HB Partner Webinars on the West LegalEdcenter
Take these CLE webinars on the West LegalEdcenter platform. Each program features leading litigators in their respective fields on emerging subjects. Speakers and topics are handpicked by HB. Your organization may have already subscribed to the platform, but each session is also available for individual purpose. For questions or if you wish to propose a webinar, write to us at: Webinars@LitigationConferences.com.
Data Driven Law
Data-Driven Legal Guidance Ed Walters Talks to Tom Hagy for the Emerging Litigation Podcast Interview SPEAKERS Tom Hagy, Host, Emerging Litigation Podcast Ed Walters, CEO & Founder, Fastcase (see complete bio at end of this document) PODCAST https://litigationconferences.com/data-driven-legal-guidance-with-ed-walters/ Tom Hagy Hello and welcome to the Emerging Litigation Podcast. I'm your host, Tom Hagy. Today we're going to talk about the weather, but only for a minute. Mostly we're going to talk about big data. I don't know how many of you are weather nerds, you know you're out there. But you may have the Weather Channel app on your phones. Those of you who do might have noticed a few years ago, it became an IBM Business. You might ask why? I'll tell you. Deep Thunder is the name of IBM's weather monitoring and forecasting system that combines Big Data, supercomputers and physics to create highly localized and accurate weather profiles and predictions for a given area. The launch of deep thunder came about after IBM first invested in the Weather Channel as part of a multibillion-dollar foray into the Internet of Things creating a division bearing that name, IBM and the weather channel. So their collaboration would help industries quote, operationalize their understanding of the impact of weather on business outcomes. That makes sense when you think about the economic impact of snowstorms and hurricanes, or even less dramatic but vitally important weather conditions like rainfall to farms, snowfall to ski resorts, adverse weather that keeps shoppers away or slows down transportation, delaying the arrival of goods and even humans. Think about outdoor products, machinery and building materials which are built for say 100-degree weather. But what happens when it's 120 degrees. So many industries need good weather, something that's getting less predictable with climate change. It's also [...]
Modernizing Our Court System (but Don’t Attend Trial from Your Car) with Hon. Scott Schlegel
The judicial system is overburdened for a number of reasons, and greater efficiency is a must if court systems are to achieve their important objectives. Technology and openness to all that it offers is a key solution, something that was tried, tested and proven during the Covid pandemic which closed courthouses and law offices around the nation. Along with technology, improvements can be made by reexamining their orthodoxies about how things should be done based on decades of "that's how we've always done it." This is a matter of importance to judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, and numerous others whose lives are impacted directly or indirectly when either the civil or criminal justice systems are inefficient, cumbersome, costly, confusing, slow, and even inaccessible. If only we had an example of at least one judge who is trying to do something about it. But wait ... Listen to my interview with the Hon. Scott Schlegel who presides over criminal civil and domestic matters in Louisiana's 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish. Judge Schlegel was elected to the bench in 2013, and quickly earned a reputation as a modern judge using technology to bring his court into the digital age, even before the pandemic forced the change on other jurists. He partnered with tech companies to develop efficiency tools like chat bots and online forms software. He launched courtonline.us and onlinejudge.us to consolidate his processes for the public. Judge Schlegel has received numerous awards and accolades, like the National Center for State Courts' 26th Annual William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence. He was the American Bar Association's 2021 Legal Rebel. And he received the Fastcase 50 Award for his innovative approaches to the administration of justice. Prior to becoming a judge, he was a prosecutor and litigator. Judge Schlegel graduated with honors from Loyola [...]
Class Certification Evidence: Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits
Class Certification Evidence What Are the Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits? Numerous splits exist among the circuits on two key certification issues: What is required to prove the elements for class certification and whether plaintiff's certification evidence must be admissible. Further, courts apply different admissibility standards to fact evidence than to expert evidence. Certain courts have issued clear guidance on these important issues, while others have remained circumspect, sending mixed signals. This is particularly vexing for defendants, who may be sued in more than one district or circuit. What is sufficient for class certification in one jurisdiction may be inadequate in another. With standards unsettled, counsel must anticipate and preserve the right to revisit class certification by preserving all objections and the factual record. Listen as the panel of class action attorneys discusses the standards of admissibility of evidence at certification and best strategies for leveraging ambiguities. Questions Addressed How can defense counsel preserve objections to admissibility? How can counsel leverage the law of other circuits in jurisdictions with no controlling precedent? What does how a court assesses evidence imply about its view on admissibility standards? Webinar Outline Fact evidence Need not be admissible Must be admissible Ambiguous Expert evidence Full Daubert analysis Limited Daubert analysis Strategies for managing and leveraging the uncertainty A Strafford production specially selected for HB audiences. Learn Strategies forOpposing or Narrowing Class Certificationand Preserving Objections This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. Kevin Daly Counsel Robinson & Cole Alexander Madrid Partner McGuire Woods Michael Ruttinger Partner Tucker Ellis Robert Sparkes, III Partner K&L Gates This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences.
Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class
Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery, Resolving Discovery Disputes Wage and hour class and collective actions are complex and discovery intensive. Discovery requests are often burdensome, seeking information concerning a broad swath of workers. This causes the discovery process to sometimes linger for years and creates a significant expense for employers.In recent years, courts have emphasized that parties must rein in extensive and expensive discovery requests. Employment litigators are increasingly raising proportionality arguments as a basis for objecting to opposing counsel's discovery requests. Drafters are responding by tailoring requests to anticipate such challenges. Drafting discovery requests that are likely to withstand burden and proportionality challenges and objections to broad discovery requests is critical for litigators representing employers in wage and hour class and collective actions. Employment litigators must develop and implement effective discovery strategies both before and, as applicable, after certification of the putative class. These strategies often must anticipate the possibility of a future summary judgment motion, further certification practice, and trial on the merits. Listen as our authoritative panel of employment law attorneys explains effective strategies for pursuing or objecting to discovery requests in wage and hour collective and class actions and resolving discovery disputes that arise during litigation. Questions Addressed: What are the most common discovery challenges counsel face when litigating wage and hour collective and class actions--from initiation through resolution of the case? What strategies have been effective in wage and hour collective and class actions for obtaining essential information with the least expense? What is the scope of discoverable evidence before and after certification of the putative class, and how can you limit or best manage discovery? When drafting discovery requests in wage and hour class and collective actions, what should employment [...]
Greatly Exaggerated: The Impact of Bankruptcy on Mass Torts with Jennifer Hoekstra
When large companies face massive mass tort litigation, one way they can survive is to file for bankruptcy protection and reorganize. 3M recently put its Aearo Technologies subsidiary into bankruptcy in the face of more than 230,000 claims that's its defective earplugs caused hearing loss. When it came to filing bankruptcy 3M said Aearo was solely responsible for the product. But for several years of litigation 3M argued that it, as the parent, was solely responsible, not its various subsidiaries. That was a strategy that was beneficial to the company in multidistrict litigation. Why did 3M suddenly change course? What impact does bankruptcy have on claimants? Could corporations use bankruptcy law to neuter mass tort litigation for all eternity? And how did the strategy sit with the federal magistrate judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation? Joining me to discuss this incredibly complex litigation is Jennifer M. Hoekstra, a partner with Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz. Jennifer has been involved in all varieties of complex litigation since 2007, focusing on mass torts, drug and device litigation, and others. She has a J.D. from Tulane, which she earned while also completing a certificate in Environmental Law. She has actively served as trial counsel or an integral member of the trial team in several of the 3M Earplug trials securing nearly $300 million in compensatory damages for military veterans. Jennifer shared her insights on the intersection of complex mass torts and bankruptcy, an intersection that wasn't originally on her roadmap. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is 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 [...]
Under Pressure: Courts and Lawyers Trying to Deal With It with Diana Manning
The pressure on trial lawyers, judges, plaintiffs, defendants, and court systems is only increasing. The backlog of cases in New Jersey, for example, nearly quadrupled between February 2020 and 2021, the first year of the pandemic, according to NJ Spotlight News (NJSN). The state is also facing a historic shortage of jurists, NJSN reported, “leading to overworked judges, huge case backlogs and nearly 7,000 defendants in jail without bail, some 500 of them for more than two years despite a law that essentially requires a trial within two years for anyone detained." As reported by NJSN, one court official told the state Assembly Budget Committee about the impact of the pandemic on the court system: “Buildings were closed to most in-person trials for more than a year, although other proceedings continued virtually. The business closures and high unemployment led to a housing crisis that resulted in more than 46,000 pending cases that involve landlord-tenant issues . . . . But with all courts open and staff back to work in person, it is impossible to eliminate the backlog of cases with so many open judge seats.” The problem is attributed to the state Senate, where the process is mired, even though the governor is making appointments. According to the National Counsel for State Courts, backlogs at one third of U.S. courts increased by 5%. It would have been worse had courts not held virtual hearings. Using the Court Statistic Project database, the numbers reveal in stark terms the impact the pandemic had in the year it came to America. Dispositions dropped from 43M in 2019 to 28M in 2020. Bench trials fell from 3M in 2019 to under 2M in 2020. Jury trials plummeted from 49K in 2019 to less than 19K in 2020. The Washington Post reported that the [...]
Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin
The Author Jonathan Rubin (jrubin@moginrubin.com) is Co-Founder and Partner of MoginRubin LLP, a boutique antitrust, mergers and acquisitions, and class action law firm. Since 2001, he has focused his legal practice exclusively on antitrust and competition law and policy. As a litigator he has led trial teams in major antitrust cases in courts throughout the country. Rubin is a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for 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. Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track? "The failure to appropriately adjust the patent system to accommodate the competitive circumstances created when patents are incorporated into standards undermines the purposes of the standard-setting enterprise and impairs the utility and proliferation of standardized technologies. Without a course correction among the judiciary, the United States risks finding itself as a less desirable jurisdiction for pro-growth and pro-competitive patenting and standard-setting activities." Abstract: A consensus at the intersection of patent and anti-trust law was achieved after a series of decisions finding that in some circumstances owners of standard essential patents (SEPs) have an antitrust duty to deal with willing licensees. Beginning in 2017, however, the Department of Justice derailed U.S. policy by undermining the role and usefulness of antitrust for policing abuses of the standard setting process. This article traces the emergence of the consensus, its abrogation by the DOJ, and the resulting effects and prospects for the future. Download the article now! Explore more from MoginRubin LLP! Blog: Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back [...]
Lawyers for Good with Tara Trask and Jason Flom
If you're feeling bad about being a lawyer, or just maybe tingling with the holiday spirit of giving back, this episode is for you. Listen to three professionals (well, maybe two "professionals") who deeply admire for the legal profession, the important role attorneys play in society, and all the potential they have to make the world a better place. When there is strife, there is a supporting organization, and with them are lawyers. Wrongful convictions. Voting rights. Environmental protection. The rights of women, people of color, workers, LGBTQ, immigrants, asylum seekers. Lawyers are in a unique position to do something about all of this. And they do. And we hope more will. Join me as I interview nationally acclaimed trial consultant Tara Trask and music industry star-maker Jason Flom. Tara Trask is the President of Trask Consulting, a boutique litigation strategy, jury research and trial consulting firm. Tara focuses complex commercial litigation, from intellectual property to antitrust, from products liability to insurance, and oil and gas. She has extensive experience assisting institutions and individuals in matters involving regulatory enforcement and white-collar defense. Tara has been involved in more 450 jury trials. Music industry executive Jason Flom is CEO of Lava Records, Lava Music Publishing, and Lava Media, LLC. He is former CEO at Atlantic Records, Virgin Records and Capitol Music Group. Jason is personally responsible for launching acts such as Katy Perry and Greta Van Fleet, and discovering and developing the likes of Matchbox 20, The Corrs, Tory Amos, Jewel, and Stone Temple Pilots. The New Yorker described Jason as “one of the most successful record men of the past 20 years. He's also committed to doing good. Through his Lava for Good company, Jason hosts the hit podcast Wrongful Conviction, now in its ninth season, which features interviews with people who [...]
PFAS Litigation—A Historical Overview and the Growing Trend in Consumer Fraud Lawsuits: What Are the Legal and Business Risks to Companies by John Gardella GalleryPFAS Litigation—A Historical Overview and the Growing Trend in Consumer Fraud Lawsuits: What Are the Legal and Business Risks to Companies by John Gardella
PFAS Litigation—A Historical Overview and the Growing Trend in Consumer Fraud Lawsuits: What Are the Legal and Business Risks to Companies by John Gardella
The Author John P. Gardella (jgardella@cmbg3.com) is a shareholder and Chief Services Officer at CMBG3 Law, where he also chairs the firm’s PFAS, Environmental, Risk Management and Consulting and ESG practice groups. John is the latest addition to the Editorial Board of Directors for the Journal on 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. PFAS Litigation A Historical Overview and the Growing Trend in Consumer Fraud Lawsuits "It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole supply chain in the consumer goods sector evaluate their PFAS risk and fully understand the legal arguments that plaintiffs could make against companies in litigation." Abstract: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of over 12,000 man-made compounds. Most people would recognize the brand names Teflon, produced by DuPont, and Scotchgard, produced by 3M. They also go by the nickname “forever chemicals” because they are highly persistent and mobile in the environment and the human body. In addition to bodily injury and environmental pollution litigation, plaintiffs are also bringing suits against companies for claiming their products and the making of their products are safe and green. This article explains why PFAS are of concern to citizens, media, and legislators; what legal risks they pose to corporations; and the recent surge in consumer fraud litigation. The article examines the legal theories at issue in the PFAS consumer fraud cases, as well as the potential damages that can stem from the cases to corporations. Questions addressed include: What do state and federal regulations say about PFAS in drinking water? If your company doesn't use [...]
Data-Driven Legal Guidance with Ed Walters
Today we’re going to talk about the weather. But only for a minute. Mostly we’re going to talk about the use of big data in the practice of law. There is a reason IBM acquired the digital assets of The Weather Channel, and it's not because they are climate nerds. They bought it to put weather data to work to “operationalize [the] understanding of the impact of weather on business outcomes.” Think about the economic impact of snowstorms, hurricanes, and even less dramatic weather conditions, or the impact on the durability of manufacturing or building materials as temperatures rise or fall outside the norm. While we all crave meteorological precision, we also crave precision when making legal and business decisions. Clients ask questions like these all the time: What is our case worth? What size award will we get? Where should I file? Will the judge grant summary judgment? Should I even bring this suit? Lawyers will draw on experience to offer their best advice, providing ranges followed by caveats and usually preceded by the most lawyerly of lawyer answers: “It depends.” As my guest points out, lawyers also get business-related questions. Business-related answers may begin with "it depends," but must end with a number. When a CEO asks how much revenue your project will generate, "more" is not the answer they're looking for. I know. I've tried. Lawyers who seek greater precision in their predictions can take comfort in the increasing sophistication of analytical tools that can evaluate massive troves of data and account for myriad variables. Not only are we seeing advances in machine learning, artificial intelligence, and language processing, but there is greater access to important litigation-related data – BIG DATA – than ever before. Using new technologies to comb through millions of records – [...]
Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Certification: Reconciling the Conflict With the Predominance Requirement
Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Certification: Reconciling the Conflict with the 23(b)(3) Predominance Requirement Proposed class actions seeking monetary damages are often difficult to certify because common issues do not predominate over individualized issues as required by Rule 23(b)(3). Rule 23(c)(4) provides that "[w]hen appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues."Although Rule 23(c)(4) has been part of the rule since the landmark 1966 amendments, it was often overlooked until the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. Plaintiffs now routinely seek limited issue certification for purported common issues, such as liability, arguing that questions of injury, reliance, or causation should be left for individual cases. When approved, this approach increases defendants' exposure by permitting certification in some cases that would otherwise fail the Rule 23(b)(3) standards.The federal circuits are now in a three-way split on how issue certification should be treated under Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. While the Fifth Circuit has taken the textual view in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. that permits issue certification only if the class first qualifies under Rule 23(b)(3), the Ninth, Sixth, Second, and Seventh Circuits have adopted the opposite view that Rule 23(c)(4) certification does not require predominance. The Third Circuit has clarified and heightened the test in Russell v. Educ. Comm’n for Foreign Med. Graduates, 20-2128 (3d Cir. Sept. 24, 2021), but offers both sides plenty to consider. The remaining circuits are uncommitted, leaving the district courts to address the matter.Listen as our panel of experienced class action litigators analyzes the varying circuit court positions on Rule 23(c)(4) issue classes and the implications of practitioners' decisions when pursuing or opposing class certification. Outline The emergence of issue classes under Rule 23(c)(4) What is an issue class? How are they being strategically used? Where are the grey areas? Key court decisions [...]
PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation with John Gardella
These stubborn chemicals are everywhere. But when they find their way into products, shouldn't someone tell consumers? Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) are a family of more 12,000 manmade compounds. That's a huge family. Most people would recognize the brand names Teflon, produced by Dupont and Scotchgard produced by 3M. They also go by the nickname “forever chemicals” because they are highly persistent and mobile in the environment and the human body. In addition to bodily injury and environmental pollution litigation, plaintiffs are bringing suits against companies for claiming their products and the making of their products are safe and green. New consumer lawsuits seeking millions in damages are targeting oral hygiene products -- like a recent case involving dental floss -- cosmetics, apparel, and food packaging. Listen to my interview with environmental lawyer John Gardella of CMBG3 Law who discusses why PFAS concern citizens, media and legislators, what legal risks corporations face, and why we're seeing a surge in consumer fraud litigation. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is 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 please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. (actual size) Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Home Page LinkedIn PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation with John Gardella John Gardella is a Shareholder and recognized thought leader on PFAS issues. He is licensed to practice in Massachusetts and Tennessee. A seasoned trial attorney with over 75 verdicts, John is the Chair of the firm’s PFAS, Environmental, Risk Management & Consulting, and ESG practice groups. His thought leadership [...]
Medical Monitoring for Modern Times with Ed Gentle
Medical Monitoring for Modern Times: Attorney and court-appointed neutral Ed Gentle shares his vision for a new paradigm for mass torts. Marissa, a resident of a small town in Kentucky, learned that for some time her drinking water may have been contaminated with so-called "forever chemicals" or PFAS. It's really a collection of chemicals used in products like fire-suppression foam, cookware, stain-resistant sprays, and food packaging. A local public radio reporter covering the story asked Marissa for her reaction. "I was never informed," she said. "And now I'm worried, like, I hope I don't have issues some day in my life." Marissa's concern is like that of many people who find themselves in this situation and is at the center of this episode. When a case like Marissa's goes to court, plaintiffs will seek a ruling that the responsible parties pay for years of medical monitoring. That means they are suing often without signs of an existing injury, and that defendants must pay for something when an injury may not arise. Attorney, author, and court-appointed case neutral, Edgar C. Gentle III, says that approach is antiquated. He outlines a better way in his 2014 essay titled The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long Term Tort Maladies). Now he shares his latest insights on the Emerging Litigation Podcast. Ed Gentle is the Founding Partner of Gentle Turner & Benson, LLC in Birmingham, Ala. He is a Rhodes Scholar and has five college degrees, three in law. He has practiced for nearly four decades, spending 90% of his professional time serving as a neutral assigned by judges to oversee aspects of mass tort litigation and settlements. He has helped create and administer over $2 billion in settlements during the past 25 years. [...]
Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation
An on-demand CLE-eligible webinar Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation America’s senior population is growing. Nearly one in five U.S. residents will be 65 or older in 2030. Which means the average age of U.S. investors is climbing too. With that comes the risk that they will be exploited by people with access – or gain access through nefarious methods – to their investment portfolio. Seniors and vulnerable persons lose billions of dollars each year. Remarkably, 90% of the people to take advantage of senior investors are members of their own family. Attorneys who represent senior clients need to know the signs of vulnerability, red flags that their clients are being exploited, what laws apply, and rules lawyers must follow in these matters. Questions our speakers answer: What is senior / vulnerable investor exploitation? Who is protected by state and federal laws? How prevalent is senior financial exploitation? What do the numbers tell us? What is the pace of financial abuse SAR filings by securities firms? What are the most popular scams? What is diminished capacity? What are the red flags indicating possible exploitation? What are the laws, rules, and regulations governing law firms? What are some best practices for law firms? How can firms best protect their senior clients? On Demand CLE Webinar What You Get PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers. 1.5 CLE credits (for licensed attorneys). CLE assistance.* *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys. Register Meet the Speakers Joseph Calabrese Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. A 1991 Graduate of St. John’s University Law School, Mr. Calabrese brings 30 years of practice and 18 years [...]
Litigation’s Role in Gun Safety Advocacy: An Interview With Adam Skaggs of Giffords
Read the article We’re closing in on 400 million guns in America, weapons that have been used to kill 1.5 million Americans between 1968 and 2017. Can litigation be an effective tool in curbing this loss of life? In 2020 alone there were more than 45,000 gun deaths. The beyond tragic and senseless mass shootings at schools has become all too routine. Most Americans want stricter gun laws which they believe will reduce the senseless killing in our country, which leads the world in both the number of privately owned firearms and gun-related deaths. The Supreme Court, of course, didn't take public opinion into account when it struck down a more than century old New York City ban on concealed firearms. Politicians do, however, pay close attention to polls. At the federal level, President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan law designed to make Americans safer in our gun-toting nation. Hailed as a "great start" and a rare but welcome exercise in reaching across the aisle, the law will result in safer citizens, but didn't include much of what gun advocates say is really needed to effect meaningful change. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a new law that gives citizens incentives to pursue gun manufacturers and dealers who sell illegal firearms. In New York, Democratic leaders, undaunted by the Supreme Court, have pushed through new gun restrictions at vulnerable locations like schools, malls, and stadiums. But what can lawyers and lawsuits do about it? Plenty. What reasonable measurers can be put into place that will not infringe on Second Amendment rights? Several. Are we seeing litigation over these issues? You bet. For more specifics, read or listen to my interview with Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director at leading gun safety advocacy group Giffords Law Center, co-founded [...]
Federal Judge, Two Attorneys Honored for Excellence in Ethics in Complex Litigation
For Immediate Release U.S. Appellate Judge, Two Attorneys Honored for Ethics in Complex Litigation First-ever awards for ethics in complex litigation excellence will be presented Oct. 22, 2022. Nominations were evaluated by a committee comprising a federal judge, scholars, and litigators. Committee selected a current judge on the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a plaintiff’s attorney, and a defense attorney. SAN FRANCISCO – Sept. 28, 2022 – Nominated for their contributions to ethics in class actions and complex litigation, the first-ever recipients of the Awards for Excellence in Ethics in Complex Litigation are: jurist, scholar, and teacher, the Honorable William Fletcher; preeminent plaintiff’s attorney Elizabeth J. Cabraser; and distinguished employment defense attorney Fred W. Alvarez. The awards will be presented at the inaugural Complex Litigation Ethics Conference on Oct. 22, 2022, held at the UC Hastings College of the Law in association with the college’s Center for Litigation and Courts. Program co-chairs Joshua P. Davis and Scott Dodson – both professors at UC Hastings – have assembled an exemplary faculty of leading jurists, litigators, and other subject matter experts. “In developing this program we wanted not only to educate litigators and stimulate discussion on the important and evolving ethical aspects of this practice, but also to honor those who have demonstrated leadership, scholarship, and dedication in promoting ethical behavior and professionalism and to whom others look for inspiration,” said Davis. “Judge Fletcher, Elizabeth Cabraser, and Fred Alvarez,” Dodson added, “are exactly the kinds of individuals and representatives of the profession we had in mind when we developed these awards. More about the recipients of the Awards for Excellence in Ethics in Complex Litigation: Honorable William Fletcher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judicial Recipient) – A respected jurist, scholar and teacher, Judge Fletcher was [...]
Covid Insurance Coverage Decisions with Guest Marshall Gilinsky. Are Policyholders Catching Up?
According to the online Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker (CCLT) run by Penn Law there have been more than 2,300 insurance coverage cases filed over denial of claims relating to Covid-19. Restaurants and bars were hardest hit by the pandemic and so led the way in seeking – and being denied – coverage, too. They are also leading the way in suing their insurers. The top five insurers in the defense position are Chubb Limited at #5, then #4 Lloyds of London, #3 Cincinnati Financial, and #2 Zurich. And in the #1 position facing the most coverage suits is Hartford. The insurance industry started off strong when this litigation began, winning the vast majority of the coverage suits. And they continue to do well, scoring with the argument that many of the claims do not involve actual property damage. Government closures don’t cause property damage, they argue. Courts have largely been siding with the carriers – but not all. Policyholders, a tenacious bunch, appear to be chipping away at the body of law in this suddenly expanding category. A recent case involving a New Orleans restaurant against Lloyd’s was penciled into the win column for carriers by a trial court , but an appeals court erased it and wrote the policyholder a narrow 3-2 victory. The appeals court said the language of the policy was ambiguous, and therefore had to be construed in favor of the restaurant. What's it mean? Does this bode well for policyholders? Or can we expect to see, as we did in previous coverage wars, a mixed bag of decisions across the nation? For more on that case and today’s Covid coverage landscape, listen to my interview with Marshall Gilinsky, a shareholder in the New York office of Anderson Kill. Marshall has represented policyholders of various policy [...]
EMR Audit Trail—What Is It? Why Do They Matter? What Should You Look For? by Haley K. Grieco and Brooke E. Reddin
The Authors Haley K. Grieco (hgrieco@hallboothsmith.com) is a partner in the Paramus, New Jersey, office of Hall Booth Smith, where she defends physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare providers in a wide range of medical malpractice litigation. Brooke E. Reddin (breddin@hallboothsmith.com) is an associate with the firm, where she focuses her practice on healthcare, medical malpractice, and aging services 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. EMR Audit Trail—What Is It? Why Do They Matter? What Should You Look For? "As the healthcare industry becomes increasingly digitized, it is imperative that attorneys appreciate the impact it may have on their clients and their practice. In medical malpractice matters, discovery requests for metadata—specifically, the production of the EMR audit trail—has steadily increased over the past few years." Abstract: Maintaining electronic medical records, or EMRs, is now a nearly universal best practice among medical providers from small physician practices to large hospital networks. Unlike handwritten or typed records, these digital documents carry with them much more data than meets the eye. In this article, the authors—two medical malpractice attorneys— discuss what attorneys need to know about EMRs in the litigation context and the metadata bread crumb trail they leave behind. They discuss the types of data involved, federal requirements, discovery considerations, privacy implications, and the pros and cons and risks of using these records in defending healthcare providers. During the past ten years electronic medical records (EMR) have all but rendered obsolete handwritten medical records. Medical providers have had to learn computer systems, programs, software, hardware, and forms like never before. When hospitals, facilities, and medical offices change [...]
Employers Be WARNed: Workforce Reduction Rules Meet New Workplace Definitions as Employees Go Remote by Juan Enjamio and Steven DiBeneditto
The Authors: Juan C. Enjamio (jenjamio@huntonak.com) is managing parter of the Miami office of Hunton Andrews Kurth where he dedicates his practice to complex domestic and international employment law matters. Steven J. DiBeneditto Jr. (sdibeneditto@huntonak.com) is a Washington, DC-based associate in the firm’s employment and labor group. 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. Employers Be WARNed Workforce Reduction Rules Meet New Workplace Definitions as Employees Go Remote "Numerous courts have opined that a “home base” is a place in which the employee has some sort of physical connection. But this connection must be more than a “notional” base, whereby the employee has a menial relationship." Introduction A common sentiment during the Covid-19 pandemic was that a different society would emerge from its ashes. While overstated in many cases, one segment of society that appears to have changed for good is the white collar workplace. Indeed, after enjoying the flexibility of working from home for more than 2 years, many white collar workers are demanding that a remote work option remain a permanent fixture at their place of employment. And with seemingly no negotiating leverage due to worker shortages across the country, employers have mostly acceded to these demands, with many opting to implement a “hybrid” workforce where employees work from home for part of the work week and transit to the physical workplace for the rest of the week. Other employers have opted to have employees work entirely from home in what is now generally known as a “remote” employee. But widespread adoption of a Hybrid Workforce presents a complex set of legal challenges for employers. These challenges [...]
The Role of Litigation and Regulation in Making the Web More Accessible with Guests Ken Nakata and Hiram Kuykendall
According to the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness there are 43 million people around the world living with blindness, and 300 million living with moderate to severe visual impairment. Put those statistics next to these: There are nearly 2 billion websites, and 550,000 created every day. Shouldn’t sight-impaired people have the same access to these sites as sighted people? Of course they should. There is good news. After previously announcing guidance, the DOJ says new regulations are on the way under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which describes the obligations for state and local governments. My guests say there are many reasons to be excited about this. My guests say there are many reasons to be excited about this. Ken Nakata is Co-Founder and Principal at Converge Accessibility, whose solutions help make sure websites and other technologies are accessible to people with disabilities. Ken is former Senior Trial Attorney with the DOJ Disability Rights Section where he developed nationwide ADA policies for the internet. Joining Ken is Hiram Kuykendall, Chief Technology Officer at Microassist, an Austin-based learning and development consulting. Hiram is a technical leader with hands-on experience in instructional design and digital accessibility. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is 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 please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. (actual size) Tom Hagy Host Emerging Litigation Podcast P.S. Anytime I make a self-effacing remark about my ignorance concerning this or any subject, it's strictly for entertainment value, a story I will cling to with every fiber of [...]
Insurance Coverage for Digital Assets: Mitigating Losses in Cryptocurrency and Non‐Fungible Token Markets by Scott DeVries, Jessica Cohen-Nowak and Adriana Perez of Hunton Andrews Kurth GalleryInsurance Coverage for Digital Assets: Mitigating Losses in Cryptocurrency and Non‐Fungible Token Markets by Scott DeVries, Jessica Cohen-Nowak and Adriana Perez of Hunton Andrews Kurth
Insurance Coverage for Digital Assets: Mitigating Losses in Cryptocurrency and Non‐Fungible Token Markets by Scott DeVries, Jessica Cohen-Nowak and Adriana Perez of Hunton Andrews Kurth
Companies and individuals are riding the ups and downs of cryptocurrency and NFTs—with losses and swings in the billions of dollars—but digital assets are not going away. Abstract: The risk of loss in certain categories may be mitigated by insurance, whether provided by tailored policies and/or under policies designed specifically for digital asset owners. Those with exposure to the digital asset sector should be attuned to the emerging marketplace for such insurance products. While it is early days for NFT-specific coverage, the rise of cryptocurrency has created a substantial marketplace for crypto coverage. Insurers are becoming increasingly able to model and assess risk, so more products are coming to market. That said, digital asset holders need to be able to select coverage that best suits their needs. In this article, the authors discuss the history and status of coverage for digital assets to assist readers in exploring how they might use insurance to mitigate risk in this emerging and rocky sector of global finance. "Over the course of a decade, the marketplace for cryptocurrency has increased from zero to an estimated $250 billion. However, only $6 billion in insurance coverage is currently available. It would be a gross understatement to say that there is a truly remarkable imbalance between market value and insurance capacity." Introduction Crypto markets are experiencing the greatest crash in their history to date. The value of a Bitcoin (BTC) has plummeted 70% from its peak and Ethereum (ETH) has fallen 77%. Since last November, the value of cryptocurrency tokens has lost $2 billion in value. As noted financial publication Barron’s put it: “Crypto is having a ‘Lehman moment,’ a shattering of confidence triggered by plunging asset prices, liquidity freezing up, and billions of dollars wiped out in a few scary [...]
The Environmental, Social, and Governance Police Have Arrived: Is Your Insurance Ready? by Robert D. Chesler and Dennis J. Artese
The Authors Robert D. Chesler (rchesler@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in Anderson Kill’s New Jersey office and is a member of the firm’s Cyber Insurance Recovery Group. He represents policyholders in a broad variety of coverage claims against their insurers and advises companies with respect to their insurance programs. Dennis J. Artese is a shareholder in Anderson Kill’s New York office and chairs the firm’s Climate Change and Disaster Recovery Group. Both are members of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal. 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. The ESG Police Have Arrived: Is Your Insurance Ready? "ESG has become a major initiative for corporate America. In particular, the environmental prong of ESG calls for companies to institute sustainability goals and to invest in environmentally friendly companies. This emphasis has both economic and popular support. Environmental sustainability will make companies better able to compete and make their businesses less risky." Abstract: The environmental, social, and governance movement is a positive one, but like many well-intentioned efforts there is room for abuse and risk. As corporations endeavor to earn accolades and good will for “doing the right thing,” they must also be certain they truly are. In this article the authors discuss increased government scrutiny, the attendant risks of implementing and reporting on ESG initiatives, insurance coverage implications for directors and officers, the pollution and other exclusions, the potential civil fines and penalties, and what companies can expect in the era of ESG. Download the article now! Podcast 1 of 2 series: Insurance Coverage with Dr. Jaana Pietari and Jim Fenstermacher and Litigation with Bob Chesler. Podcast 2 [...]
Announcing the Complex Litigation Ethics Conference
A leading academic and practitioner, Joshua P. Davis (davisj@usfca.edu) is a nationally recognized expert on legal ethics and class actions, as well as on artificial intelligence in the law, antitrust, civil procedure, free speech, and jurisprudence. He has published more than 30 scholarly articles and book chapters on these subjects and is currently writing a book on AI titled Unnatural Law, which will be published by Cambridge University Press. He is Research Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law, and a Shareholder of the Berger Montague PC law firm and Manager of its new San Francisco Bay Area Office. Before taking these posts, for more than 20 years Davis was a tenured Professor of Law at University of San Francisco Law School, where he also served as the Director of the Center for Law and Ethics. Davis is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, published by Fastcase Full Court Press. Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief. An expert in civil procedure and federal courts, Professor Scott Dodson is the James Edgar Hervey Chair in Litigation and Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law at UC Hastings Law. He has published seven book titles, including The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Cambridge 2015) and New Pleading in the Twenty-First Century (Oxford 2013). He has written around 100 shorter works appearing in such journals as Stanford Law Review, New York University Law Review, Michigan Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, California Law Review, Virginia Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Northwestern University Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, American Journal of Comparative Law, American Journal of International Law, and Law & Society Review. His scholarly writings have been cited in more than 30 court opinions and have [...]
Litigating a Claim to Recover Liquidated Damages by Laura Fraher
The Author Laura C. Fraher (fraher@slslaw.com) is a senior attorney in the trial and construction group at Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram in Washington, D.C. She has extensive experience in civil litigation at both the trial court and appellate level. Competitive by nature, Laura played rugby for nearly 20 years. She puts this competitive spirit to work through her passion for the law and her clients. Education: St. John’s University School of Law, J.D., 2001, magna cum laude; SUNY College at Geneseo, B.A., Political Science, 1998. 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. Litigating a Claim to Recover Liquidated Damages: Enforceability Depends on Evidence of Good Faith Expectations "The tests and standards that courts apply to evaluate whether a particular liquidated damage provision is enforceable vary from state to state and it is imperative that litigants research and fully appreciate the particular standards that will be applied by the court in which they are litigating." Abstract: The liquidated damages provision in a contract is a useful mechanism for mitigating risk in the event one of the parties to an agreement breaches the contract, costing the aggrieved party sometimes significant difficulty and substantial expense. Unfortunately, these provisions are often challenged, allowing the party responsible for the beach to exacerbate the burdens on the other party. In this article, the author discusses concepts of enforceability, proof, and avoiding litigation over liquidated damage provisions. A liquidated damage provision is an advance agreement of the damages that a party will be entitled to recover in the event of a future breach by the other party to a contract. These provisions can [...]
Epiq Class Action Settlement Efficiency
Epiq presents a CLE-eligible webinar Wait Wait ... Don't Settle! Essential elements of effective class action settlements. When it comes to complex class action litigation, once the hard work is done – litigation and settlement – more hard work begins – administering it. But is the deal really ready? After years of arduous proceedings, discovery, motions, appeals, hearings, negotiations, and more, the scope and structure of your settlement has been drafted. Everyone is in agreement. The hard work of the courts, the attorneys, the legal teams, and the litigants is complete. Now it's time to administer the settlement. Send out notices. Cut the checks. Get people paid. Boom! Sit back and relax. Get a claims administrator to take it from there. But wait … you find out that the terms of the agreement, the promises made, the budget established, and the deadlines calendared are not only inefficient, they are completely unworkable. Now the settlement is in jeopardy. The clients are frustrated. The court is frustrated. And you have a headache. That is a situation you, as a class action attorney, never want to find yourself in. The best way to avoid this quagmire is for attorneys to work with a professional and experienced claims administrator before you agree on settlement terms, someone who has been to this rodeo many, many times before. If you want smooth execution of your claims program, they must be on your team as you pull the pieces of the settlement together, not afterwards. Join us for a complimentary CLE webinar on Thursday, April 8, 2021, for a practical discussion based on Seven Elements of Effectively Settling Class Actions led by a class action litigator turned class action settlement expert, who will moderate a discussion with two highly regarded class action attorneys [...]