John has defended clients in courtrooms around the country. Michael is General Counsel of Thor Motor Coach Inc., a final-stage manufacturer of motor homes headquartered in Elkhart, Indiana. He is also an adjunct professor of commercial law at the Notre Dame Law School. Taryn focuses her practice on litigation. She has experience dealing with products liability, discovery issues, corporate structure and governance, wealth management, private and commercial lending, real estate, and Indian affairs for lobbying both on state and federal levels. Taryn contributed valuable research to this article. 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 Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal "A plaintiff seeking to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction post-removal should at least comply with the requirements of the rule they have relied on. Glossing over those requirements undermines the purpose and intent of both the rule and removal statutes. The case should stay put in federal court in the absence of compliance." Abstract: Defendants in civil litigation can level the often uneven state court playing field by removing cases to federal court through federal question removal. In those cases in which the plaintiff has alleged a claim grounded in federal law, the defendant may remove the case to an often more impartial federal forum. Once removed, the plaintiff has few options for defeating removal. About the only option available to the plaintiff is to forgo the federal claim and divest the court of federal question jurisdiction, forcing remand to [...]
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
