Join full-time mediator and arbitrator Jeff Trueman and practicing attorney John Sly for a CLE webinar focused on enhancing your understanding of how AI can assist with your work, specifically how it can be used to handle disputes more efficiently, facilitate improved decision-making, and leverage predictive capabilities to achieve optimal outcomes in dispute resolution.
Data breach class actions have emerged as one of the fastest growing areas in the complex litigation space, forcing companies to navigate evolving cybersecurity risks, negative publicity, and costly litigation as a result. Litigation was particularly notable in 2023, with a record-breaking number of filings and several high-profile cases resulting in substantial settlements. The sheer volume of individuals affected by data breaches has grown significantly, leading to larger classes and subsequently higher settlement demands. Furthermore, the nature of the data being compromised is becoming more sensitive – including financial and health information – which increases the potential damages awarded in these cases. Join experienced class action defense litigators Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley for a high-level breakdown of the data breach class action landscape through analysis of key trends, rulings, and litigation strategies.
Take this webinar featuring Perkins Coie LLP attorneys Lisa Ortiz and Sean West to gain a better understanding of the challenge of determining human authorship in AI-generated works, the guidance and disclosure rules established by the Copyright Office, the importance of addressing copyright ownership and usage rights in AI-related license agreements, and the implications of joint ownership of AI models and output. Learn about the categories of work in which AI is being applied in the practice of law, e.g., legal research, document drafting, deposition preparation, and discovery review. Understand the various risks associated with AI, e.g., biased and inaccurate outputs, unauthorized disclosures of private data, and intellectual property infringement. Get an overview of governmental regulation and guidance. Finally, start your journey to develop best practices in establishing AI governance teams and processes with an eye toward complying with regulations and mitigating risk. Check it out!
Organizations using artificial intelligence-based technologies that perform facial recognition or other facial analysis, website advertising, profiling, automated decision making, educational operations, clinical medicine, generative AI, and more, increasingly face the risk of being targeted by class action lawsuits and government enforcement actions alleging that they improperly obtained, disclosed, and misused personal data of website visitors, employees, customers, students, patients, and others, or that they infringed copyrights, fixed prices, and more. These disputes often seek millions or billions of dollars against businesses of all sizes. This webinar identifies recent trends in such varied but similar AI litigation, draws common threads, and discusses best practices that corporate counsel should consider to mitigate AI litigation risk. Our excellent speakers are Jerry Maatman and Justin Donoho of Duane Morris.
During this webinar, Robinson+Cole's knowledge management professionals Liz Salsedo and Jim Merrifield help you better understand artificial intelligence and generative AI. Learn about the categories of work in which AI is being applied in the practice of law, e.g., legal research, document drafting, deposition preparation, and discovery review. Understand the various risks associated with AI, e.g., biased and inaccurate outputs, unauthorized disclosures of private data, and intellectual property infringement. Get an overview of governmental regulation and guidance. Finally, start your journey to develop best practices in establishing AI governance teams and processes with an eye toward complying with regulations and mitigating risk.
The medical monitoring tort remedy – allowing for medical monitoring without physical injury – is recognized in 14 states and not allowed in 23. The law is divided in two states while the rest have not specifically addressed the issue. States that allow medical monitoring to do so when a group of claimants is at increased risk of disease or injury due to exposure to a known hazardous substance or a dangerous product as the result of a defendant’s conduct. Under this tort remedy, claimants are tested periodically, for an agreed or decided period, usually between 10 and 40 years. In this CLE webinar, Gentle Turner & Benson LLC attorneys Edgar (“Ed”) C. Gentle III and Katherine (“Kip”) A. Benson discuss the evolution of the medical monitoring tort, related cases, tests to determine whether the tort should be applied, types of monitoring, and the arguments for an against medical monitoring.
In this CLE webinar, Anderson Kill attorneys, Cort Malone and John Leonard discuss the state of biometric privacy litigation, the regulatory landscape, and insurance coverage considerations and rulings.
In this CLE webinar, Anderson Kill attorneys, Dennis J. Artese, Ethan Middlebrooks, and Thomas Dupont and professional engineer, Kenneth R. Quigley discuss permutations of policy language and state law that may affect coverage for damage caused by underground climate change, including how state law treats anti-concurrent causation clauses, whether “human-caused” exceptions to earth movement exclusions may apply to underground climate change, and whether “abrupt collapse” exceptions to exclusions for building collapse may apply when undetected structural damage triggered by underground climate change triggers collapse.
Every week, the PFAS litigation and regulatory landscape changes dramatically. The EPA presses forward full steam ahead with numerous PFAS regulations, while the states have proposed hundreds of pieces of legislation related to PFAS in the last three years. Meanwhile, class action litigation, environmental pollution litigation, and greenwashing suits are being filed against companies at a dramatically increasing rate year after year. In this CLE webinar, CMBG3 Law attorney John Gardella discusses the latest on regulatory and litigation issues related to PFAS and how they will impact corporations.
The medical monitoring tort remedy – allowing for medical monitoring without physical injury – is recognized in 14 states and not allowed in 23. The law is divided in two states while the rest have not specifically addressed the issue. States that allow medical monitoring to do so when a group of claimants is at increased risk of disease or injury due to exposure to a known hazardous substance or a dangerous product as the result of a defendant’s conduct. Under this tort remedy, claimants are tested periodically, for an agreed or decided period, usually between 10 and 40 years. In this CLE webinar, Gentle Turner & Benson LLC attorneys Edgar (“Ed”) C. Gentle III and Katherine (“Kip”) A. Benson discuss the evolution of the medical monitoring tort, related cases, tests to determine whether the tort should be applied, types of monitoring, and the arguments for an against medical monitoring.
Robinson+Cole attorney Blair Robinson and knowledge management leader Liz Salsedo discuss how attorneys and legal staff can adapt to AI by taking a practical approach to governance, addressing its potential and attendant risks, legislative and regulatory considerations, and how to incorporate AI most responsibly into their legal practice or business.
On this CLE webinar, Duane Morris LLP Attorneys Alex W. Karasik, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and George J. Schaller discuss two novel artificial intelligence lawsuits, recent governmental guidance related to AI use, the business risks associated with AI, and mitigation strategies.
