Emerging Litigation Podcast
Intellectual Property Trial Team Diversity with Tara Trask
Intellectual Property Trial Team Diversity with Tara Trask Diversity and inclusion initiatives aren’t just valuable for checking off compliance boxes and writing marketing copy. Those benefits are a distant second and third to the genuine value team diversity has on the success of a company or a project. That also means law firms and trials. A recent article published by the American Bar Association Tort and Insurance Practice Section hailed diversity of perspectives for how they improve a team’s ability to resolve legal issues, innovate solutions, and introduce factors homogeneous teams may miss. The National Association for Law Placement reported that women and people of color are making great progress at major law firms. Nearly half of associates are women and, based on summer associate statistics, women are expected to break the 50% as early as this year or next. Black associates made impressive gains, but there remains room for improvement. At the partner level, however, Black and Latinx women and men remain stuck in the low single digits. In this episode we drill down even further to examine trial teams in the intellectual property arena. I was thrilled to speak with Tara Trask, one of the nation’s leading experts on IP trials and juries, having directly worked on or observed more of these proceedings than just about anyone. Tara has championed research on this topic as part of her work and presentations for the American Intellectual Property Law Association. The diversity spark lit up for Tara when she and her panelists enjoyed an enthusiastic reaction to an AIPLA conference session she moderated titled, “Perspectives on Diversity: Views on Trial Teams From the Bench, The Boardroom, and the Jury Box.” Listen to Tara’s insights based on analysis of her own cases, analysis of related studies, and expanded fact-gathering she is leading in collaboration with the association. [...]
Persuasion as Direct and Honest Trial Advocacy with Jack Siegal
Persuasion as Direct and Honest Advocacy with Jack Siegal The relevance to jury trials and jury persuasion is obvious. According to studies cited in a 2019 article in Business Insider, people develop first impressions of you “even before you open your mouth.” That means your mere appearance “affects how trustworthy, promiscuous, and powerful people think you are.” It’s the trustworthy part that attorneys need to pay attention to. Regardless of the strength of their case or whether the law is on their side, an attorney still must be persuasive. And, unless the audience – whether it is a judge, a panel of judges, a regulatory body, or a jury – sees you as credible, the rest will likely not matter. But what makes an attorney, or anyone for that matter, credible? Is this something you’re born with or is it something you can develop over time? Is it true, as some studies suggest, that you can change some first impressions by making some changes in how you present yourself, or are you just stuck with a less than trustworthy vibe? Interested in upping your jury persuasion game? A Good Place to Start Listen to my interview with attorney Jack I. Siegal, a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP in Boston. Jack believes we can all make positive adjustments in the nuanced practice of achieving credibility. 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 note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. P.S. Toward the end I could barely manager my ADHD and took the conversation into a chat that [...]
Electronic Fund Transfer Fraud with Brad Rustin
Electronic Fund Transfer Fraud with Brad Rustin Grifters, scammers, con artists Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who championed the creation of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), calls the Zelle digital payments network a “preferred tool for grifters like romance scammers, cryptocurrency con artists, and those who prowl social media sites advertising concert tickets and purebred puppies — only to disappear with buyers’ cash after they pay.” 18 million Americans defrauded Scams and fraud committed via the Zelle platform and other peer-to-peer services are surging. According to one lawsuit 18 million Americans were defrauded by schemes perpetrated via apps like Zelle in 2020. Some 1,500 member banks and credit unions participate in the Zelle service. People sent $490 billion via the app in 2021. But Zelle owner, Early Warning, and its consortium comprising Bank of America, Truist, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo, have refused to refund customers for most of their losses. Sen. Warren issued a report that the claims for fraud received by just four banks will likely exceed $255 million by the end of 2022 – a $165 million increase over 2020. The senator and consumers say Zelle is violating federal consumer protection law. What is fraud? The heart of the problem is this: banks and consumers do not agree on the definition of “fraud.” For clarity on issues surrounding the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and its implementing regulation—Regulation E—listen to my interview with fintech attorney Brad Rustin of Nelson Mullins. In addition to chairing the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice, Brad counsels financial institutions in regulatory matters, including strategic agreements, product development, and operational compliance. Brad is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist and a Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager. He received his JD, magna cum laude, from the University of South Carolina School of Law and his BA in Political Science and [...]
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
Procedural Challenges to the IRS’s Compliance With the APA and Its Impact on Tax Litigation
The Author Jeffrey S. Luechtefeld (jeff.luechtefeld@chamberlainlaw.com) is a tax controversy and litigation attorney with Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams, and Aughtry (Atlanta, Georgia) where he focuses his practice on resolving tax disputes with the Internal Revenue Service, administratively or through litigation. Jeff previously was a Special Trial Attorney for the IRS Office of Chief Counsel as well as a director in the tax controversy practice of a big four accounting firm. 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. Procedural Challenges to IRS Compliance With the APA and Its Impact on Tax Litigation Abstract: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) places specific requirements on agencies of the federal government when engaged in a “rule making” that has the force and effect of law. Recently, the APA has become a focal point in tax litigation, due in large part to the IRS’s history of refusing to comply with the process mandated by the APA. This article focuses on procedural challenges to the IRS’s compliance with the APA based on the IRS’s history of non-compliance with the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement. It highlights recent trends in tax litigation and considers the future of APA challenges in this area. "IRS’s level of APA non-compliance matters significantly ... "APA challenges predicated on the IRS’s failure to adequately follow the APA’s notice-and-comment process are inherently fact-intensive endeavors ... "The challenging party should gauge the usefulness of the relief requested and balance that against the cost required to prevail ... "Ultimately, APA challenges are important, and may be necessary for a taxpayer to get to argue the merits of their case, but they do not often end the dispute with the IRS." Download the article now!
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!
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
