Emerging Litigation Podcast
Что нужно знать о Вавада: все о регистрации на рабочих зеркалах Вавада, игровых автоматах, какие бонусы на данный момент предоставляет администрация, как активировать приветственный пакет и многое другое.
Where’s Your Head? Managing the Mind in Mediation with Jeff Trueman
Where's Your Head? Managing the Mind in Mediation with Jeff Trueman Joining me to discuss this is Jeff Trueman, an experienced, full-time mediator and arbitrator. Jeff helps parties resolve a wide variety of litigated and pre-suit disputes and interpersonal problems concerning catastrophic injuries, professional malpractice, wrongful death, employment, family business dissolution, real property, estate, and domestic relations. He is a panel mediator for the American Arbitration Association; a panel arbitrator for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority; a Distinguished Fellow of the International Academy of Mediators; a recipient of the Paul A. Dorf Alternative Dispute Resolution Memorial Award by the Bar Association of Baltimore City; and will soon hold an LLM from the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at the prestigious Pepperdine School of Law. Finally, did I really suggest that having a mediator with a bad hip could help achieve a faster resolution? Did I really give a review of the HBO original movie Oslo, which I consider a must-see for anyone interested in conflict resolution? Did I really compare married couples during Covid-19 lockdowns to angry bees in a jar? Listen and find out. Spoiler alert: Yes. Yes I did. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, 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 Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how Jeff really got you thinking, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast "Attorneys possess many of the same characteristics as their human cousins." Someone said that. Probably me. They often bring to their jobs cognitive barriers that get in the way [...]
The Rise of Robojudges with Josh Davis
The Rise of Robojudges with Joshua Davis The good news for all of us, not the least of which are the robe and wig industries, is that we still have time. Artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly, but it's still not able to think like a learned jurist. We can say it will have flaws, but so do our human deciders. So it will be a tradeoff, right? What are the risks? What are the upsides? Will robojudges be able to absorb infinitely more information quickly? Will they hand down decisions free from the influence of bias? Wouldn't it be great to eliminate conflicts of interest? Joining me to discuss this not-so-out-there concept is Joshua P. Davis, a nationally recognized expert on legal ethics, class actions, and artificial intelligence in the law. He is Research Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law, and Shareholder and Manager of Berger & Montague, P.C.'s new San Francisco Bay Area Office. For more than 20 years Josh was a tenured Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco Law School, where he also served as the Director of the Center for Law and Ethics. Josh is authoring two books, one titled Unnatural Law, dealing with AI and the law, and a second on the important issue of class action ethics. Finally, remind me never to assume anything when I ask Josh a question. I said something like, "Surely we're not talking about sci-fi robots here," to which he basically said, "Not so fast." This happened more than once. When will I learn? This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our [...]
Broken Privilege and IoT with Kathryn Rattigan
Broken Privilege and IoT with Kathryn Rattigan Joining me to discuss this emerging area of law is Kathryn M. Rattigan, a member of the Business Litigation Group, the Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team, and the Drone Compliance Team in the Rhode Island office of Robinson Cole. Kathryn provides clients guidance regarding privacy and data protection in connection with mobile devices, data storage technologies, mobile apps, and location-based services. She assists with the development of website and mobile app privacy policies and terms and conditions. Kathryn is a frequent contributor to the excellent Robinson Cole Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider blog. She holds a J.D. from the Roger Williams University School of Law and a B.A. (magna cum laude) from Stonehill College. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Kathryn is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Finally, yes, "skeevy" is a word. And the law is not settled as to whether Shiloh has privacy rights. Tom Hagy Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast There are now billions and billions of interconnected devices in the world with more coming online every day. Smart cars. Smart cities. Smart agriculture and so much more. Even our pets are connected. And you have to look no further than the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack to see the real-world consequences of what criminals can pull off by connecting with things large and small. Worried about your privacy? Well. There is plenty to worry about. Fortunately we also have a lot of people fighting back on the technical, security, law enforcement, 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.
Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation
Can we rely on shareholders to compel corporations to meaningfully act on ESG issues? | By Rebecca Boon and John Rizio-Hamilton | Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann GalleryCan we rely on shareholders to compel corporations to meaningfully act on ESG issues? | By Rebecca Boon and John Rizio-Hamilton | Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
Can we rely on shareholders to compel corporations to meaningfully act on ESG issues? | By Rebecca Boon and John Rizio-Hamilton | Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
The Authors Rebecca Boon has been litigating securities fraud and shareholder rights actions for over a decade, recovering more than $1.5 billion for the firm’s institutional investor clients. Her work at the firm expands beyond litigation. Rebecca has advanced equality in the workplace by co-founding the Beyond #MeToo working group and leading landmark recoveries that have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars back to investors and important social change among industries. Contact: rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com John Rizio-Hamilton is one of America’s top shareholder litigators. He works on the most complex and high-stakes securities class action cases, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional investor clients. John led the trial team that recovered $240 million for investors in In re Signet Jewelers Limited Securities Litigation, a precedent-setting case that marks the first successful resolution of a securities fraud class action based on allegations of sexual harassment. Contact: johnr@blbglaw.com Can we rely on shareholders to compel corporations to meaningfully act on ESG issues? By Rebecca Boon and John Rizio-Hamilton This article was first published in the Responsible Investor, Aug., 10th, 2021. Posted with permission of the authors. Copyright 2021 by Rebecca Boon & John Rizio-Hamilton. All rights reserved. There is an ongoing debate about the role that regulators should take regarding corporate obligations and accountability for ESG issues. Earlier this year, the Ontario Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce weighed in with its long-anticipated recommendation on diversity quotas for corporate boards. After receiving significant industry feedback, the Ontario Taskforce changed its initial recommendation from a requirement that public companies meet specific diversity targets, to allowing companies to set their own targets, report them, and develop a timeline for implementation. This ‘market-based’ framework for diversity would rely on investors to push corporations and hold them accountable. There was significant backlash when the Ontario Taskforce changed its initial recommendation. It was [...]
7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? | By Jennifer M. Oliver | MoginRubin LLP
7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? By Jennifer M. Oliver The outcome of this case will have a dramatic impact on statutory damages. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has certified a question to the Illinois Supreme Court over the accrual of claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The question, posed by the court in Cothron v. White Castle Systems, Inc., reads: “Do section 15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue each time a private entity scans a person’s biometric identifier and each time a private entity transmits such a scan to a third party, respectively, or only upon the first scan and first transmission?” The case was brought by an employee of the White Castle hamburger chain, which requires fingerprint scans for employees to access computer systems. The plaintiff charged that sharing her fingerprints with a third party vendor violated the law. Cothron v. White Castle Sys., No. 20-3202, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37593 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2021). An accrual rule based on each collection, opponents to such a finding argue, would pose potentially existential damages — especially in the class action context — since BIPA provides for statutory damages of $1,000 or $5,000 per violation. Parties disagree on whether BIPA damages are mandatory or discretionary, however. Should the court determine that the first scan is the only scan that starts the statute of limitations clock ticking, opponents to that interpretation say, anyone bringing a claim after five years would be out of luck, even if their private biometric data continued to be transmitted more than five years after the first occurrence. Preceding the federal court’s certification of this question by just five days, an Illinois appellate court ruled that, yes, claims under sections 15(a) and (b) accrue with each capture and use of a plaintiff’s biometric information. Watson v. Legacy [...]
- The New Lloyd’s Market Association War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies | By Vincent J. Vitkowsky | Gfeller Laurie LLP Gallery
The New Lloyd’s Market Association War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies | By Vincent J. Vitkowsky | Gfeller Laurie LLP
The New Lloyd’s Market Association War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies | By Vincent J. Vitkowsky | Gfeller Laurie LLP
The Author Vince Vitkowsky is a partner in Gfeller Laurie LLP, resident in New York. He focuses on cyber risks, liabilities, insurance, and litigation. Vince assists insurers and reinsurers in product development, and in all aspects of coverage evaluation and dispute resolution in many lines of business, including cyber, CGL, property, and professional liability. He also assists in complex claim evaluations, and if necessary, the defense of insureds in complex matters. Vince is also a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. Contact: vvitkowsky@gllawgroup.com More from Vince and his colleagues. The New LMA War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies By Vincent J. Vitkowsky On November 25, 2021, the Lloyd’s Market Association released four War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions (“Exclusions”). The LMA Cyber Business Panel spent well over two years drafting the Exclusions, which are models for use in standalone cyber insurance policies. Lloyd’s has agreed that they meet the requirement that all insurance and reinsurance policies written at Lloyd’s must, except in very limited circumstances, contain a clause which excludes all losses caused by war. The Exclusions address some difficult issues troubling the cyber insurance market for several years, following cyberattacks by nation-states (“states”) and threat actors associated with them. They attempt to reduce uncertainty for both insurers and policyholders. Five interrelated issues. The treatment of collateral damage (borrowing a concept from the traditional Law of Armed Conflict). Some state-sponsored attacks had significant effects on many entities that were not the intended targets. How attribution is to be determined, and whether the insurers have an obligation to make payments while attribution is being determined. The extent to which attacks by non-state actors associated with a state are excluded. The treatment of state and state-sponsored cyberattacks directed at essential services, most [...]
HB Webinars on the West LegalEdcenter
Content Partners
