Emerging Litigation Podcast
Alternative Financial Support for Plaintiffs During Litigation with Erin Waas
Our Guest Erin Waas is Executive Director of The Milestone Foundation, a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides financial assistance to people pursuing a personal injury lawsuit. Erin brings nearly two decades of experience working in the public sector and with nonprofits in fundraising and communications, most recently at the University at Buffalo, where she served as senior advancement writer. Prior to relocating to Buffalo, Erin spent the bulk of her career to-date in Boston, where she worked in stewardship at Harvard University and as a consultant for nonprofits of all sizes. Alternative Financial Support for Plaintiffs During Litigation with Erin Waas For an individual, merely navigating litigation can be expensive, time consuming, and at times overwhelming. But when that individual is also unable to work, or cannot function normally because they have been disabled by an injury, that explodes the level of stress on a person and their family. There are companies in the "non-recourse settlement advancement" space that will provide financial support to claimants in litigation. This helps them with their regular daily expenses – plus medical costs – until their case settles or until they receive an award. But most of these companies, as you can imagine, are for-profit entities. As such, their fees can make their support unaffordable and can leave the plaintiff with a substantially diminished payout. Listen to my interview with Erin Waas, Executive Director of The Milestone Foundation, a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides financial assistance to people pursuing a personal injury lawsuit. Erin brings nearly two decades of experience working in the public sector and with nonprofits in fundraising and communications, most recently at the University at Buffalo, where she served as senior advancement writer. Prior to relocating to Buffalo, Erin spent the bulk of her career to-date in Boston, where she worked in [...]
Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer
Our Guest Eric Cramer is Chairman of the Firm and Co-Chair of the Firm’s antitrust department. He has a national practice in the field of complex litigation, primarily in the area of antitrust class actions. He is currently co-lead counsel in multiple significant antitrust class actions across the country in a variety of industries and is responsible for winning numerous significant settlements for his clients totaling well over $3 billion. Mr. Cramer is also a frequent speaker at antitrust and litigation related conferences and a leader of multiple non-profit advocacy groups. He was the only Plaintiffs’ lawyer selected to serve on the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section Transition Report Task Force delivered to the incoming Obama Administration in 2012. Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer Among the legal and regulatory avenues one might follow to mitigate the impact of racism, most of us would look to various manifestations of discrimination law in employment, lending, real estate, education, healthcare, voting rights, and other categories. When presented in those contexts, the anti-racism objectives are clear. There are several federal laws and many state laws that prohibit anticompetitive behavior. At the top of the heap is the Sherman Antirust Act of 1890, which outlaws illegal monopolies and anticompetitive tactics, conspiracies to restrain trade, cartels and syndicates. But what do wages, including those paid to minorities, have to do with antitrust? What about no-poach agreements, whereby groups of companies agree not to hire employees away from each other? The answer is "quite a lot." Listen to my interview with Eric Cramer, Chairman of Berger Montague and co-chair of the firm's antitrust department, a team that handles antitrust class actions across the country involving a variety of industries. Eric and the firm are responsible for winning numerous significant settlements for clients -- a total value that now exceeds [...]
Cannabis Coverage Litigation with John McDonald and Jihee Ahn
Our Guests 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. Prior to joining Harris Bricken, John spent two years in Seattle with the Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (a component agency of the Department of Homeland Security), and five years in New York City at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, where he managed several cases. John graduated from the University of Miami School of Law, where he was an editorial member of the University of Miami Law Review. He also served as a research assistant for Professor Charlton Copeland on civil procedure and constitutional issues. Jihee is an experienced complex commercial litigator and chair of Harris Bricken’s Dispute Resolution/Litigation practice. She primarily represents clients in business, intellectual property, and real estate matters for both domestic and international clients. Having worked extensively in both federal and state courts, Jihee advises her clients from case intake through arbitration and trial. Over the course of her career, she has successfully prepared and argued numerous procedural and substantive motions, regularly conducted and defended depositions, and mediated disputes when appropriate for her clients. Prior to joining Harris Bricken, Jihee worked at Baker & Hostetler in Los Angeles, where she served as the lead attorney on several cases and mentored junior associates. Jihee graduated from the UCLA School of Law with a Business Law and Policy Specialization, and she served as a research assistant to Professor Sung Hui Kim on securities regulation issues throughout her third year of law school. Prior to relocating to Buffalo, Erin spent the bulk of her career to-date in Boston, where she worked in stewardship at Harvard University and as a consultant for nonprofits of all sizes. Cannabis Coverage Litigation: [...]
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
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!
Digital Health Care Companies, Beware: Federal Agencies Are Tracking Your Use of Online Tracking Technologies
The Authors Patricia A. Markus (trish.markus@nelsonmullins.com) represents health care providers and health technology companies across the country on wide-ranging regulatory compliance, reimbursement, licensure, and operational matters, with a special focus on issues surrounding health information privacy, security, and technology. Shane Duer (shane.duer@nelsonmullins.com) focuses his practice on healthcare regulatory and corporate matters, with an emphasis on data privacy, cyber security, and information management concerns within and beyond the health care industry. 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. Digital Health Care Companies, Beware Federal Agencies Are Tracking Your Use of Online Tracking Technologies. Abstract: Health care industry stakeholders have regularly used online tracking technologies to help improve patient experience. However, growing scrutiny by the Office for Civil Rights, which enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), requires covered entities and business associates to proceed cautiously in their use of such technologies. In addition, recent enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission make clear that a wide range of digital health companies, whether or not regulated by HIPAA, must tread carefully when collecting and disclosing personal information related to health, especially where consumers’ location data is to be used for a company’s advertising purposes, as they may be held accountable for failing to maintain the privacy and security of individuals’ protected and individually identifiable health information. The increasing number of lawsuits and news articles regarding use of these technologies demonstrates that third-party technology tracking vendors who receive PHI often are not operating under Business Associate Agreements (BAAs). The vendors in most instances disavow any need to collect PHI and accordingly instruct users to avoid sending PHI or other personally identifiable information. Under HIPAA, covered entities and business associates generally may [...]
Government Involvement in Personal Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far Is Too Far? by Bryce McColskey and Sandra M. Cianflone GalleryGovernment Involvement in Personal Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far Is Too Far? by Bryce McColskey and Sandra M. Cianflone
Government Involvement in Personal Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far Is Too Far? by Bryce McColskey and Sandra M. Cianflone
The Authors Bryce McColskey (bmccolskey@hallboothsmith.com) is an attorney with Hall Booth Smith, P.C., based in Jacksonville, Florida, where he focuses on medical malpractice and professional liability law. Sandra M. Cianflone (scianflone@hallboothsmith.com) is a partner in the Atlanta office of Hall Booth Smith, where she concentrates on a variety of aspects of healthcare defense and chairs the firm’s Coronavirus Task Force. She is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors 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. Government Involvement in Personal Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far Is Too Far? "Breakthroughs in technologies, our knowledge of diseases and mutations, and advances in treatment options have been remarkable and have drastically reduced fatality rates from disease outbreaks. However, regardless of medical achievements, rapid changes in any field open the door to renewed debates over different laws and individual rights." Abstract: The coronavirus pandemic is the latest health issue to raise the question of government’s involvement (or interference) with an individual’s control over their own healthcare and medical treatment. In this article, the authors, two health care and professional liability attorneys, discuss the intersection of law and medicine with a review of medical mandates, the impact of advances in science and medicine, and where role of government to protect public health intersects (or collides) with personal healthcare choices. Their focus is on governmental response to the coronavirus pandemic, and not the recent landmark case dealing with choice. But add to the equation the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the “government as healthcare decision maker” is an issue that will be on the front burner for courts, [...]
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
