Emerging Litigation Podcast
Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts
Social Inflation's Impact on Jury Verdicts in Healthcare Litigation Our guests wrote in the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation: “These outsize awards are often driven by myriad factors including sympathetic jurors, societal conceptions about income and wealth of corporations, the use of emotion-driven ‘Reptile Theory’ tactics by plaintiff attorneys, the media spotlight on ‘bad apple’ physicians, and numerous other social factors. A new factor that influences elevated jury verdicts is the increasing volume of information—whether true or false—that is exchanged on social media platforms.” Listen to my interview with Hall Booth Smith P.C. attorneys Sandra Cianflone, Samantha Myers, and Lindsay Nishan, each of whom represents members of the healthcare industry, as they discuss what drives large verdict and what attorneys should consider in mitigating the effects of this phenomenon. In keeping with tradition, we may have strayed a bit from the topic. One guest’s Aunt Lulu made an appearance. It turns out Covid lockdowns may have produced more enthusiastic jurors. And I added another reason why writing and podcasting, and not the practice of law, was a better career path for me. (Apparently lawyers aren’t supposed to laugh in people’s faces. Noted.) 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 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 from Sandie, Sam, Lindsay, or Aunt Lulu, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Jurors' perceptions of big corporations, insurance companies, drug companies, physicians and other healthcare providers is increasingly colored by TV and social [...]
Persuasion Science for Trial Lawyers with John Blumberg
Persuasion Science for Trial Lawyers with John Blumberg John joins me to discuss his study of the science behind persuasion. He examines a number of important concepts for trial attorneys, such as how emotions overcome rational thought, and how mental fatigue interferes with how we receive information, leading us to take mental shortcuts rather than doing the hard work of critical thinking. He also writes about understanding the differences between liberal and conservative brains. In addition to being an author, John is a board-certified trial attorney based in Long Beach, California. He handles both legal and medical malpractice litigation and is on American Board of Trial Advocates. You will especially want to hear my contributions, such as what I know about the rule of threes. For example, a joke about a doctor, a lawyer, and a duck is much funnier than one about just a doctor and a lawyer. Unless, of course, at least one of them is a duck. 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 much you learned from John, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast "Your proposition may be good, but let’s have one thing understood: Whatever it is, I’m against it. And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it—I’m against it!" —Professor Wagstaff (Groucho Marx) in the 1932 movie Horse Feathers Attorney John P. Blumberg’s new book, Persuasion Science for Trial Lawyers, published by Fastcase Full Court Press, [...]
PFAS Science with Jaana Pietari and Jim Fenstermacher and Litigation with Bob Chesler
PFAS Science with Jaana Pietari and Jim Fenstermacher and Litigation with Bob Chesler In Part 1 of the episode, we discussed the PFAS from the scientific and environmental engineering perspective. And to do that I was fortunate to have Jim Fenstermacher and Dr. Jaana Pietari from the global engineering firm Ramboll. Jim and Jaana have deep experience in environmental remediation involving a variety of contaminants, including PFAS. In Part 2, I am joined by Robert Chesler of Anderson Kill. Bob is a long-time expert on insurance coverage for long-tail and other claims. He's considered a guru in the field, and has represented policyholders in disputes over coverage with insurers for as long as I've known him. It's a serious subject and these are seriously qualified folks. I did my part to make a mockery of scientific terms as I struggled to say the name of this family of chemicals. Fortunately for you my guests were much more linguistically nimble and it is their voices you will hear more of. 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 much you learned from Jaana, Jim and Bob, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast p.s. Here's a bonus for you. Write to me and I will send you the latest issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation with my compliments. That's some serious value right there. In our first two-part episode, we dive into the troubling existence of a group of chemicals referred to as PFAS, with the [...]
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
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 GalleryThe 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
