Two logos side by side with Critical Legal Content in a red square on the left and HB Litigation in blue on the right

Going Viral or Going Nuclear: Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts …

February 22nd, 2022|Categories: Class Actions, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Insurance, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

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 [...]

Read More

Persuasion Science for Trial Lawyers with John Blumberg

February 22nd, 2022|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Law Firm Operations, News|Tags: , , , , |

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 [...]

Read More

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

February 22nd, 2022|Categories: Class Actions, Corporate Compliance, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Risk Notes, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

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 [...]

Read More

The Humble Beginnings and Wild Evolution of the TCPA with Joe Apatov

January 29th, 2022|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, News|Tags: , , |

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 [...]

Read More

Where’s Your Head? Managing the Mind in Mediation with Jeff Trueman

January 13th, 2022|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, ELP, News|Tags: , , , , |

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 [...]

Read More

7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? | By Jennifer M. Oliver | MoginRubin LLP

January 13th, 2022|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Employment, HB Risk Notes, New Featured Post for Home Page, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , |

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 [...]

Read More

The New Lloyd’s Market Association War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies | By Vincent J. Vitkowsky | Gfeller Laurie LLP

January 7th, 2022|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Insurance, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , |

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 [...]

Read More

The Rise of Robojudges with Josh Davis

December 15th, 2021|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, ELP, HB Tort Notes, News, Technology Law|Tags: , |

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, [...]

Read More

Broken Privilege and IoT with Kathryn Rattigan

December 10th, 2021|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , |

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 [...]

Read More

Public Justice Shares Inside Look at Roundup Trial and Appeal in First Episode of “Justice Pod”

November 8th, 2021|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts, News|Tags: , , , |

Public Justice Discusses Hardeman v. Monsanto in First Episode of Justice Pod That is according to a post written by Leslie Brueckner, Senior Attorney with Public Justice following the May 2021 Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling against Monsanto, and for Edwin Hardeman, a California resident who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after decades of exposure to Roundup. The jury awarded Hardeman $5,267.634.10 in compensatory damages, and $75 million in punitive damages. The district court reduced the punitive damages award to $20 million.  In this inaugural episode of Justice Pod: Conversations with Public Justice Change Makers, Leslie, is joined by David J. Wool, an attorney with the Wagstaff Law Firm.  Wool and Jennifer A. Moore of the Moore Law Group, were on the trial team led by highly-regarded mass tort plaintiff attorney Aimee Wagstaff.  Public Justice’s Brueckner served as co-lead appellate counsel along with Wool before the Ninth Circuit. Listen to what they felt inspired the jury to return such a substantial award, how Monsanto attempted to defend its actions, what the evidence revealed, and what it was like in the courtroom with the Hardeman family when the foreman read the verdict. I hope you find the episode inspiring and informative! Susan Gombert Host of Justice Pod: Conversations with Public Justice Change Makers Listen Now! Monsanto Co. has “stopped at nothing to deny the [...]

Read More

Putting an AI App to Work to Protect IP with Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé

November 1st, 2021|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Intellectual Property, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , |

Putting an AI App to Work to Protect IP with Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé They are Crowell & Moring partner Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé, both part of the firm’s Technology & Intellectual Property Department in Brussels. And, working with Neotalogic, they developed an interactive app that takes you through a set of attorney-crafted questions that, depending on your answers, take you to other questions. The app applies a layer of artificial intelligence to enhance the information gathering process. Listen to what these innovators had to say about the Crowell & Moring IP Check-Up application, and take it for a test drive yourself.  Or, here is a quick video of someone using the app. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation*, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the legal news folks at Law Street Media, and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Docket Alarm and Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful our guests are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast * Highly regarded insurance and reinsurance industry attorney Laura Foggan of Crowell & Moring's Washington, DC, office is on the Editorial Advisory Board. Thanks to Laura for connecting me with J.D. and Judith.  An organization’s intellectual property is [...]

Read More

Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute

October 26th, 2021|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Intellectual Property, Journal, News|Tags: , , |

Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute Abstract This case discussed in this article is about two methods of editing DNA: one that has infinitely more lucrative applications because it can edit human DNA (plus all animals and plants), another that works in cell-free environments. Whether inventions are separate or part of the same innovation is an important factor in patent interference disputes; if there are two patentably distinct inventions there cannot be interference. One party in this case lost its argument that there was only one invention at issue, but returned with a second interference claim, arguing that it was the first inventor to constructively reduce to practice the animal and plant DNA editor. In this article, the author examines the nuances and intricacies of the patent process in the world of biology, and how patent lawyers must possess a level of knowledge in disciplines related to the inventions they seek to protect. This is necessary, for example, in understanding whether an invention is a significant improvement over prior innovations. The author also shares the importance of confidentiality especially when potentially groundbreaking (and lucrative) inventions are in development. Author Adrienne B. Naumann (adriennebnaumann@uchicago.edu) practices intellectual property law at the Law Office of Adrienne B. Naumann in [...]

Read More
Go to Top