Emerging Litigation Podcast
High-Asset Divorce Litigation with Robert D. Boyd and Kimberli C. Withrow
High-Asset Divorce Litigation Let's assume this is good news. The divorce rate appears to be coming down. Either people are more committed to these unions or have succumbed to lifetimes of misery. But the common belief -- that "50% of all marriages end in divorce" -- doesn't enjoy statistical support. Six percent of people who divorce get back together, so that's something, too.  According to Monster.com, the rate is higher among people working in fading industries, like certain machine operators. Despite frequent coverage of Hollywood breakups, they don't mention entertainers, other than dancers and choreographers, who don't fare well in marriage. Lawyers, in general, do not have a particularly high divorce rate. For insights into high-asset divorces, listen to my interview with Robert D. Boyd and Kimberli C. Withrow of Boyd Collar Nolen Tuggle & Roddenbery. Bob Boyd is a widely recognized leader in the practice of high-net-worth divorce litigation and contested custody cases. He is a former prosecutor and a U.S. Army Ranger and Paratrooper. Education: J.D., West Virginia University (Editor-in-Chief, West Virginia Law Review); B.A., United States Military Academy at West Point. Kimberli Withrow has 16 years’ experience representing clients in family law matters. She has served as trial counsel and hearings involving divorce, child custody, and child support matters. Education: J.D., Emory University School of Law; B.A., Duke University.Speaking of which, this podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project produced by 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, or want to tell me how much you learned today – or if you’d like a copy of John’s and [...]
Attorney Fees and Settlement Funds with Sam Dolce
Our Guest As an attorney at Milestone, Sam Dolce provides in-depth, comprehensive consultations with attorneys about qualified settlement funds, fee deferral, and settlement planning. He also oversees the establishment of QSFs. Sam received a Bachelor of Arts in History from Macalester College, followed by a Juris Doctor from SUNY Buffalo Law School. He served as a participant in the New York State Pro Bono Scholar Program and has received multiple acknowledgements and awards for his dedication to pro bono service and social justice. As a subject matter expert, Sam is a regular speaker and presenter at academic and legal conferences regarding post-settlement strategies. Attorney Fees and Settlement Funds with Sam Dolce Uncle Sam has created a way for you keep more of your hard-won settlement or award, but there is much to consider and new information to weigh. When a contingency fee case reaches a verdict or settlement, it’s a big day for a plaintiff attorney. You have worked hard and shouldered litigation costs -- often for years without compensation -- to achieve the best outcome for your client. In this episode I get to speak with a financial management professional who specializes in advising trial attorneys how they can take full advantage of attorney fee structures. The concept of fee deferral arrangements may be familiar to you, but the landscape continues to evolve. My guest is Sam Dolce, an attorney with Milestone, a financial firm that optimizes settlement funds for trial attorneys and plaintiffs. Sam consults with legal professionals about about Qualified Settlement Funds, fee deferrals, and settlement planning. Sam received his B.A. from Macalester College and his J.D. from SUNY Buffalo Law School. Thanks to Sam for sharing his insights. On a previous episode you can hear Sam's colleague, Erin Waas, who heads up the Milestone Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides [...]
Under Pressure: How’s the Integrity of Your Supply Chain? — with Dan Mogin and Travis Miller
Our Guests Travis is an international trade and compliance attorney who specializes in ITAR/EAR/sanctions, global anti-corruption and anti-slavery, codes of conduct, environmental health and safety, product stewardship, and corporate social responsibility. Travis manages Assent’s worldwide legal activities, advises the Board of Directors on legal matters, and oversees corporate compliance, governance initiatives, and other commercial transactions. Before coming to Assent, he served in various high-level counsel positions with companies such as Microchip Technology, Foresite Group, and St. Jude Medical. Dan Mogin is co-founding and managing partner of MoginRubin LLP, a leading boutique law firm that focuses on antitrust law and other complex business disputes. A true thought leader in the field, Dan has served as lead counsel in numerous large antitrust cases, chaired the Antitrust Section of the California Bar, taught antitrust law, and was editor-in-chief of a leading competition law treatise. Under Pressure: How's the Integrity of Your Supply Chain? -- with Dan Mogin and Travis Miller Pressure builds when budgets are cut and fewer resources are available to maintain the necessary vigilance to remain compliant with often complex and changing regulations. Corporate risk can be caused by laxity, inattention, misconduct, unethical behavior, or even illegal activities by people and organizations in your supply chain. Often these things are what happen when people are under pressure. They may feel pressure to bend rules to hit sales targets, or they feel significant competitive pressure. Listen to my interview in two acts with Travis Miller, General Counsel at Assent Compliance Inc. and Dan Mogin is co-founding and managing partner of MoginRubin LLP, a leading boutique law firm that focuses on antitrust law and other complex business disputes. In Act 1 we discuss the conduct of a fictitious airline that is marketing itself as a green company and its competitors are crying foul, and by [...]
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
Taking the High Ground: Where Cannabis Insurance Litigation Is Trending (and Why)
The Authors John B. McDonald is an experienced litigator practicing in the Seattle and New York offices of Harris Bricken, where he represents clients in complex commercial, insurance, and partnership matters. Jihee Ahn is an experienced complex commercial litigator with Harris Bricken. She also chairs the firm’s Dispute Resolution/Litigation practice. 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. Taking the High Ground: Where Cannabis Insurance Litigation Is Trending (and Why) "Absent a choice of law provision, the location where most of the insured activity took place will likely dictate which law applies. But how have federal courts reacted to applying cannabis-friendly state law in a forum where federal law arguably addresses underlying state concerns? The answer is: inconsistently." Abstract: The use and possession of cannabis remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. But a patchwork of state laws is bringing the country closer to some form of legalization. Some states allow its use for medical purposes, others have made it legal for recreational purposes, and others have decriminalized it. But when cannabis is involved in disputes that lead to litigation, and that litigation leads to policyholder–insurer disputes, that state law patchwork and the illegality of cannabis under federal law is when things get complicated. This tension plays out in several other aspects of running a cannabis business, such as banking and interstate transportation of goods. In this article, the authors discuss how it is up to litigators to frame their cases in ways that will determine the outcome of important disputes over insurance coverage. Introduction: Like several other litigation issues presented by the (legal) emerging cannabis market in the United States, insurance disputes between cannabis policyholders and their insurers remain [...]
Workplace Investigations: Proactive Assessments Mitigate the Risk of Costly Litigation in a Newly Remote Environment
The Author Stefani C Schwartz is Senior Managing Partner at the Hatfield Schwartz Law Group LLC. She has devoted her career to representing and advising employers in the complete spectrum of employment law, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. Stefani is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. 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. Workplace Investigations: Proactive Assessments Mitigate the Risk of Costly Litigation in a Newly Remote Environment "Investigations are a straightforward, efficient, and effective way to combat the risk of litigation because they reflect the best aspects of the employer–employee relationship: understanding, respect, communication, and shared goals." Abstract: “Bullying, discrimination, sexual harassment and other forms of workplace misconduct can create a crisis for any company—and trying to ignore or cover it up will make a bad situation worse.†That’s the warning from a December 2021 article for Forbes, which goes on to say that in addition the damage to an employer’s reputation, a study by workplace misconduct reporting service Vault Platform found that workplace misconduct cost U.S. businesses more than $20 billion in 2021. In this article, the author discusses how proactively conducting workplace investigations can reduce an employer’s risk of winding up in court and paying the considerable tangible and intangible costs of misconduct, a risk further complicated by an increasingly home-based workforce. Excerpt: During the past two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced new factors in the ever-shifting area of employer liability: large-scale layoffs and furloughs, the introduction and/or expansion of possibilities for remote work, the drive for a safe return to the physical workplace, and the dual needs for vaccination and accommodation of religious objectors [...]
Analysis of Target Decision that Loss-of-Use Damages Included Card Replacement Costs Post-Data Breach | By Joshua Mooney, Judy Selby, and Tracey Kline | Kennedys Law GalleryAnalysis of Target Decision that Loss-of-Use Damages Included Card Replacement Costs Post-Data Breach | By Joshua Mooney, Judy Selby, and Tracey Kline | Kennedys Law
Analysis of Target Decision that Loss-of-Use Damages Included Card Replacement Costs Post-Data Breach | By Joshua Mooney, Judy Selby, and Tracey Kline | Kennedys Law
A Significant Deviation: Target v. Ace Finds Loss-of-Use Damages Included Post-Breach Card Replacement Analysis On March 22, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that two ACE insurers were obligated to indemnify Target Corporation (“Targetâ€) for the amounts it paid to settle claims related to replacement of payment cards impacted in a data breach, vacating an earlier decision in which the court found that Target was not entitled to coverage. Target Corp. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-2916 (WMW/DTS), 2022 WL 848095 (D. Minn. Mar. 22, 2022), vacating 517 F. Supp. 3d 798 (D. Minn. 2021). The new decision deviates from how other courts have evaluated general liability coverage for damages because of “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.†Insurers would do well to take notice. Background In 2013, Target was the victim of a massive data breach that occurred after hackers installed malicious software on its computer network, which enabled them to steal the payment card data and personal contact information of an estimated 110 million individuals with Target payment cards (the “Data Breachâ€). Multiple lawsuits were brought against Target, including suits by financial institutions (the “Issuing Banksâ€) that had issued debit and credit cards (the “Payment Cardsâ€) affected by the Data Breach. The Issuing Banks filed class action lawsuits against Target, which were consolidated, along with various consumer suits, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, in In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, All Financial Institutions Cases, MDL No. 14-2522 (the “Issuing Banks Litigationâ€). In their Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Issuing Banks asserted various causes of action against Target, including a claim for negligence by which they alleged that Target breached its duty to implement adequate technical systems or security practices that could have prevented the loss of customers’ sensitive personal and financial [...]
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
