Emerging Litigation Podcast
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 [...]
The Humble Beginnings and Wild Evolution of the TCPA with Joe Apatov
The Humble Beginnings and Wild Evolution of the TCPA with Joe Apatov Only $32 million! I mean, why bother even getting out of bed? Joining me to discuss the evolution of the TCPA is Joseph A. Apatov (japatov@mcglinchey.com), a member of the McGlinchey Stafford law firm’s Consumer Financial Services Litigation practice group. Based in their Fort Lauderdale office, Joe litigates on behalf of financial services clients in both state and federal courts, with an emphasis on defending banks, mortgage lenders and servicers, private-label card issuers, and automobile finance companies. Apologies for my trip down memory lane. Bear with me as I regale you with stories from the newsroom at Mealey’s Litigation Reports and the team’s anxious reliance on the "latest" technology: the facsimile machine. 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 Joe enlightened you, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.  Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast “The Telephone Consumer Protection Act had humble beginnings,†our guest writes, “with the bill’s sponsor explaining that the statute would permit consumers to bring small claims cases ‘without an attorney,’ and provides for an ‘amount of damages … fair to both the consumer and the telemarketer.’ Twenty-eight years after its enactment in 1991, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court’s decision to reduce a $1.6 billion jury award in a TCPA class action to only $32 million because the former was ‘shockingly large’ and ‘oppressive,’ in violation of the Due Process Clause .....†[...]
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 [...]
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
Going Viral or Going Nuclear: Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts …
The Authors All three authors are with the law firm of Hall Booth Smith, P.C., and concentrate on various aspects of healthcare defense. Lindsay A. Nishan (lnishan@hallboothsmith.com) is an Associate in the HBS Charleston office. Samantha Bowen Myers (smyers@hallboothsmith.com) is an Associate in their West Palm Beach, Florida, office. Sandra Mekita Cianflone (scianflone@hallboothsmith.com) is a Partner in the firm’s Atlanta office. She is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, and a frequent contributor to the Emerging Litigation Podcast. Going Viral or Going Nuclear: Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts and How to Safeguard Against It By Lindsay A. Nishan, Samantha B. Myers and Sandra M. Cianflone A juror’s perception of companies and healthcare providers is increasingly colored by TV and social media. The same is true for their understanding of the practice law or medicine, which may be as wrong as it is immovable. “Social inflation†refers to rising litigation costs and the resulting higher insurance payouts which drive up the cost of insurance. In this article the authors, each of whom represents parties in the healthcare industry, discuss the evolving social trends that lead jurors to render “nuclear verdicts,†and what attorneys should consider in mitigating the effects of this phenomenon. Social media feeds today are crammed with flashy advertisements from lawyers promising big-dollar settlements against “rich insurance companies.†The number of these commercials has spiked since the 1970s as the phenomenon known as "social inflation" has taken root in the legal system. Social inflation is a term of art that refers to rising litigation costs, the impact those costs have on insurance claim payouts, and how much the average policyholder is expected to pay for basic coverage. Recently, the term social inflation has taken on a new meaning as it has [...]
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 [...]
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
