Latest Stories
Judge Clarifies ESI Preservation Duty and Spoliation Consequences
In his E-Discovery column, Stephen M. Kramarsky, a member of Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky, writes: Even if it turns out that some ESI is beyond the scope of discovery, that does not mean it can be disposed of before that determination has been made, and while the cost of preserving all this information can certainly be high, the costs of improperly destroying it may be far higher. A recent decision serves as a reminder of how the process can go wrong.Pass Rate for July Bar Exam Remains 67 Percent Despite Hike in Cut Score
Tax Breaks Help Pay For Long-Term Care
In this month's Tax Tips, Sidney Kess of Kostelanetz & Fink discusses long-term care payment methods and options and speculates whether the CLASS program will be a meaningful way for individuals to pay in light of premiums that will be charged, costs of long-term care in the future, and benefits that will be paid under the program.
Defending Against 'At-Issue' Privilege Waiver
Christopher G. Karagheuzoff, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney, and Deirdre Sheridan, a senior associate at the firm, write that disputes concerning inadvertent waiver of the privilege through the unintentional disclosure of privileged information have exploded in the age of electronic discovery. The federal government incentivizes "cooperation" that entails waiver of the privilege by using such cooperation as a key factor in determining whether to indict or offer sentencing credits to it. The crime-fraud exception to the privilege, they note - particularly in the wake of recent corporate scandals - has been invoked with considerable and increasing frequency.
The Antitrust Legacy of Justice Stevens
In their Antitrust Trade and Practice column, Neal R. Stoll and Shepard Goldfein, partners at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, write: Having spent so much of his early career practicing and teaching antitrust law, Justice Stevens wasn't shy expressing his unwavering commitment to protecting competition through the broad application of the U.S. antitrust law. Whether authoring the majority, concurrence, or dissent, Justice Stevens' opinions contained complete and explicit analyses that navigated precedent and legislative intent.
F-Cubed=0: Supreme Court's Decision in 'Morrison v. National Australia Bank'
Sarah L. Cave, a partner at Hughes Hubbard & Reed, writes that in Morrison, the Court threw out the analytical approach that the lower courts had followed for many years, and adopted a simpler, easier-to-administer standard that limits §10(b)'s application to securities transactions that occurred within the United States and renders irrelevant the location of the underlying deceptive conduct. In doing so, the Court not only limited the threat of claims by classes of foreign investors, but also the reach of U.S. regulators.Politician's Heirs Snare Firm in Estate Battle
Family Court Judge to Lead City's Children's Welfare Agency
Trending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
