View Details

In this episode, I get to speak with Liz Heddleston and Leah Stiegler of Woods Rogers about a healthcare compliance issue that many organizations may be underestimating: the HIPAA risks created by modern marketing practices.

Healthcare providers increasingly rely on social media, patient testimonials, online success stories, influencers, user-generated content, and even AI-assisted marketing tools to build visibility and connect with patients. But as recent enforcement activity demonstrates, these efforts can create significant HIPAA exposure when protected health information is disclosed without proper authorization.

Our conversation uses the recent OCR enforcement action involving Cadia Healthcare Facilities as a starting point. OCR alleged that patient names, photographs, and treatment information were publicly shared through online success stories without valid written HIPAA authorizations. The resulting settlement serves as a reminder that positive intent, patient enthusiasm, and informal consent do not eliminate HIPAA obligations.

Liz and Leah help unpack what went wrong in the Cadia matter and explain why healthcare organizations should be paying close attention. We discuss:

• Common misconceptions about de-identification
• The growing risks associated with social media and AI-generated content
• The compliance challenges created by marketing vendors, agencies, and influencers
• Where OCR enforcement may be headed next

One of the key themes throughout the discussion is that HIPAA compliance is no longer just an IT or cybersecurity issue. As healthcare organizations expand their digital presence, privacy compliance must become part of the content creation and marketing process itself.

Whether you're a healthcare executive, compliance officer, in-house counsel, privacy professional, marketer, or outside advisor, this conversation offers practical guidance on navigating the intersection of healthcare privacy, digital marketing, and regulatory risk.

Jump in to hear Liz and Leah's insights on HIPAA compliance, healthcare marketing, and the emerging risks organizations should be addressing before an enforcement action brings them into focus.

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

In this episode, I speak withRachel McCarthy, Executive Director of the Milestone Foundation, about a challenge that often sits quietly in the background of personal injury litigation: how injured plaintiffs manage financially while waiting for their cases to resolve.

Litigation can take months or years to reach a settlement or verdict. During that time, plaintiffs may face mounting medical bills, housing expenses, transportation costs, and lost income. Financial pressure can create significant hardship and, in some cases, influence settlement decisions. Rachel explains how the Milestone Foundation was created to address this issue through a nonprofit model that provides low-interest, non-recourse advances designed to help plaintiffs cover essential living expenses while their cases proceed.

We discuss how plaintiff funding differs from litigation finance, why many attorneys remain skeptical of the industry, and what makes nonprofit funding models different from traditional providers. Rachel also explains the mechanics of simple versus compounding interest, the importance of understanding funding agreements, and the questions attorneys should ask before recommending funding options to clients.

In addition, we explore emerging regulatory efforts, including new state-level consumer protection measures, and discuss the broader access-to-justice implications of helping plaintiffs withstand the financial pressures that can arise during lengthy litigation.

Whether you are a plaintiff attorney, litigation professional, consumer advocate, or simply interested in how economic realities intersect with the civil justice system, this conversation offers valuable insight into a topic that affects thousands of litigants every year.

Jump in to hear Rachel's perspective on ethical plaintiff funding, consumer protection, and how financial support can help plaintiffs and their attorneys see cases through to a more appropriate resolution.

Tom Hagy
Host of The Emerging Litigation Podcast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

In this episode, I get to speak with Mark C. Zauderer, a long-time, highly regarded legal professional, to explore the profound changes that have reshaped the legal industry over the past five decades. From the rise of mega law firms to the shift from a profession rooted in tradition and values to a business focused on profitability, Mark offers a candid and insightful look into the substantive ways law firms have changed – in both negative and positive ways. ​

We discuss how the centralization of management in large firms has diminished the voice of individual partners and altered the dynamics of decision-making. ​ Mark also sheds light on the decline of mentorship and training for young lawyers, as firms prioritize cost efficiency over professional development. ​ He shares his perspective on how these changes have impacted the quality of legal services and the trust between lawyers and their clients.

Additionally, we delve into the growing influence of political and social pressures on law firms, including the challenges posed by recent executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. ​ Mark examines how these external forces are shaping the priorities and values of the legal profession.

Whether you're a legal professional, a law student, or simply curious about the inner workings of modern law firms, this conversation offers a thought-provoking glimpse into the business of law and its implications for the future of the profession. Jump in to hear Mark’s insights and reflections on what’s next for the legal industry.

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

In general, it is becoming hard to know what's real anymore. For example, there are so many product brand duplicates these days that people in the business save energy with a more efficient nickname. And these affectionately labeled brand "dupes" are everywhere.

The real fight used to be over copying designs. That is no longer the case. It’s about the words used to sell the copied products and the tools brand owners use to make listings disappear overnight.

I’m joined by a valued and ever-eloquent repeat guest, Tiffany D. Gehrke, and ebullient first-timer Alexa Spitz, both of Marshall Gerstein, to shine light on the modern dupe economy and how trademark law, trade dress, advertising claims, and platform enforcement are converging.

Tiffany and Alexa recently wrote an article for Law 360 on this subject which caught my eye, because someone told me to read it. Which I did. There, and here, our guests told me about:

• The gray area between “inspired by” competition and actionable infringement, including why protectability is the first hurdle and how a product can look suspiciously similar, yet avoid liability if the copied elements aren’t legally protectable.
• The Sol de Janeiro versus Apollo dispute over body cream packaging and why a court finding of trade dress functionality can shut the door on enforcement.
• The speed-to-market problem: the runway-to-dupe pipeline, rapid product cycles, and why traditional litigation can be too slow when the goal is to stop sales this season, not win damages years later.
• Practical brand protection strategies that match today’s reality, including layered IP portfolios (trademarks, trade dress, copyright registration, design patents, and even utility patents when appropriate) and smarter monitoring.
• Tactics getting the most attention online: “Brand Dupe” trademark filings like Lululemon Dupe and Aritzia Dupe, how disclaimers can affect enforcement, and why platforms often demand clean, registration-based proof for takedown notices on Amazon and social commerce channels.

If you or your clients care about brand enforcement, e-commerce strategy, or emerging litigation risk, this one is built for you. Subscribe, share with a colleague, and leave a review so more listeners can find the show.

Thank you, and thanks to Tiffany and Alexa for bringing their A-game!

Tom Hagy
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

Mobile phones, social media, cloud storage, and email sit at the center of modern fact-finding, but, to their detriment and that of their clients, attorneys often misunderstand or underuse this data.

Practitioners may not realize that client-provided screenshots are often forensically weak, or that texts and social media can easily be forged or manipulated. That means lawyers and courts need to better understand authenticating, preserving, and challenging electronic evidence.

In this episode, I speak with attorney and author Tim Conlon about how litigators can be more effective by gaining a deeper understanding of the space where evidence gathering and technology intersect.

Through case examples—including comparisons of computer and cloud backups, comparing data saved at different points in time, analysis of missing and altered files, and tracking email migrations from official to personal accounts—Tim shows how straightforward digital forensics techniques can expose concealment, manipulation, and institutional failures.

Tim is a Partner at DarrowEverettwhere he focuses on complex family court litigation and civil cases on behalf of children abused in the care of others, with particular emphasis on cases where electronic evidence and digital assets play a central role.

He has handled matters at the forefront of litigation, from computer crime investigations in the 1980s to chairing and resolving Rhode Island’s clergy abuse cases on behalf of dozens of victims. Since the late 1980s, he has used electronic evidence to uncover hidden assets and misconduct, including forcing the division of more than $16 million in cryptocurrency shortly before the 2022 crypto crash.

Tim is a frequent lecturer on electronic evidence, trial technology, and advanced litigation issues, and is widely published and quoted in national and regional media. He is the co‑author of Electronic Evidence for Family Law Attorneys (American Bar Association, 2017) and is currently completing an ABA book on cryptocurrency and digital assets, continuing his work at the intersection of technology and modern litigation.

Thanks to Tim for sharing his insights!

Tom Hagy | Host | Emerging Litigation Podcast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

The conversation in this episode starts by discussing a post-pandemic practice pivot and how one litigator chose a new path, which led to establishing a new business at the intersection of law and finance.

For a long time, the need for in-house counsel meant the company had crossed a certain size threshold: enough contracts, enough regulatory touchpoints, enough disputes and enough litigation to justify building a legal department. But an alternative has emerged — companies keeping their core teams lean while bringing in senior legal judgment on a part-time, flexible basis.

In this episode I enjoyed catching up with Jonathan Sablone, founder of Sablone Advisory LLC, about why that model works and what it looks like when the lawyer is, in his words, a “fractional general counsel” and a litigation manager.

Sablone’s résumé reads like a tour through the high-end litigation market. He spent roughly 25 years at global firms including Nixon Peabody and DLA Piper, where he held leadership roles and built practices focused on complex commercial and private funds disputes. His work has spanned the financial services world—private equity funds, hedge funds, institutional investors—and often had a cross-border component.

Thanks to Jonathan for sharing his insights, which should give comfort to litigators who might be asking themselves: Is there anything else that is just as fulfilling?

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

This episode breaks down how prediction markets are colliding with U.S. law as event‑based trading moves from niche forecasting tools to mainstream platforms handling billions in volume. I explain what prediction markets are, why regulators are increasingly alarmed, and how an escalating federal–state fight (plus new legislative and enforcement pressure) is setting up the next wave of high‑stakes litigation.

Key Topics Covered:

• How prediction markets work: event contracts, probability pricing, and why supporters see them as powerful information‑aggregation tools.
• Why regulators get uneasy when contracts shift from commodities and macro indicators to human behavior, politics, war, and public‑health crises.
• The “death markets” debate, including controversial contracts tied to violence and ongoing emergencies—and how backlash can reshape platform policy and regulatory narratives.
• Federal–state preemption fights: the CFTC/DOJ push for exclusive federal authority under the Commodity Exchange Act versus state gambling‑law enforcement.
• Congressional efforts to close the perceived “back door” for sports‑ and casino‑style contracts offered through CFTC‑regulated event markets.
• The arrival of insider‑trading and manipulation enforcement in prediction markets—and why “novel contract” does not mean “regulatory free zone.”
• Emerging civil‑liability theories: platform negligence, fraud and misrepresentation claims, consumer‑protection suits, and reputational risk as litigation matures.

Based on a review of court filings, agency statements, news reports, and scattered commentary, I discuss why prediction markets are becoming a litigation magnet—caught between federal commodities law, state gambling regimes, and growing concerns about market integrity and moral hazard.

Tom Hagy
Host | Emerging Litigation Podcast

Sources relied on for this episode:

• CFTC, Press Release, “CFTC Sues Trio of States to Reaffirm its Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Prediction Markets” (Apr. 2, 2026).
• CFTC, Press Release, “CFTC Enforcement Division Issues Prediction Markets Advisory” (Feb. 25, 2026).
• Congressional Research Service (CRS), “Prediction Markets and Insider Trading Law” (Mar. 18, 2026).
• CRS, “Prediction Markets: Policy Issues for Congress” (Mar. 20, 2026).
• Senator Schiff press release, “Sens. Schiff, Curtis Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Ban Sports Prediction Market Contracts” (Mar. 23, 2026)
• 17 C.F.R. § 40.11 (eCFR), “Review of event contracts based upon certain excluded commodities” (Apr. 2026).
• Federal Register, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Event Contracts,” 89 Fed. Reg. 48968 (June 10, 2024).

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

Numerous aspects of the modern workplace are evolving fast—and so are the legal risks.

In this episode, I get to speak with Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.—a nationally recognized employment litigator and author with 40 years in practice. A partner with Duane Morris in Chicago, he has defended some of the largest “bet-the-company” class actions in the U.S. and is known for helping employers anticipate and prevent large-scale litigation risks.

We talk about how remote work, ADA compliance, workforce reductions, arbitration, DEI policies, and AI tools are reshaping employment law.

We discuss:

▪️ How courts are redefining “essential functions” in the remote work era.
▪️ ADA compliance and running a defensible interactive process.
▪️ WARN Act risks in distributed and remote workforces.
▪️ Why RIFs require careful planning and statistical review.
▪️ Arbitration strategies post-Epic Systems—and where they fail.
▪️ Legal boundaries for DEI programs in a shifting landscape.
▪️ AI in hiring and performance management—and emerging compliance risks.

From policy design to litigation exposure, the message is clear: decisions must be documented, consistent, and defensible.

If you manage people, risk, or compliance, this episode offers practical guidance for navigating today’s complex employment landscape.

🙏 Special thanks to Jerry for taking the time to share his insights and experience with us. His energy and enthusiasm for the subject are inspiring.

To access a roadmap for navigating employment law complexities while building stronger, more productive workplaces, check out Jerry's book, 'The Employment Law Manual: A Practical Guide for Business Owners, Managers, and Executives'.

Tom Hagy
Host of The Emerging Litigation Podcast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

A smart city traffic system powered by agentic AI promises efficiency—but what happens when it fails under pressure?

This is the second episode in a three-part series exploring real-world legal and governance challenges surrounding agentic AI.

In this episode, we examine a scenario where an autonomous system managing traffic signals, routing, and emergency coordination collapses during a perfect storm: a major event, road closures, and severe weather. The result—gridlock, crashes, delayed emergency response, and a life-threatening failure.

Featuring:

▪️ Galina Datskovsky, PhD, CRM, FAI — Board of Directors, FIT and OpenAxes; Information Governance and AI expert
▪️ Marina Kaganovich — AMERS Financial Services Executive Trust Lead, Office of the CISO, Google Cloud
▪️ Hon. Lisa Walsh — Florida Circuit Judge, 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County

We explore what should have been built before deployment, including human oversight, escalation protocols, and safeguards that prioritize safety over optimization.

We also discuss:

▪️ Why AI systems can’t be trained for every edge case
▪️ The importance of validation, monitoring, and auditability
▪️ Legal liability and shared responsibility across cities, developers, and users
▪️ How sovereign immunity shapes public sector accountability

If you’re thinking about AI governance, liability, or public infrastructure risk, this episode offers a practical framework for evaluating responsibility before failures occur.

🙏 Special thanks to Galina Datskovsky, Marina Kaganovich, and Judge Lisa Walsh for sharing their insights and expertise, and to Kathryn M. Rattigan, Partner, Data Privacy + Cybersecurity with Robinson+Cole for bringing this team to the Emerging Litigation Podcast.

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

Regulators are no longer asking about AI principles — they want proof. Legal teams must show how their controls work, withstand scrutiny, and protect privilege.

In this episode, I speak with Adria Perez about the evolving landscape of AI policy and what it means for corporate compliance. Our conversation focuses on the U.S. Department of Justice’s AI Litigation Task Force and the growing expectation that organizations demonstrate real oversight, documented controls, and responsible use of AI. Adria shares practical insight into the challenges and opportunities AI presents for legal departments, as well as how governance frameworks can help companies adopt these tools with confidence.

Adria Perez is a partner in Reed Smith’s Global Regulatory Enforcement Group and a former member of the Volkswagen AG Independent Compliance Monitor and Auditor team. With deep experience at the intersection of enforcement, compliance, and monitorship expectations, she brings a perspective that in-house counsel and compliance leaders increasingly need as AI oversight rises to the board level.

During our discussion, we cover:

• Artificial intelligence as both a strategic asset and a compliance challenge
• The DOJ’s AI Litigation Task Force and what it signals for corporate oversight
• Best practices for responsible AI use, governance, and internal controls
• AI’s growing role in whistleblower complaints and internal investigations
• Workflow efficiencies and operational advantages AI can deliver
• Protocols and employee training essential for safe, effective adoption
• Communicating AI initiatives, safeguards, and successes to corporate boards

If you’re responsible for compliance, investigations, or AI governance, this episode offers a clear look at how legal teams can adapt and lead in a rapidly changing environment.

Special thanks to Adria Perez for sharing her insights and making the time to join us.

Tom Hagy
Host | The Emerging Litigation Podcast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

This episode dives into the latest warnings issued by the Federal Trade Commission to major U.S. law firms regarding their participation in diversity certification programs. I outline the broader pattern of executive branch pressure and explore the implications for law firms and media companies.

Key Topics Covered:

• FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson’s cautionary letters to 42 law firms participating in Diversity Lab’s Mansfield Certification program, highlighting potential antitrust liability under the Sherman Act and FTC Act.
• The Mansfield Rule’s origins, modeled on the NFL’s Rooney Rule, and its focus on expanding opportunities for underrepresented lawyers without mandating quotas.
• Judicial decisions, including Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ and Jenner & Block LLP v. DOJ, addressing claims of discrimination and political retaliation in the context of diversity initiatives and legal advocacy.
• The Trump administration’s use of antitrust law to challenge perceived collusion in both legal and media sectors, including scrutiny of media partnerships like the Trusted News Initiative and high-profile media mergers.
• Broader ideological and regulatory trends, including heightened enforcement, government intervention in media ownership, and ongoing appeals in federal courts.

Discussion Points:

• How coordinated diversity efforts may be viewed as labor-market collusion and the legal risks for law firms.
• The intersection of antitrust law, freedom of speech, and diversity initiatives in shaping the future of legal and media industries.
• The potential impact of executive orders and regulatory actions on the independence and competitive landscape of law firms and media companies.

I discuss how law firms and media organizations must adapt to an environment of increased political scrutiny, regulatory enforcement, and ongoing legal challenges. Tune in for the latest in the evolving relationship between private power and government oversight.

Tom Hagy
Host | Emerging Litigation Podcast

p.s. I know. I said D-O-G instead of DOJ. Speaking is hard.

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

Law firm headcount and revenues are a poor proxy for measuring leadership and excellence.

In this episode I had the pleasure of chatting with Molly Huie, teamleader of proprietary, industry thought-leadership surveys and data-based award programs at Bloomberg Industry Group. Joining me to interrogate Molly is data strategist Sara Lord of Reed Smith, the best kind of tech, law, and legal-tech nerd.

We interviewed Molly about Bloomberg's relatively new law firm ranking service that we think is pretty innovative. It helps firms make detailed, four-pronged examining of performance and effectiveness that goes beyond traditionally examined characteristics and metrics.

The new Leading Law Firms program blends financial strength, talent, growth, innovation, and excellence-related metrics into an interactive experience where you can sort, compare, and drill into firm-level dashboards to reveal actionable metrics.

What makes it different? The data is submission-only and transparently shared, with sensitive answers aggregated for scoring rather than exposed as competitive intel. The tool is also unique in its ability to reveal -- via an interactive interface -- how small and midsize firms may innovate as well as, or faster than, the giants.

Who benefits? We talk through the types of professionals expected to get the most value out of this tool, e.g., business development and marketing leaders seeking sharper positioning, managing partners who desire meaningful and comparative performance metrics, among others.

Enrollment is now open. Check it out!

Disclosure: I am not being compensated for sharing this. God knows I've asked.

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

In this three-part series our guests reprise their panel discussion at the Executive Women’s Forum DSG Global conference titled "You Be The Judge," during which they explored scenarios involving harms potentially caused by Agentic AI.

In Episode 1 they discuss an Agentic AI mammography triage system designed to flag positives for a radiologist, auto-send “all clear” letters for negatives, and operate with minimal human oversight.

They answer this difficult question: When the machine gets it wrong, who is accountable? Developers, hospitals, clinicians, and/or data providers? What role do contracts, warnings, and intended-use labels play in establishing liability? What safeguards would balance speed and safety? Random audits? Documentation? Will a new standard of care develop for machine decision-making?

I take the back seat in this series as the panelists moderate the discussion. They are:

Galina Datskovsky, PhD, CRM, FAI
Board of Directors, FIT and OpenAxes
Information Governance and AI expert

Marina Kaganovich
AMERS Financial Services Executive Trust Lead
Office of the CISO, Google Cloud

Hon. Lisa Walsh
Florida Circuit Judge
11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County

Special thanks to Kathryn M. Rattigan, Partner, Data Privacy + Cybersecurity with Robinson+Cole for bringing this team to the Emerging Litigation Podcast.

If you work in health tech, compliance, or hospital operations -- or you advise these professionals -- this conversation offers a clear-eyed guide to deploying autonomous agents responsibly—without sleepwalking into preventable harm. If you like what you hear, watch for Episodes 2 and 3.

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

With 46 million Americans facing substance use disorders and cannabis laws evolving across all 50 states, workplace drug policies have become a critical challenge for employers and employees alike. Employment law expert Keya Denner from Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete joins Tom Hagy on the Emerging Litigation Podcast to break down what you need to know about cannabis, drug testing, and workplace safety in 2024.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN:

• How state cannabis laws are reshaping workplace drug testing policies
• Balancing employee privacy rights with workplace safety obligations
• ADA compliance and reasonable accommodation for substance use disorders
• What "fitness for duty" means and when it can be required
• Documentation strategies that protect employers from litigation
• Common misconceptions about prescription drugs and workplace impairment
• How legal drug use (medical/recreational cannabis) affects employment
• Building safety programs that respect employee rights and reduce accidents

KEY INSIGHTS:

✓ Safety and privacy aren't competing interests—employers must uphold both
✓ Documentation and consistency are your strongest legal defenses
✓ Legal drug use doesn't eliminate safety concerns but requires individualized accommodation
✓ 46 million Americans have substance use disorders—this affects every workplace

TIMESTAMPS:

00:00 - Substance Use in the Workplace: A Growing Concern
13:02 - Navigating Privacy and Safety in Employment
18:35 - Building Compliant Safety Programs
21:44 - Effective Safety and Assessment Programs
23:16 - Documentation and Accountability
26:27 - Understanding Fitness for Duty Processes
29:36 - Common Misconceptions About Drug Use
37:51 - Navigating Drug Regulations in the Workplace

ABOUT KEYA DENNER:

Keya Denner is a senior labor and employment litigator with over 20 years of experience representing employers in discrimination, disability, and compliance matters. He co-chairs Constangy's Cannabis & Employee Substance Abuse practice group and regularly counsels Fortune 500 companies in retail, hospitality, and logistics on building compliant workplace programs as cannabis laws evolve.

WHO SHOULD WATCH:

→ HR professionals and compliance officers
→ Business owners and executives
→ Employees using medical or recreational cannabis
→ Safety managers and team leaders
→ Anyone navigating employment law and drug policies

What's your experience with workplace drug policies? Share in the comments!

👍 Like if you found this helpful | 🔔 Subscribe for more employment law insights

cannabislaw #workplaceculture #employmentlaw #workplacesafety #hrcompliance

Emerging Litigation Podcast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

According to just about every survey I could find, attorneys are increasingly embracing artificial intelligence tools. Most of these professionals report significant benefits. Some attorneys continue to fumble through without reading the manual. I only hope they do better with lawn mowers and hedge clippers. In this episode, my guest falls in the former camp, finding AI to be an invaluable asset to trial teams.

Adam Massaro, an accomplished litigator in intellectual property and high-stakes commercial disputes, explained how artificial intelligence is transforming trial preparation and courtroom strategies. Adam described leveraging AI to enhance expert cross-examination, streamline evidence management, and improve witness preparation. He is particularly optimistic about AI’s predictive capabilities, whether evaluating case prospects before trial or refining overarching litigation approaches.

He emphasized that the true potential of AI is realized when it is provided with structured, reliable data and guided by well-crafted prompts that specify the desired outcomes. By adhering to these principles, AI can efficiently summarize complex arguments, identify weaknesses in a case, and support attorneys in refining their strategies ahead of trial. In the area of witness preparation, AI is proving invaluable, enabling attorneys to anticipate challenging questions and help witnesses present more effective testimony.

Adam is a partner at Reed Smith in Denver. With more than a decade of experience, he has handled multimillion-dollar cases, securing significant jury verdicts and defense wins at trial. His practice spans trade secrets, copyright, class action, and appellate matters. Adam is also a former appellate law clerk with experience in post-judgment and appellate proceedings.

Adam earned his J.D. from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and holds a B.A. from Pennsylvania State University. Alongside his legal work, he is involved in community service. He is an active member of the Denver Active 2030 Children’s Foundation (2010–present), where he has served as Vice President, Charity Review Committee member, and President. Adam has also contributed as a board member for Elder Justice Colorado and Denver Kids Inc.

Thanks to Adam for such a candid conversation. Had I known he is also an archer I would have made a much bigger deal about it. The potential puns and metaphors, well, boggles the mind. At least mine.

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

What happens when the traditional understanding of workplace discrimination is turned on its head? Will the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services change how discrimination cases are evaluated when brought by members of majority groups?

Attorney Leah Stiegler of Woods Rogers joins us to examine this decision that rejected the "background circumstances rule" -- a standard that previously imposed a heightened evidentiary burden on white, heterosexual, or male plaintiffs claiming discrimination. As Leah explains, "There's no such thing as reverse discrimination. It's just discrimination." This simple yet insightful statement captures the essence of the Court's reasoning that Title VII protections apply equally to all employees, regardless of their demographic status.

Leah shares results from mock trials conducted with identical facts in different Virginia jurisdictions. A conservative Lynchburg jury awarded a white male plaintiff $600,000, while a more liberal Richmond jury found no discrimination whatsoever with the exact same evidence. This highlights how geography and community values dramatically influence discrimination case outcomes, sometimes more than the legal standards themselves.

We also explore the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework that remains the analytical backbone of discrimination cases, the emerging concept of intersectional discrimination, and recent executive orders concerning religious expression in the workplace. Throughout our discussion, Leah offers practical insights for employers navigating these evolving issues, emphasizing that while the political discourse around DEI initiatives may be contentious, the fundamental prohibition against discrimination remains unchanged.

Whether you're an employer developing workplace policies, an HR professional conducting training, or an employee trying to understand your rights, this episode provides essential context for understanding how discrimination law is evolving in unexpected ways. Subscribe to the Emerging Litigation Podcast for more in-depth analysis of the legal issues shaping our workplaces and society.

This is Leah's second appearance on the podcast and I appreciate it!

Tom Hagy
Host | The Emerging Litigation Podcast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

Waiting for lawsuits to present themselves is the worst growth strategy a litigator can have.

In this episode, I get to speak with John Reed, founder and chief relationship builder at Rain BDM and host of Sticky Lawyers, to rethink business development from the ground up. His most popular episodes was about Bob Mionske, an Olympic road racing cyclist turned "bicycle lawyer." Give it a listen.

With a background spanning law, marketing, and sales, John helps attorneys translate the language of business development into practical strategies that work even within law firm cultures. Can you imagine? Known for blending creativity, emotional intelligence, and big-picture thinking, he brings a unique perspective on how lawyers can stand out authentically and effectively in a crowded market.

John shares how traditional litigator traits—decisive, fast, commanding—can win in court but backfire with clients who value collaboration and reflection. He outlines a practical model for defining your professional brand through role, skill, context, and style—and explains why style may be your strongest differentiator.

We also dig into how introverted lawyers can grow client relationships through substance, not small talk, and how remote mentoring can actually strengthen early-career development with the right habits and feedback.

Whether you’re an associate building visibility or a partner looking to expand trusted relationships, this conversation will help you make your practice more resilient, referral-ready, and strategically aligned with how clients actually buy legal services.

Thanks to Johnfor sharing his insight, humor, and practical wisdom on how to turn authentic connection into lasting business growth.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

What if business insiders could accelerate antitrust enforcement as they have done with other corporate misconduct, like fraud? That’s exactly what the Department of Justice is hoping for.

In this special episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, I’m joined by Julie Keeton Bracker of Bracker & Marcus and Dan Mogin* of Mogin Law to dig into a new program designed to motivate antitrust whistleblowers.

They trace the roots of qui tam cases—laws that let private citizens, called relators, bring suits on behalf of the government—and why they remain one of the most powerful tools for uncovering corporate fraud and misconduct. Julie explains historical and modern False Claims Act litigation, and Dan walks us through the machinations of private and public enforcement of antitrust laws, the Sherman Act being the big dog in this fight. Together they describe the Department of Justice's aspirations to bring individuals into the antitrust enforcement game.

Along the way, Julie and Dan share lessons from their practices and insights on where whistleblower and antitrust enforcement may be headed next.

If you’ve ever wondered how whistleblowers drive billion-dollar recoveries, or what the rise of antitrust whistleblowing means for businesses and enforcers alike, this episode is worth a listen.

Thanks to Julie and Dan for sharing their insights based on decades of practice in two challenging and important areas of law.

Tom Hagy
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

P.S. You can also watch this podcast and slide presentation on the HB Litigation News YouTube Channel.

We produced this simultaneously as a CLE webinar*, because we're just that clever. Look for it on the CeriFi LegalEdge CLE platform.

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

When it comes to business disputes -- despite the urge by some litigants to want to defeat the other side (even destroy them) -- the relationship between parties can be more valuable and lucrative than "winning" the conflict.

Drawing on his decade on Florida's 11th Circuit bench and nearly 30 years in commercial litigation, Judge Alan Fine (ret.) of Private Resolutions offers a refreshing perspective on resolving disputes strategically and wisely, rather than destructively and emotionally.

The distinction between dispute resolution mechanisms forms the backbone of our discussion. Judge Fine discusses options available to businesses in conflict, from traditional litigation to mediation, arbitration, and the increasingly popular "private judging" programs now available in at least 30 states. He calls that last option "concierge justice." It is where parties select their own judge, secure expedited hearings, and avoid the unpredictability and inefficiency of overcrowded court calendars.

He outlines key differences between these approaches, particularly in confidentiality, efficiency, and the appeals process. Judge Fine stresses that the choice should align with the parties' objectives—especially if preserving the business relationship is a priority.

Judge Fine shared a real-world example of two business partners who faced a multimillion-dollar disagreement but recognized their partnership's value meant more than who won in court. By choosing a streamlined arbitration process, they resolved their conflict in just eight hours spread over two days, received a prompt ruling, and continued their successful business relationship without missing a beat.

Listen now to discover how strategic conflict resolution can protect your most valuable business partnerships while still addressing legitimate disagreements effectively.

Tom Hagy
Host
Emerging Litigation Podcast
Contact: Editor@LitigationConferences.com
Visit LitigationConferences.com

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

Insurance. It’s something we all pay for and hope we never need. But behind the scenes, it’s a world of evolving risks, high-stakes litigation, and technology that’s changing faster than the laws that govern it.

In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, I interview Jeremy Moseley, partner at Spencer Fane in Denver, Colorado. Jeremy defends mass and class actions involving insurance regulations, healthcare, consumer products, and more. He’s seen firsthand how automation, AI, and climate change are presenting new risks — and he’s here to share what’s coming next.

We talk about how technology that makes claims handling faster and easier is now fueling lawsuits. How customized policies, while great for consumers, can leave dangerous gaps. And how juries today are awarding damages that would’ve seemed outrageous just a few years ago.

Jeremy explains “social inflation” and the rise of thermonuclear verdicts—why $20 million doesn’t sound like much anymore, and how insurers can push back with reality-based defense strategies. He also dives into climate change, shifting storm patterns, and how unprepared infrastructure are creating new underwriting challenges.

And yes, we talk about Dr. Evil, and Ecclesiastes, and my horse Jefferson from a dude ranch vacation in Colorado.

This episode is a warning, a guide, and a conversation about the future of insurance litigation. Jeremy’s insights are sharp, timely, and grounded in real-world experience. If you work in insurance, law, or just want to understand how emerging risks are reshaping the world around us, this one’s for you.

Thanks to Jeremy Moseley for joining us.

Tom Hagy
Host, The Emerging Litigation Podcast

💬 Have thoughts or want to contribute to future episodes? Email: Editor@LitigationConferences.com

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

What are the implications of recent court decisions for artificial intelligence systems trained on copyrighted materials?

In this episode I get to speak with two repeat veteran guests of the podcast about two important cases dealing with fair use analysis in the context of large language model training.

Here are a couple of highlights:

• Courts found AI training to be "transformative use" because the process changes the works significantly through tokenization and processing.
• Judges distinguished between legally obtained training data (dismissed claims) and pirated training data (allowed claims to proceed).
• Both judges signaled that if plaintiffs had focused on AI outputs reproducing substantial portions of their works, outcomes might have been different.
• The transformative nature of AI training was deemed significant enough to qualify as fair use even for commercial enterprises
• One judge noted that if copyrighted works are essential for training models worth "billions, if not trillions," developers must find ways to compensate copyright holders.

About Our Guests

Ryan Phelan and Tiffany Gehrke are recognized thought leaders in emerging technology law and artificial intelligence. Both are partners at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP and returning guests on the Emerging Litigation Podcast.

Ryan has written extensively on digital innovation, including intellectual property issues related to cutting-edge AI systems. He is the moderator of PatentNext, a blog focused on patent and IP law for next-generation technologies. We based our discussion on his excellent article about copyright law meeting AI, titled U.S. District Court Issues First Decisions on AI Model Development and Copyright Fair Use. Ryan holds a J.D. from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and an MBA from Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management.

Tiffany is known for her expertise in intellectual property and technology policy, and for advocating balanced, ethical approaches to AI regulation. She chairs Marshall Gerstein’s Trademarks and Copyrights Practice. Before entering law, she worked as a software engineer. Tiffany earned her J.D. from Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

Together, they bring deep practical insight and academic rigor to the evolving legal landscape surrounding artificial intelligence.

I appreciate them returning to the podcast and sharing what they know!

Tom Hagy
Host
Emerging Litigation Pocast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

You say you want a deposition?

Plaintiff attorneys often request and are sometimes successful in deposing corporate CEOs and other chief executives. But there are many times when defense attorneys want to spare the C-suite from what can be high-risk and time-consuming exercises for someone whose knowledge or expertise may have little or nothing to do with the facts and issues in a case.

In this episode, I talk with Rachel M. Lary, a litigator with a nationwide practice at Lightfoot, Franklin & White, about the Apex Doctrine—a legal principle that protects high-ranking executives from being deposed unless certain conditions are met. Rachel explains how courts weigh an executive’s actual knowledge of a case, the availability of less intrusive discovery, and how judges have ruled on the doctrine around the country. (Her firm's technologist, Sam McAllister, created an interactive map showing state-by-state treatment of the Apex Doctrine. We interviewed Sam in 2023.)

Listen in and you will see why Fortune 500 companies rely on Rachel to represent them as national litigation counsel. I appreciate her sharing her insights on the podcast. I also appreciate that Rachel agreed to give a video tour of her remarkably neat office, which is what she thought I requested. I have a degree in communication, and maybe I should brush up. Rachel is both knowledgeable and a good sport.

As always, if you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

If you have comments or want to get involved in one of our projects, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

How do you know if your witness is credible? Is your evidence compelling—or confusing? And will a jury really care about those bright orange socks?

In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, trial attorney and focus group consultant Elizabeth Larrick joins me to explain how remote focus groups are changing the way lawyers prepare for trial. Elizabeth shares what she’s learned from conducting over 1,000 Zoom focus groups—insights on testing case narratives, assessing witness credibility, refining trial strategy, and even improving jury selection.

You’ll hear how quick, targeted virtual sessions help identify blind spots, shape more persuasive stories, and prevent courtroom surprises—while also giving lawyers valuable practice engaging with real people before trial.

Plus: What happens when jurors prefer the disheveled guy over the polished one? Why you should probably rethink those flashy shoes? And why, sometimes, less (facial expression) is more.

Thanks to Elizabeth for sharing her expertise—and her sharp eye for socks.

If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

As political forces target Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, companies reassessing their DEI strategies must tread carefully—because, while the landscape has shifted, employment discrimination law has not.

Joining me on the Emerging Litigation Podcast is employment law attorney Patice L. Holland, a Principal at WoodsRogers in Roanoke, Va. Patice shares with me what companies need to know as they reassess their DEI initiatives in light of President Trump's recent executive orders and increasing public and political pressure.

Patice explains that while the administration has moved to eliminate disparate impact liability and deprioritize federal enforcement, core legal protections under Title VII and state laws remain fully intact. Employers—especially federal contractors—face complex new certification requirements and exposure to potential False Claims Act liability, while private businesses must weigh operational risk, employee morale, and public perception in their decisions.

We also examine the ripple effects across corporate America—from Costco and Apple, which continue to be invested in DEI, to Target and Amazon, which scaled back initiatives and faced backlash. Patice suggests practical considerations for navigating any changes, emphasizing clear communication, leadership buy-in, and careful risk assessment.

Listen in as she explains the real impact and power of the executive orders, how obligations differ for government contractors and private companies, the legal and strategic risks of altering DEI policies, and the real-world business consequences of staying the course—or stepping back.

💬 Have thoughts or want to contribute to future episodes? Email: Editor@LitigationConferences.com

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

Southern California’s wildfire season has turned into a year-round crisis, and with it comes a surge in litigation. On this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, we explore the aftermath of the devastating January 2025 wildfires, including the high-profile Eaton and Palisades fires, and the complex legal battles now unfolding.

My guest, Ed Diab, is a founding partner of Diab Chambers LLP, a boutique law firm with a sharp focus on wildfire litigation. Ed and his team have worked alongside national firm Baron & Budd to represent over 100 public entities in wildfire cases dating back to 2015. His deep experience in this area, combined with an insider’s perspective on utility liability, makes him uniquely qualified to discuss the challenges and strategies involved in these high-stakes cases.

As of early 2025, more than 100 cases have been filed against utilities like Southern California Edison, with public entities, individuals, and insurance carriers seeking damages for widespread destruction. In this conversation, Ed breaks down the causes of these fires, the legal strategies in play, and the uphill battle plaintiffs face when going up against major power utilities.

Ed walks us through California’s unique inverse condemnation doctrine, negligence claims, and how utility companies defend themselves—challenging liability, infrastructure management, and fire prevention efforts. We also discuss the challenges of evidence preservation, particularly when transmission towers remain critical to the state’s power grid.

From the legal wrangling over the Eaton Fire to the complexities of the Palisades rekindle, Ed shares the latest developments and what litigators should expect moving forward. His insight into the coordination between local and national firms and how they’ve successfully pursued wildfire claims makes this a must-listen episode for anyone following disaster-related litigation.

🎧 Tune in for insights on:
✅ Common causes of wildfire litigation and liability determination
✅ How plaintiffs build cases against utilities through expert investigations
✅ Strategic use of inverse condemnation and negligence claims
✅ Key defenses raised by utilities and how plaintiffs respond
✅ The current status of major wildfire cases and emerging litigation trends

If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

Whopping jury verdicts from 2024 illustrate why trial teams sometimes include appellate counsel, because including them -- even as you prepare to defend a high stakes case at trial -- can improve your chances on appeal should a jury hand you a half-billion-dollar verdict.

But what functions do appellate attorneys perform at trial? Are they listening for errors or proactively guiding trial counsel? Do they ever address the court or sit quietly at the defense table or maybe in the back row?

To answer these questions and more is Jeffrey P. Doss, a partner in the White-Collar Criminal Defense & Corporate Investigations practice group at Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC, a civil defense litigation firm. Jeff has served as appellate counsel for an automobile manufacturer for 10 years. In this role, he has supported trial teams pre-trial, at trial, and post-verdict through appeal. Jeff has developed and implemented strategies to address a range of legal issues, from jury selection errors to expert exclusions, evidentiary objections, and post-verdict challenges to punitive damages awards.

Thanks to Jeff for taking the time to share his insights on this, and for entertaining my curiosity about the efficacy of beards in the practice of law.

If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

The horrific wildfires unleashing carnage in Southern California underscore the need for reliable insurance protection both for businesses and homeowners.As of Jan. 16, 2025, these wildfires have scorched more than 60 square miles, claimed at least 25 lives, and left 26 people missing. With more than 12,000 structures destroyed and tens of thousands displaced, the economic impact is estimated between $135 billion and $150 billion.

On a new episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, we discuss the types of damages and losses typically covered under homeowner and commercial property insurance policies, policy limitations, navigating the claims process, and business interruption coverage. We also discuss a Jan. 10, 2025, ruling out of the Northern District of California in Bottega v. National Surety which held in a business interruption case that whether smoke damage caused the suspension of operations at the policyholders’ businesses is a genuine issue of fact.

My guests are all from the long-time insurance recovery law firm of Anderson Kill. Dennis Artese is a shareholder in the New York office and is chair of the firm’s Climate Change and Disaster Recovery practice group. Marshall Gilinsky is a shareholder the firm’s Boston office and practices in the firm’s Insurance Recovery and Commercial Litigation groups, as well as its Restaurant, Retail & Hospitality Group. Joshua Gold is a shareholder in the New York office. He chairs the Cyber Insurance Recovery Group and co-chairs the Marine Cargo Insurance Group. He also handles directors and officers insurance and business income/property insurance matters.

If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

NFTs – or non-fungible tokens – have taken the digital world by storm – or perhaps just a downloadable picture of a storm – promising to revolutionize not only the way we perceive, protect, purchase, and own digital assets, but how we might even buy a house or other assets in the real world.These unique digital certificates, recorded on a blockchain, exploded onto the scene in post-pandemic 2021 with record-breaking sales and widespread media coverage. One of the most amazing examples is "The Merge" by the anonymous artist Pak, which sold for a staggering $91.8 million.

The Bored Ape Yacht Club is another fascinating story. This collection of 10,000 unique, cartoonish apes, each with its own distinct features, became incredibly popular in 2021. Owning a Bored Ape would become a status symbol in the NFT community.

However, the meteoric rise of NFTs was followed by a significant downturn, leading many to question the future of NFTs. While the initial hype and astronomical prices may have subsided, the underlying technology and potential of NFTs remain promising.

For insights into this evolving landscape, listen to my conversation with Cameron Pick of Marshall Gerstein. An experienced expert in intellectual property law with a focus on emerging technologies, Cameron advises clients on a range of legal issues related to NFTs, blockchain, and cryptocurrency. He holds a J.D. from Duke University School of Law and a B.S. with honors in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

As if the rocketing evolution of technology isn't presenting enough challenges to inventors under patent law, the Supreme Court has done its part, too.

I just finished reading Graham Moore's novel "The Last Days of Night," where titans of the late 1800s and early 1990s Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, and Nikola Tesla "clashed with sparks flying over AC and DC electrical power systems," a corny description suggested by my AI editor.

Having read the book, it was fun to speak with modern day attorney Ryan N. Phelan of modern day Marshall Gerstein. Listen as this seasoned patent attorney walks me through:

• The intricate landscape of patent eligibility in the United States.
• Twin patent law decisions from the Supreme Court -- Mayo and Alice (the name of a singer-songwriter group if I ever heard one, or a sandwich shop).
• The proposed Patent Eligibility Restoration Act and how -- if passed -- it could unlock new opportunities for innovation amid the challenges posed by judicial exceptions.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand ofCritical Legal Content(a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers)and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
Follow us on LinkedIn
Subscribe on your favorite platform!

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

Once again we dive into one of the hottest topics in environmental law right now: PFAS. Specifically, our guest talks about the EPA’s new PFAS Safe Drinking Water Final Rule, which mandates acceptable levels of PFAS in public water systems.

This episode is based on a CLE webinar our guest recorded for HB Litigation a couple months back. Since then, if you’ve been following PFAS developments, you know pushback on the rule is coming from several directions, as our guest predicted. Industry groups, chemical manufacturers, and water utilities alike are challenging the rule as, among other things, arbitrary and capricious and exceeding the EPA’s authority. Water utilities are especially concerned about compliance costs.

On the technical side, there is debate over whether current technology can even reliably detect PFAS at the levels EPA seeks. Also raised are the complexities associated with increased monitoring and lab testing.

Our guest is John P. Gardella, whose 2024 CLE webinar on the subject explored the PFAS litigation landscape, from multidistrict and class action lawsuits to medical monitoring and greenwashing claims. He talks about federal and state regulations that are driving litigation, and offers an outlook for what may be in store in the next few years.

A leading voice in PFAS litigation and recognized thought leader, John is a Shareholder at CMBG3 Law, known for his expertise in environmental and toxic tort litigation. A veteran of more than 75 trials, John chairs the firm’s PFAS, Environmental, Risk Management & Consulting, and ESG practice groups.

This episode comprises audio from John's excellent webinar. If you are interested in the CLE version of the episode, look for it on the West LegalEdcenter. Go to our page to learn more and to use our partner link.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand ofCritical Legal Content(a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers)and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

Soon after emergency response teams scramble into action to address chemical fires, explosions, or other toxic events, attorneys begin gathering and analyzing information either to mitigate corporate risk or to seek remedies for anyone impacted by such an event.

Listen to my interview with Edgar C. "Ed" Gentle III and Katherine "Kip" Benson of Gentle, Turner & Benson LLC, about legal activity that goes on in the immediate aftermath of a toxic event, using as a backdrop the recent chemical plant disaster that forced 17,000 Conyers, Georgia, residents to evacuate and many more to shelter in place as a toxic plume hung stubbornly over the homes of as many as 100,000 residents. Ed and Kip draw on their deep experience resolving this type of litigation -- including the settlement of a 20-year-old disaster at the same location -- to discuss the flurry of activity that unfolds at law firms and inside legal departments within hours of a disaster. They also share the impact on such cases of a recent $600 million court-approved settlement of claims that followed the highly publicized toxic train derailment that occurred in East Palestine, Ohio, in early 2023.

This is Ed Gentle's second appearance on the podcast. He spoke with me on Episode 48 titled Medical Monitoring for Modern Times. He was the featured speaker on that subject for an HB CLE webinar distributed on the West LegalEdcenter, then Kip Benson joined him for an advanced level webinar on the Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy. You can download his articleon the subject for free as published in the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand ofCritical Legal Content(a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers)and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, i

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

People. We’re complicated creatures. We can be compassionate. We can fall in love. Sometimes we don’t care for each other, but here we are.

Also, some people cross the lines of propriety, causing emotional or even physical harm to others on our teams, whether we work with them, for them, or whether we supervise them. And sometimes we work more than regular hours, either because we’re directed to or because we’re willing to do what it takes to help our teams succeed. The workplace can be a labyrinth of tricky situations, and employers need to know how to make sure workers are able to navigate them smoothly, appropriately, and within changing laws and regulations.

Our guest is Leah M. Stiegler, aprincipal attorney at Woods Rogers, who comes to the podcast with extensive experience across a broad spectrum of employment law matters. Leah is a trusted advisor to employers, providing guidance on complex personnel issues, performance management challenges, and fostering a positive work culture. Leah earned her J.D. from University of Richmond School of Law, cum laude, Order of the Coif, and her B.A. and B.S. degrees from Virginia Tech, summa cum laude.

Listen as Leah shares practical solutions for a variety of challenges, like love at work, pregnancy at work, discord at work, harassment at work, and working overtime. She talks about gender identity protections, implicit biases, and microaggressions, plus conducting administrative investigations, and ideas to mitigate risk, stay out of court, and maintain a positive work environment.

Thanks to Leah for sharing her insights on issues that arise where many of us spend most of our waking hours – at work! Her enthusiasm and passion for this work will be obvious to anyone who listens. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did producing it.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation,a brand ofCritical Legal Content(a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers)and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press,Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
Follow us on LinkedIn
Subscribe on your fa

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

View Details

The United Nations and World Economic Forum calculates that the cost of corporate corruption globally is $5 trillion a year, or 5% of the world’s 2022 GDP.

Corruption can hamper economic growth by discouraging investment, increasing transaction costs, and distorting market competition. It can perpetuate poverty by diverting resources away from essential services and benefiting the wealthy and powerful. It can undermine democratic institutions and erode public trust in governments. It can hinder sustainable development by diverting resources away from essential infrastructure and social services.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or the FCPA – the government’s leading weapon in this global war on corporate crime – has far-reaching implications for companies engaged in international business. For those who violate it the consequences can be severe. And with the recent addition of the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA), the federal government has even more to work with.

I had the pleasure of learning more about this fascinating and complex area of the law by speaking with two attorneys with Reed Smith who practice in the firm’s Global Regulatory Enforcement Group.

Mark E. Biniisa former federal and state prosecutor in New York, has led multiple multi-year cross-border investigations of corporations and individuals and has particular experience in investigations involving potential Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations. As a prosecutor, he worked closely and in parallel with many domestic and foreign law enforcement agencies and regulators, including the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority and Brazil’s Ministerio Publico Federal.

Thomas H. Suddath, Jr., is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia, has extensive experience conducting international and domestic internal investigations and frequently counsels companies on compliance and voluntary disclosure issues related to the FCPA. He has handled FCPA and other internal investigations in many countries including Russia, Poland, Turkey, Greece, Hungary, Czech Republic, Mexico and Colombia.

Thanks to Mark and Tom for sharing their insights based on decades of experience.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand ofCritical Legal Content(a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers)and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageFollow us on LinkedIn Subscribe on your favorite platform.

View Details

The DOJ’s annual report for 2023 revealed that the agency’s Health Care Fraud Unit was its busiest criminal enforcement section, responsible for convicting more than $3.8 billion in False Claims Act and whistleblower claims. There has reportedly been an uptick in whistleblower work among law firms and a record number of whistleblower cases. Still, some healthcare providers and hospital systems tend to hide their heads in their scrubs after being served.

Today we’re going to talk about how whistleblower cases come about, the benefits of rewarding whistleblowers, how things are done differently outside the U.S., what’s driving the acceleration of this area of law, and best practices when your company is served.

Drawing on his background as both public servant and private practitioner, my guest, Justin M. Lugar, counsel with WoodsRogers in Roanoke, Virginia, is going to walk through these issues and others.

Justin represents clients in all types of government investigations. He’s obviously well suited for the task. Prior to WoodsRogers he was Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Virginia, where he led the Affirmative Civil Enforcement team managing dozens of fraud investigations, many of which had parallel criminal investigations under the False Claims Act and related state statutes.

Justin served as the Department of Justice’s Civil Health Care Fraud Coordinator, Affirmative Civil Enforcement Coordinator, and Civil Rights Coordinator for the Western District of Virginia. Justin was recently recognized by the Drug Enforcement Agency for his efforts enforcing the Controlled Substances Act, leading to the largest fine assessed against a hospital system in the United States at the time. 

When he was a federal prosecutor, Justin led investigations involving numerous state and federal agency partners, from the FBI to the IRS to the Department of Energy to the FDA and the Defense Department.

Justin started his career at a major global firm in London, conducting international investigations around the globe. But my favorite part of his background is – when he was a religious studies major in college – he lived at a Tibetan Buddhist Monastery in Kathmandu, Nepal. Not to brag, but I just returned from Vermont.

There is more to Justin’s background, like his LLM in international dispute resolution, which he earned at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, his J.D. from Liberty University School of Law, and his B.A. from the University of Virginia.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand ofCritical Legal Content(a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers)and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageFollow us on LinkedIn Subscribe on your favorite platform.

View Details

How secure is our nation's critical infrastructure? One recent event serves as a cautionary tale. In this episode, we tackle this pressing question in the context of cybersecurity. We'll address President Biden's recent National Security Memorandum on Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, and its implications for sectors like energy, water, and transportation.

Our guest, Elizabeth Burgin Waller, from Virginia's WoodsRogers law firm, brings her extensive knowledge in privacy and cybersecurity law to the discussion.

Join us as we discuss ransomware as a service, shedding light on its franchise-like model and the significant challenges in tracking and prosecuting these cybercriminals, especially those hiding in countries like Russia. We discuss the recent takedown of the LockBit ransomware gang under Operation Kronos, and the persistent and growing complications of IoT security.

CrowdStrike's recent software glitch, while not a malicious attack, serves as a stark reminder of the importance of testing and transparency around cyber incidents, and the vulnerability of the systems that drive critical industries. Tune in for expert insights and reflections on the evolving regulatory landscape and what it means for mitigating risk in the Digital Age.

Beth is Principal and Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Practice Chair at WoodsRogers. In addition to a J.D. from William and Mary School of Law, she is certified as a Privacy Law Specialist by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), which is accredited by the American Bar Association, a Certified Information Privacy Professional with expertise in both U.S. and European law (CIPP/US & CIPP/E), and a Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM), also from the IAPP. Beth also graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in creative writing, so maybe I should have let her write the show notes.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand ofCritical Legal Content(a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers)and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageFollow us on LinkedIn Subscribe on your favorite platform.

View Details

Listen as intellectual property attorneys Tiffany Gehrke and Kelley Gordon of Marshall Gerstein in Chicago share their insights into three matters relevant anyone watching copyright and trademark law, or anyone fond of branded t-shirts and fancy French beverages.

I talk to Tiffany Gehrke about two cases. One isVidal v. Elster, better known as the “TRUMP TOO SMALL” case. Just decided by the Supreme Court, this deals with whether a mark containing criticism of a government official or public figure – which is barred by the “names clause” of the Lanham Act – violates free speech. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which Tiffany outlines.

The other case is Penn State v. Vintage Brands, which is pending in Pennsylvania federal court and is expected to have wide-reaching implications for retailers and brand owners alike. Vintage Brand uses Penn State’s registered Nittany Lions trademarks on t-shirts, hats, and other goods, and argues that use of the trademarks constitute a defensible “ornamental use.” We shall see!

Finally, I ask Kelley Gordon for her take on a dispute between a popular Instagram influencer, Lauren Holifield, and champagne brand Veuve Clicquot. Holifield temporarily and surprisingly lost her IG account after Veuve Clicquot raised trademark infringement concerns on three of Holifield's videos. This was a big deal for her. She was earning six figures. OMG. Hear what Kelley has to say.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageFollow us on LinkedIn Subscribe on your favorite platform.

View Details

Everyone knows that price fixing is against the law, chiefly Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Competitors may not collude, i.e., agree, to keep prices where they want them, but there are relatively new pricing platforms that some companies maintain take them out of the equation, so they do not have to share private information directly with competitors. Instead, they claim, they feed their data to a third-party which uses algorithms to come up with pricing for these competitors based on data they all contribute. The subject has been getting a lot of attention as cases mount against a company called RealPage, a firm that provides shared pricing services for landlords. The company faces dozens of suits in multidistrict litigation and has also captured the attention of federal antitrust law enforcers. But they are not the only company finding themselves in litigation.

As our guest recently wrote: “When pricing algorithms are used by individual firms, such as airlines, e-commerce platforms, ride-share and room-share companies, stock traders, and others, there are unlikely to be anti-competitive consequences. It is when market competitors avail themselves of the same algorithmic program or service that the specter of unlawful collusion arises.” That risk increases as markets become more concentrated, he says.

He is Jonathan Rubin, Partner and Co-Founder of MoginRubin LLP, a widely recognized competition law attorney, economist, and commentator who has presented at antitrust conferences in the United States and Europe, testified before several congressional committees, and before the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission.

“The fact that these services employ an algorithm is not central to what's going on in this scenario,” he told me, “because what's important is the conduct of the businesspeople involved.”

Listen to my interview with Jonathan Rubin as we discusswhat algorithmic or software-facilitated pricing is, what the law says about price collusion, how this new pricing mechanism violates that law, and recent developments in litigation.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageFollow us on LinkedIn Subscribe on your favorite platform.

View Details

Companies are grappling with how to market the eco-friendly, people friendly, and animal friendly characteristics of their products and services, while also not getting in trouble with the law. Some have learned this the hard way. Some have wisely consulted experts. (That's foreshadowing.)

ESG – or Environmental, Social and Governance – reporting and so-called greenwashing litigation have implications for a wide range of stakeholders. Companies face significant financial and reputational risks, while investors, regulators, advocacy groups, and consumers all have an interest in ensuring the accuracy and transparency of ESG information.

Last year the SEC adopted amendments to the Investment Company Act with the “Names Rule,” which addresses fund names that are likely to mislead investors about a fund’s investments and risks.

On the consumer side, the FTC has been on the case as it stalks misleading advertising claims. Violations have real consequences. In 2022 the FTC reached multimillion dollar settlements with store chains Kohl’s and Walmart over claims that certain products were eco-friendly and made from bamboo, when they were really made from rayon.

More recently, a class action was filed in federal court in New York over the "carbon neutral" branding on bottled water. But there are some important court decisions our guest wants to know about, involving shoemaker AllBirds and beauty products company Sephora.

She is Ramya Ravishankar, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary of the HowGood company, an independent research firm that helps the world’s largest food brands meet their sustainability commitments. Ramya is a former environmental biologist turned attorney who is – as you will soon hear -- passionate about the intersection of food and sustainability. Previously, Ramya was Associate General Counsel at Bowery Farming – producer of pesticide free lettuce, other leafy foods and herbs. Before that she was a regulatory enforcement associate at Skadden Arps. Ramya earned her J.D. from Columbia Law School in New York and a B.S. from Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada.

Enjoy the interview!

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageFollow us on LinkedIn Subscribe on your favorite platform.

View Details

In this episode we talk about litigation automation, and another case in which innovators are using artificial intelligence to transform legal operations.

We also speak with our guest about his transformation from a litigator to a tech entrepreneur, and how the company he co-founded is using modern tools to do in minutes what used to take hours. These tasks include responding to demand letters, complaints, and discovery requests, and executing matter profiling and data analytics, all of which are traditionally rote and repetitive and time-consuming undertakings.

He is James M. Lee, co-founder and CEO of LegalMation. James conceived the idea behind LegalMation -- which is to leverage the power of generative artificial intelligence to transform litigation and dispute resolution -- while managing a litigation boutique. An experienced and recognized litigator and trial attorney, James received his J.D. from Stanford Law School.

Also joining me, I’m pleased to say, is the ever-inquisitive and always attentive Sara Lord, legal analytics professional extraordinaire, who raised questions from the litigator's perspective.

I hope you enjoy the conversation!

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageFollow us on LinkedIn Subscribe on your favorite platform.

View Details

Biometric data is big business. It many cases it even helps make our lives better. It also presents significant risks for a variety of parties, in addition to those of us who surrender our data. Companies collecting, storing, utilizing, and monetizing the data face penalties and litigation bolstered by the increasing number of states enacting biometric information privacy acts, or BIPAs, the first of which was in Illinois.

Biometric information -- fingerprints, facial and retinal scans, and DNA -- it's all used in many ways we don’t even think about, like building security, banking access and online payments, smartphone access, patient identification in healthcare, employee tracking, law enforcement, air travel security and hotel check-ins, consumer tracking and customer experience analysis, border security, validating recipients of government welfare benefits, identifying students taking exams, and more.

I just finished hosting a webinar titled “Litigation After Biometric Privacy Law Violations” with attorneys John M. Leonard and Cort T. Malone of Anderson Kill. They spoke extensively about the state of biometric privacy litigation, the regulatory landscape, insurance coverage considerations, and recent rulings. They're both shareholders at Anderson Kill and they are both graduates of the Fordham University School of Law.

John M. Leonard is co-chair of the firm's biometric liability group. He has recovered millions of dollars for policyholders in a full spectrum of insurance coverage matters, including disputes over business interruption, D&O and E&O, defense and indemnity, general liability losses, and environmental liability.

Cort T. Malone, chair of the firm's Biometric Liability Insurance Recovery Group, is an experienced litigator who focuses on insurance coverage litigation and dispute resolution, with an emphasis on commercial general liability insurance, cyber insurance, employment practices insurance, advertising injury, D&O, E&O, and property insurance. He's also a member of the firm's practice groups relating to restaurant, retail and hospitality; environmental law; cyber insurance recovery; and COVID litigation.

Following the webinar (coming soon to the West LegalEdcenter), Cort and John stuck around to answer some of my questions about a couple of recent cases I thought illustrated the types of underlying and coverage matters we’re seeing out there.

I hope you enjoy it.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageFollow us on LinkedIn Subscribe on your favorite platform.

View Details

This episode is dedicated to Mental Health Awareness Month -- May 2024 -- in which we explore some of the keys to achieving wellbeing as a human litigator.Lawyers contemplate suicide at "an exceedingly high rate." Whereas 4.2% of adults have reported contemplating suicide, that figure is 10-12% among lawyers. According to a study published by MDPI, lawyers are prone to mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. "[O]ur findings suggest the profile of a lawyer with the highest risk for suicide is a lonely or socially isolated male with a high level of unmanageable stress, who is overly committed to their work, and may have a history of mental health problems." Released in 2023, the authors of the study -- Stressed, Lonely, and Overcommitted: Predictors of Lawyer Suicide Risk (Krill, Thomas, Kramer, Degeneffe, and Anker) -- say there is a need for interventions to address these risks, including "education, resources, and support for lawyers to better manage their workload, modifying work demands and expectations, and promoting a culture of openness and support within law firms."

With that as a backdrop, guest host and legal analytics professional Sara Lord interviews success coach and former litigator Gary Miles about the professional dissatisfaction litigators experience when the pursuit of fulfillment clashes with high-stress demands -- from burnout to depression to imposter syndrome. Explore practical strategies for managing anxiety and embracing mindfulness, like reframing your thoughts, celebrating even small achievements, identifying trusted colleagues and mentors, the importance of rest, and reaching out for help. Learn some of the wisdom Gary imparts via his counseling services.

Feeling emotionally crisp? “There is always a solution. Always,” Gary says.

Need Immediate Help? If you are in the U.S. and experiencing thoughts of suicide, call or text the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline at 988 or IMAlive at 1-800-784-2433. In the UK and Ireland – Call Samaritans UK at 116 123; in Australia – Call Lifeline Australia at 13 11 14; in other countries – Visit IASP or Suicide.org to find a helpline in your country.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page

View Details

The art and science of forecasting litigation outcomes just got a lot more sciencey.

Years of immersion in complex business disputes is bound to shine a light on problems begging for solutions. In this case, our guest observed the laborious and ineffective slog that is trying to forecast how long a case will take, how much it might cost, which jurisdiction will treat it with kindness, or how a judge might rule on a motion for summary judgment.

These are some of the critical questions our guest set out to address through the use of technology and assessment of massive data sets. He is Dan Rabinowitz, Co-Founder and CEO of Pre/Dicta, a six-year-old company that provides litigation prediction and forecasting services. Before Pre/Dicta, Dan was an attorney in Sidley Austin LLP’s Supreme Court and Appellate Group and the firm’s Mass Tort Litigation Group. Later, he served as trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice, general counsel to a data science company, and associate general counsel, chief privacy officer, and director of fraud analytics for WellPoint Military Care.

Listen to what Dan has to say about how the power of technology is going to make predicting litigation as commonplace as predicting the weather. He also shares insights into a study Pre/Dicta conducted that tested assumptions about judges based on their political affiliations.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page

View Details

Our Legal Tech Host Sara Lord speaks with data scientist and eDiscovery expert Lenora Gray of Redgrave Data.Discovery is a staple in any litigation practice, and it has been transformed by technology assisted review tools – or TAR. eDiscovery has developed into its own specialty – with eDiscovery experts on staff who know all there is to know about the technology, standards, processes, and practices.

But every litigator needs to understand how eDiscovery tools work. They should be able to answer questions around the approach being used, why that approach was chosen, reliability of the assisted review, human oversight implemented, and more.

This, like many areas of law, is filled with acronyms, specialized terminology, and a changing landscape – from technology developments to evolving legal standards to ethics competency issues. But because so much of the work is done by a technology vendor that has specialized tools, it can feel like your review is based on blind faith and that finding the pieces to support your case requires you to rely on dumb luck.

Can we do more than pray to the document gods? Listen as Sara Lord interviews Lenora Gray, Data Scientist at Redgrave Data.

Lenora Gray is an eDiscovery expert and data scientist who is skilled in auditing and evaluating eDiscovery systems. In her role as data scientist at Redgrave Data, she designs and analyzes structured and unstructured data sets, builds predictive models for use in TAR workflows, implements automation solutions, and develops custom software. Prior to joining Redgrave, she spent 12 years as a paralegal, a role in which she managed discovery teams. Lenora is currently pursuing her M.S. in data science from John Hopkins University and earned a B.S. in computer science from Florida Atlantic University.

I welcome back Sara Lord as legal tech guest host for the Emerging Litigation Podcast. A former practicing attorney with a decade of experience in data analytics, Sara applies her time at law firms and companies to explore and address the cultural and practical barriers to diversity in law, supporting value-creation through legal operations and client-first business-oriented practices. In her recent work as Managing Director of Legal Metrics, she led a team of experts focused on providing the tools to support data-driven decision making in legal operations and closer collaboration between law firms and their clients through automation and standardization of industry metrics. Sara earned her J.D. from New York University School of Law.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page

View Details

Tom Hagy interviews jury and trial expert Tara Trask about picking juries in an age of misinformation, general distrust, tribalism, unleashed social media warriors, flamers, and propagandists, and unorthodox legal strategies that seem to unfold on a daily basis. All of these conditions began to accelerate in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election in which Donald Trump prevailed over Hillary Clinton, continued to heat up in Trump's race against then-candidate Joe Biden, culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capital, and continues to blot out the sun amid civil and criminal actions against the former president and some of his supporters and colleagues as the 2024 election roars at us like a freight train. In this episode we ask: How does what some have called a Cold Civil War affect our ability to listen and decide objectively when presented with arguments and evidence in court? How much increased bias, skepticism, and hostility for institutions -- from courts to corporations to witnesses -- do people carry into the jury box?

Tara Trask is a nationally recognized author and lecturer on juror psychology and other trial science topics. As President of Trask Consulting, a boutique litigation strategy, jury research and trial consulting firm with offices in San Francisco, Houston and New York, Tara focuses on civil litigation with an emphasis on complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property, antitrust, securities, breach of contract, and fraud. She has assisted plaintiffs and defendants in products liability, insurance, and oil and gas matters, and has extensive experience assisting institutions and individuals in matters involving regulatory enforcement and white-collar defense.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page

View Details

“Of all the opportunities legal operations teams might identify to save time, money, and resources while potentially improving quality, Robotic Process Automation may currently offer the biggest and most immediate opportunities.”

That is from the forthcoming book, "Legal Operations in the Age of AI and Data," specifically the “Automation in Legal Departments” chapter written by Tara Emory, Wilzette Louis and Adam Poeppelmeier of Redgrave Data, and Kassie Burns of King & Spalding. (Available for pre-order now from Globe Law & Business.)

Automating repetitive tasks and workflows required to effectively advance litigation frees litigators and support teams to focus on “strategic, analytical, and high-value work,” say the authors. Boosted by AI technology, like natural language processing, these tools can conduct data extraction and analysis from volumes of documents, create new documents, summarize documents, or initiate document drafting.

How can litigators best leverage these capabilities?

Listen as our first-time guest host Sara Lord interviews Redgrave Data's Tara Emory, SVP, Legal AI Strategy, and Wilzette Louis, Director of Client Solutions.

Tara is a highly regarded legal industry executive and recognized expert in legal AI, ediscovery, information governance operations, and consulting. She plays a leadership role in The Sedona Conference and was contracted to serve as eDiscovery Lead on the House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. Tara holds a JD and LLM in International and Comparative Law from Duke University School of Law.

Wilzette is an ediscovery expert and advisor focused on approaches for using technology and workflows to maximize effectiveness, efficiency, and overall client satisfaction. Wilzette has a BS in computer science from the New York Institute of Technology.

I welcome as guest host for the podcast Sara Lord, a former practicing attorney with a decade of experience in data analytics. Sara applies her talents in large and small law firms and businesses to explore and address the cultural and practical barriers to diversity in law, and client-first business-oriented practices. As Managing Director of Legal Metrics, she leads a team of experts focused on providing the tools to support data-driven decision making in legal operations and closer collaboration between law firms and their clients through automation and standardization of industry metrics. Sara earned her J.D. from New York University School of Law.

Listen as Sara speaks with Tara and Wilzette about the game-changing potential of robotic process automation and AI, and how these are not just futuristic concepts but practical solutions to today's legal challenges.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page

View Details

Surveys abound on artificial intelligence and the law – many of them by companies bringing the technology into their products for attorneys.

One survey says three quarters of lawyers expect AI to be integrated into their legal practices in the near term. Half say they expect it will boost productivity, half feel it will be transformative, while nine out of ten attorneys expressed concerns about artificial intelligence applications and attendant ethical issues.

In an article she wrote for Above the Law, you’re going to hear even more about generative artificial intelligence in the coming months, “especially” she says, “as legal technology companies ramp up their generative ai releases.” She forecasts “a rapid, exponential uptick in the number of new GAI tools for legal professionals.” And, as she reminded me, litigators have an ethical duty of technology competence.

Nicole "Niki" Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and is senior director of subject matter expertise and external education at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of cloud computing for lawyers and is co-author of social media for lawyers: the next frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for abajournal.com and Above the Law; has authored hundreds of articles for other publications; and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Nicole earned her J.D. from Albany Law School.

Listen as I interview, first, Google Gemini fka Bard, for fun, then our real-life human attorney guest, about the current state and future of generative artificial intelligence and the practice of law.

Tom Hagy
Host
Emerging Litigation Podcast

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

Laundering money generated in the drug trade. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion to $2 trillion is laundered annually. Laundering money intended to support terrorism. The International Monetary Fund is concerned about terrorism financing, and proliferation financing, providing funds for nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Money that is embezzled or other schemes also must be laundered, that is, if you're a criminal or criminal enterprise.

As of Jan. 1, 2024, domestic and foreign entities registered to do business in the United States must comply with new “beneficial ownership reporting requirements” imposed under the Corporate Transparency Act.

Listen to what veteran attorney Lori Smith of Stradley Ronon has to say about the Act, something 30 million companies will have to follow during the Act's first year. Lori provides insights for business executives and attorneys on key facets of the requirements, potential penalties, and chances for litigation.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

Litigators who do other things besides litigate -- you know them.

Some perform comedy, act on stage or in film, or they are gifted musicians. Some are even drummers. (Drummer joke, if that’s not too edgy.) One highly acclaimed San Francisco class action litigator is talented on the kit and owns her own drum company. Another Los Angeles-based litigator started his own record label. Another San Francisco litigator left the profession, moved to South Africa, and led people on safari. Others write books, or develop technology solutions to common problems. Still others launch businesses, teach, and back causes.

The point is: Litigators do many things. One job closer to home is when he or she moves from private practice to a corporate legal department. But what about when the company is on the smaller size, with a modest legal department whose members are expected to handle an assortment of matters? Hiring is an important decision for any company, but when it’s a smaller organization selecting in-house counsel is arguably even more critical. When companies like this aren’t engaged in litigation, one might think a litigator wouldn’t be the first choice.

In this episode we talk about all the things one litigator has done, and the advantages she feels a litigator can bring to a small company – one that isn’t embroiled in litigation and would like to keep it that way.

She is Somya Kaushik, in-house counsel, entrepreneur, adjunct law professor, writer, leader, a children’s book author (“You, YES You! Yolki's Journey Within," illustrated by Annie Hagy* and available on Amazon and other fine platforms), and a former litigator. She is senior corporate counsel for Mineral, an HR and corporate compliance company which was recently acquired by Miratech, a tech solutions company for legal, HR, and governance, risk and compliance. Before Mineral she was an intellectual property litigator representing large and small companies, including SaaS and tech firms. In 2013 she founded EsqMe, Inc., a sharing platform where lawyers can exchange legal documents, templates, motions, and forms, where she served as general counsel. She is also an adjunct professor at Lewis & Clark Law School. Now located in Chicago, for nearly five years Somya was president of the South Asian Bar Association of Oregon. Somya is on the Fastcase 50 list honoring innovators and leaders in the legal industry. Education: New York Law School, J.D.; George Washington University, B.A., Psychology and Political Science; London School of Economics; and Harvard Business School.

*Ms. Hagy is the younger daughter of the host of this podcast, which, now that I think about it, could use some illustrations to brighten up the place.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

Today we talk about liability forecasting and the role it plays in the administration of massive, sometimes multi-billion-dollar mass tort settlement trusts. These mechanisms were built to fairly and judiciously compensate current and future claimants for their injuries.

Mass tort litigation is a complicated beast as is the administration of these trusts. There are many overlapping, interlocking, intersecting, and dynamic layers involved with people, companies, diseases, certain financial externalities, and "black swans" that complicate the oversight of settlement funds.

Listen to my conversation with Mark Eveland and Ed Silverman, both with Verus LLC, which provides litigation support services to law firms working on mass torts, such as case management and medical review services, settlement administration, business and advisory services, and analytics. They explain that liability forecasting is a practice best understood through the three areas it analyzes: (i) the risks and injuries created by a product and its use, (ii) claims filed and approved, and (iii) finances. Liability forecasting is both a science and an art, they say, with plenty of risks.

Eveland, founder, CSO, and chairman of the board, is an expert in building settlement and claims management programs for mass torts, class actions, and insurance runoffs. Throughout his career, Mark has provided research, discovery, analytics, settlement administration, and expert witness support litigators around the country.

Trained in molecular biology, genetics and epigenetics, and biochemistry, Silverman is an analytics executive, a life science expert, and biomedical communications specialist. Ed assists with data analytics, scientific collaboration networks, patient based medical claims, and more.

I hope you enjoy the episode!

Bonus: I left in a little introductory jazz in the beginning, then encouraged Ed to discuss his background and research, which I was thrilled to find included how fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) form memories. I can't tell you how glad I was I asked. Yes I can. Very glad.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

In this episode we talk about artificial intelligence in the world of invention. My guest recently co-wrote an article for the Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law about a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that expounded on the principle that only human beings -- not machines -- can be named as inventors under U.S. patent law. The decision applies a straightforward interpretation of patent statutes, our guest says.

Beyond invention, what about that initial spark of innovation? What about the decision might make it difficult to obtain intellectual property protection for inventions generated by advanced AI systems? Isn’t AI kind of like using computer modeling? Don’t inventors already get considerable assistance from technology? What did the court say about all that?

Joining me to answer these questions is Robert A. McFarlane, an intellectual property litigator and registered patent attorney and partner with Hanson Bridgett LLP in San Francisco. Rob chairs the firm’s technology practice, co-chairs its IP practice, litigates and advises on a variety of IP matters in the U.S. and abroad, and teaches patent law at the University of California College of the Law San Francisco (formerly Hastings College of the Law). Rob earned his J.D. from the University of California College of Law San Francisco and his B.A.S. with departmental honors, in Industrial Engineering & Political Science from Stanford University.

I hope you enjoy the episode. I mean, we get to talk about everything from Tom Jefferson to monkeys with cameras. That's five-star material right there!

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

Annual U.S. litigation cost estimates vary wildly. Some say $250 billion, others say $430 billion. When you consider indirect costs, such as lost productivity or economic damages, some put the costs as high as $1.5 trillion.According to Statista, more than $5 billion is spent on employment litigation alone, and another $4.5 billion on commercial litigation. Litigation surrounding intellectual property, product liability, and real estate disputes, cost more than $3 billion each.

Time is also a factor. As any litigator knows, resolution of a lawsuit can take three to five years on average. Some cases drag on for more than a decade.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is increasingly attractive. Its benefits were on full display during Covid lockdowns. It’s more convenient for almost everyone involved, especially in cross-country or cross-border disputes.

An important and dangerous side effect of litigation expense is access to justice. Everyone will have disputes and conflicts in their lives, but not everyone can afford to go to court.

More ADR is moving from mediation to arbitration partly because of the perceived finality of going to a panel. The American Arbitration Association says there were 25,000 ADR cases filed in 2020. Meanwhile, there are more than 400,000 federal suits and as many as 60 million state suits filed each year.

Listen to my interview with Rich Lee, CEO and Co-Founder, New Era/ADR as we discuss hot topics and issues involving what is referred to here as "Advanced Dispute Resolution." Before New Era/ADR, Rich was general counsel of a financial technology company that he helped to build, grow, and sell. Rich serves as an advisor, board member, and investor in technology startups and venture funds and in a leadership role in the Economic Club of Chicago. He serves on the national Leader’s Council of the Legal Services Corporation (a U.S. Senate-funded 501c3) and on the board of Illinois Legal Aid Online. He has a J.D. from Loyola University Chicago School of Law and a B.S. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

This isn’t going to be another theoretical sermon on the business of law, but how two partners – with the help of a business expert – re-envisioned their practice, throwing out traditional models and transforming their firm into something unique.

First, we’re going to talk about looking strategically at your law firm as you would any business. The goal here, being tweaking or adjusting your practice in a way that has the most impact on your bottom line.

Second, we’re going to talk about one litigation firm’s journey through that process, where they basically took their practice apart, examined each piece, and put it back together again. They rebuilt it with parts based on their strengths as attorneys and on activities that were most profitable.

My guest is James M. Grant, an attorneywho has embraced the idea of applying strategic business thinking to the practice of law. In that spirit, we talk about how and why he and his partner, Mark Kirchen, tried such an exercise and what he learned from it. Then James talks about a pretty profound transformation of his firm, developing a unique offering that is demonstrably different, as you will see.

James is co-founding partner of Georgia Trial Attorneys at Kirchen & Grant LLC. He's an experienced personal injury litigator and trial attorney, whose list of defendants include insurance companies. James started off as a state prosecutor before getting into personal injury law. He has a B.S. from Georgia Institute of Technology, and received his J.D. from Faulkner University (J.D., 2011).

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

The PFAS family of man-made compounds are found in countless consumer products, as well as medical devices and firefighting foam. The incredibly strong carbon-fluorine bond that make PFAS so useful also makes them incredibly persistent. They are so ubiquitous that PFAS can be found in the blood of every human on earth and rainwater throughout the world.

In this episode we are going to give you some history of the compounds, discuss some important differences, review what litigation we're seeing (including the various claims and defenses), note what we can learn from recent settlement structures, forecast the impact of any new regulation, and predict what litigation might be next.

My guests have been at the forefront of PFAS litigation since they began defending carpet manufacturers in suits brought by two Alabama municipalities in 2017. They are:

David J. Marmins, a partner with Arnall Golden Gregory LLP in Atlanta, Georgia. He is part of the firm’s litigation and real estate practices and co-chair of the firm’s retail industry team. David has concentrated his practice on complex civil litigation since becoming a lawyer in the last century. He earned his JD from Georgia State University College of Law.

Morgan E. M. Harrison, partner, in AGG’s litigation and dispute resolution and employment practices. She is also a member of the payments systems and fintech, and background-screening industry teams. Morgan has a JD from Vanderbilt University Law School.

BONUS! Read David and Morgan's article on the subject, just published in the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation.

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

According to the Department of Agriculture Americans consume 137 pounds of fresh produce per year. That not only fuels our bodies but also a $146 billion industry. Produce starts to degrade immediately after harvest, so transporting fresh fruits and vegetables from farms to stores in a safe and timely manner poses numerous challenges.

What legal and reputational risks do growers, brokers, and shippers face? What laws come into play? What are the essential components of contracts among participants in the supply chain?

Listen to my interview with Katy Esquivel, founder and principal attorney with Esquivel Law Chartered. Katy focuses on trust enforcement cases under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and representation of stakeholders in the transportation industry. Katy represents transportation brokers and shippers in matters including drafting contracts, handling claims, and advising clients on evolving legal issues impacting their businesses. She also counsels growers and sellers. Katy has also successfully completed the Produce Safety Alliance Grower Training Course to ensure that she is up to date on the latest food safety standards within the industry. She earned her J.D. from St. Thomas University Benjamin L. Crump School of Law.

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

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 vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

What’s gotten into some corporations these days?Some are reducing their carbon footprint and reducing waste. Some are demanding ethical behavior. Some are even paying attention to wages of frontline workers. In this episode we discuss the role of attorneys and in-house counsel in the courageous new world of Environment, Social, and Governance, or ESG. And, not to disappoint, I mention a beloved cartoon duck who, when you think about it, raises questions about inclusivity and workplace safety. Throw in the fact that he doesn’t always wear pants to work and you have an ESG trifecta.

A few questions addressed in this episode:

• How can law firms themselves adopt ESG practices and what role do they play with clients?
• What are some common pitfalls attorneys should avoid when navigating ESG regulations and standards?
• How can in-house counsel drive ESG initiatives within their organizations?
• What role to they play in communicating ESG risks and opportunities to their C-suite and board or directors? What about mitigating risks associated with ESG disclosures?
• And what about external partnerships and supplier contracts?

And another thing. Ever wonder why corporations set ESG goals, why ratings matter, or how ratings are calculated?

Listen to my interview with Kai Gray, CEO and co-founder of Motive, an ESG advisory and support service firm, as we explore what ESG is, what it is not, what good it can bring to an organization, and where attorneys fit in. Kai generously offers his perspective based on more than two decades of work at some of the most innovative companies in the U.S.

Kai also reveals the secret to the secret sauce behind compelling corporations to the right thing!

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

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 vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently struck down Berkeley, California's ban on natural gas infrastructure in new buildings. The court ruled unanimously that the ban violates federal law. This subject is important as we will likely see more natural gas bans in the future and the Berkeley case has set a precedent for how similar cases may be treated.The case was brought by the California Restaurant Association, the National Restaurant Association, and the American Gas Association. The plaintiffs argued that Berkeley's ban was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which gives the federal government exclusive authority to regulate energy efficiency standards for appliances. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that Berkeley's ban was "a direct regulation of energy efficiency standards for appliances." Now, New York has implemented a natural gas ban starting in 2026.

Listen to my interview with Gary Toman, Partner at Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial LLC, as we discuss this seminal case and the impact of the court’s ruling on consumers and businesses across the country.

Gary has extensive experience representing corporations, banks and professionals in complex litigation and arbitration matters and business disputes. Gary has substantial experience defending corporations in a wide variety of class actions. Gary received his J.D. from Harvard Law School.

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

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 vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

The Federal Trade Commission’s proposed rule banning non-compete agreements between employers and workers has met with considerable support and just as much opposition. Proposed on Jan. 5, 2023, a vote on a final rule not anticipated until Spring 2024.

Will all of the challenges to the rule result in a substantially different final version? Why has the FTC chosen now? Who is contesting the rule and what are some of the challenges it raises? What does it mean for employers and other entities today? What impact might the rule have on litigation?

Listen to my interview with Andreya DiMarco, attorney with the Hatfield Schwartz Law Group LLC, as we explore the nuances of the proposed rule as well as the legal and practical impact it will have if it is adopted.

Andreya focuses her practice on employment law and transactional matters. She is well versed in the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, and has represented clients in federal court, state court, and before administrative agencies including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. She also advises clients on a variety of aspects of employment law and compliance, and provides training and policy drafting. Andreya received her J.D. from NYU School of Law.

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

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 vLex Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

The IRS closed more than 72,000 appeals last year and its Chief Counsel's Office received more than 65,000 cases. That's a lot of disputes. Safe to say they are about rules. Following rules. Not following rules. Questioning rules. Then, there are rules about rules that the IRS must follow.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is such a beast. The APA places requirements on federal agencies when engaged in a “rule making” that has the force and effect of law. The APA has become a focal point in tax litigation, due in large part to the IRS’s record of refusing to comply with the law's notice-and-comment mandate. In his article for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, our guest – Jeffrey S. Luechtefeld, shareholder at Chamberlain Hrdlicka – wrote about challenging the IRS, recent trends in tax litigation, and the future of APA challenges. And now, he's here on our humble podcast.

Jeff is a tax controversy and litigation attorney with a strong technical tax background and a deep understanding of the inner workings of the agency. Jeff advocates on behalf of clients in IRS examinations, appeals and litigation. Previously, he led the regional tax controversy practice for a Big Four accounting firm. He began his career with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel as a litigator, eventually becoming a Special Trial Attorney in the Large Business and International Division. Jeff received his JD from the University of Missouri, Columbia School of Law.

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

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 Fastcaselegal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm -- all now part of vLex. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. I'm often polite.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

There are no borders when it comes to commerce, which means there are no borders when it comes to business disputes and litigation, either.

In addition to evidence and witnesses being spread across continents -- from Chicago to Shanghai to Sumatra -- nations' various rules and traditions governing discovery is another substantial complicating factor. Navigating these complexities requires specialized tools, a thorough understanding of how they do things from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and how to get your case over hurdles not seen in the U.S.

Listen to my interview with Benjamin Daniels of Robinson+Cole, an experienced litigator and advisor to financial institutions and global corporations. As a member of the firm's Business Litigation Group, Ben provides creative and ardent advocacy during litigation, enforcement actions, investigations, crisis management, and white-collar defense matters. He received his J.D. from Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. Also, and this is important, Ben had very nice things to say about Switzerland.

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

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 Fastcaselegal 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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

Auto-GPT is a new generative artificial intelligence application which autonomously “self-prompts” to engage beyond a human-chatbot discussion.

This takes us into a realm of AI self-prompted actions that do not need additional human inputs. It also potentially puts the “traditional” GPT models on a fast track to further reduce human interaction. The number of use cases as well as the number of legal and ethical questions is inevitable. For that reason, it's becoming increasingly important for businesses to understand how Auto-GPT technologies use data, the potential for biased results, and how to responsibly leverage these powerful technologies.

Listen to my interview with Jason I. Epstein, Partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough as we explore this emerging field. Jason is the co-head of the firm's technology and procurement industry group which provides legal services to global buyers and sellers of technology in industries that include FinTech, HealthIT, and manufacturing. An experienced business and technology negotiator, Jason has dealt with a variety of matters, e.g., the metaverse, technology transfer, privacy, cryptocurrency, IoT, open-source code, and more. Jason received his JD from the University of Tennessee College of Law. He also teaches "Law of Cyberspace" as an adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University Law School.

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

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 Fastcaselegal 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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

You might think that if you purchase a product for a price inflated by bad actors in the supply chain that you would be able to collect damages. Unfortunately, depending on who you are, you would be wrong.Consumers and businesses, indirect purchasers of products whose prices are fixed by those who supply the maker of your purchase may not collect damages in states that, surprisingly, do not have antitrust laws that give them standing.

But what about federal law? Why do some states provide for damages and others do not? Are there alternatives? Are there any pro-purchaser changes on the horizon that could impact antitrust litigation brought by indirect buyers?

For answers to these questions and more, listen to my interview with attorney Austin Cohen of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP of Philadelphia. His practice focuses on antitrust and business law, class actions, torts and products liability, and environmental damage litigation. Austin received a BA in Economics and History from the University of Pennsylvania and his JD, cum laude, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

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 Fastcaselegal 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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

Consumers are driving a wave of litigation against companies for allegedly sharing details of what videos they watch on their platforms.

• Will litigation tamp down this activity?
• What harm is being caused?
• How will existing laws be interpreted?
• Are these organizations within their rights?

Dozens of organizations -- ranging from the rough-and-tumble NFL to the decidedly less rough-and-tumble NPR -- are among the defendants in nearly 50 proposed class actions which claim Meta Platforms Inc.'s pixel tracking tool facilitated the sharing of personal video consumption data and identities from online platforms to Facebook without user consent. This, the plaintiffs say, violates the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPAA) of 1988.

The rising number of VPAA cases demonstrates how plaintiff attorneys are creatively applying traditional causes of action to litigate modern privacy issues in the absence of a federal law. An act that far preceded the proliferation of online video streaming, it followed the publication of one-time Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's Blockbuster video rentals. The titles the judge rented disappointed anyone looking for scandal. They included nothing more salacious thanThe Man Who Knew Too Much starring Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day.

Listen to my interview with someone who knows plenty: Myriah V. Jaworski, a member at Clark Hill PLC. Myriah helps me explore the privacy issues raised by these cases and what the future holds for businesses and other parties who handle consumer data.

Myriah represents clients in defense of data breach class actions, privacy torts and statutory claims (IRPA/BIPA), pixel tacking and commercial surveillance matters, internet defamation, technology disputes, and cyber subrogation claims. She defends them in response to regulatory inquiries and investigations arising out of data incidents and privacy practices, including before state Attorney General offices, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Human and Health Services – Office of Civil Rights. Myriah is a Certified Information Privacy Professional, United States (CIPP/US) and a Certified Information Privacy Professional, Europe (CIPP/E) as certified by the International Association of Privacy Professionals. She was also a Trial Attorney with the Department of Justice. She received her JD/MS degree from Syracuse University College of Law. And now, I am happy to say, she is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

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 Fastcaselegal 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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home PageLinkedIn

View Details

In this episode we talk about the advantages of having technology and software development capabilities inside your law firm. Can you imagine? And we’re not just talking about someone who is adept at unjamming the printer.

While the legal tech industry offers myriad high-quality solutions (some of my best friends are technology solutions), there are times when a litigator just wants that one thing that the tech doesn’t do. Or, working with the tech has such a long learning curve that the attorney won’t embrace it, that is, if he or she even tries it.

There are also service enhancements attorneys would like to offer clients – capabilities that set the firm apart, that demonstrate the firm has the client’s best interests at heart and that the firm is even (gasp!) innovative.

Litigators want to get an edge at trial. They want to be able to collaborate smoothly with clients. They want clients to get answers to important questions quickly. Focusing on customer experience is not just for retailers anymore.

Joining me to talk about how one law firm benefits from having its own in-house technology developer is Sam McAllister, Director of Litigation Technology at Lightfoot Franklin & White in Birmingham, Alabama.

Sam works on creative solutions for the firm’s litigation defense teams in the categories of communications, workflows, automation, multimedia, task efficiency, jury selection, information organization, and courtroom visualization, and more. The results come in the form of proprietary software, custom platforms, and apps. Many make the firm more efficient, cost-effective, and better equipped to collaborate with clients. Some have the effect of wowing clients, too.

It’s no wonder Sam found himself on the Fastcase 50, a unique award that celebrates innovative professionals in the legal field. Sam, they said, exemplifies the "build-your-own spirit" of the award.

He is the leader of the firm’s Case Clarity Group, which provides "highly-developed technology to clients throughout the duration of a case, e-discovery collaboration with Lightfoot lawyers, and adaptive evidence models to make complex ideas simple." And – I like this part – "ask any lawyer who knows him - Sam does what it takes to help you win a case and is known for bringing calm to the most intense of trials." (I can think of some work groups that would benefit from a position I just made up – Director of Calm. I mean, a cat can only do so much.) Sam received his B.S. in computer science from Auburn University. Speaking of cats – Go Tigers!

I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

View Details

Last year the Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz law firm filed the first class action against L’Oréal and Softsheen-Carson for injuries, primarily to Black women, allegedly caused by hair relaxers and straighteners. Now there are more than 60 cases consolidated in multidistrict litigation.

Recent studies cited in the litigation show that Black women who use these products develop cancers at a rate disproportionate to that experienced by white women. The plaintiffs say the products are marketed not only to women but to girls as well. The companies challenge the accuracy of the study methods and say, in the case of a key NIH study, that all of women had sisters who were diagnosed with cancer.

Listen to my interview with veteran mass tort plaintiff attorney Jennifer M. Hoekstra, a partner with Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz. Jennifer boasts an impressive academic and professional record, including graduation from two of the nation’s top schools. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Science from Columbia College, Columbia University in the City of New York. She relocated to Louisiana to attend Tulane Law School, where she earned her J.D. while also completing a certificate in Environmental Law. During her law school career, she spent a semester studying at the University of Wisconsin School of Law and visited on their International Law Journal as a Junior Member during her Hurricane Katrina evacuation semester.

This is Jennifer's second appearance on the podcast. She also was my guest on Greatly Exaggerated: The Impact of Bankruptcy on Mass Tort 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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

View Details

According to studies cited in a 2019 article in Business Insider, people develop first impressions of you “even before you open your mouth,” that your mere appearance “affects how trustworthy, promiscuous, and powerful people think you are.”It’s the trustworthy part that attorneys need to pay attention to. Regardless of the strength of their case or whether the law is on their side, an attorney still must be persuasive. And, unless the audience – whether it is a judge, a panel of judges, a regulatory body, or a jury – sees you as credible, the rest will likely not matter. But what makes an attorney, or anyone for that matter, credible? Is this something you’re born with or is it something you can develop over time? Is it true, as some studies suggest, that you can change some first impressions by making some changes in how you present yourself, or are you just stuck with a less than trustworthy vibe?

Listen to my interview with attorney Jack I. Siegal, a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP in Boston, who believes we can all make positive adjustments in the nuanced practice of achieving credibility.

Jack is a seasoned trial lawyer with 20 years of experience in complex litigation, during which time he has taken cases to trial in several jurisdictions. He also provides transactional counseling for such things as executive comp agreements and mergers. Jack’s litigation practice focuses on complex commercial disputes, government investigations and white-collar defense, regulatory proceedings, and compliance across a wide range of industries, including the financial, healthcare, high-technology, government contracting, and related fields. Education: Santa Clara University School of Law, J.D., magna cum laude; Santa Clara University, B.A., Greek and Latin, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa; University of Virginia, Graduate Study, Classics and Classical Languages, Literature, and Linguistics.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

P.S. Toward the end I could barely manage my ADHD and took the conversation into a chat that ranged from TikTok clips of the attorneys in the Amber Heard / Johnny Depp trial, somewhat on point, to discussion of great drumming, which would take some crafty knots to tie that in. Jack, being good natured and a good sport, went right along with me. Also, that's me on bongos.

View Details

It’s unlikely Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a future in copywriting for the fintech industry. (That was sarcasm.) Warren, who championed the creation of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), calls the Zelle digital payments network a “preferred tool for grifters like romance scammers, cryptocurrency con artists, and those who prowl social media sites advertising concert tickets and purebred puppies — only to disappear with buyers’ cash after they pay.”
Scams and fraud committed via the Zelle platform and other peer-to-peer services are surging. According to one lawsuit 18 million Americans were defrauded by schemes perpetrated via apps like Zelle in 2020. Some 1,500 member banks and credit unions participate in the Zelle service. People sent $490 billion via the app in 2021.

But Zelle owner, Early Warning, and its consortium comprising Bank of America, Truist, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo, have refused to refund customers for most of their losses. Sen. Warren issued a report that the claims for fraud received by just four banks will likely exceed $255 million by the end of 2022 – a $165 million increase over 2020. The senator and consumers say Zelle is violating federal consumer protection law.

The heart of the problem is this: banks and consumers do not agree on the definition of “fraud.”

For clarity on issues surrounding the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and its implementing regulation—Regulation E—listen to my interview with fintech attorney Brad Rustin of Nelson Mullins.
In addition to chairing the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice, Brad counsels financial institutions in regulatory matters, including strategic agreements, product development, and operational compliance. Brad is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist and a Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager. He received his JD, magna cum laude, from the University of South Carolina School of Law and his BA in Political Science and History, cum laude, from Furman University. Brad is also the FinTech advisor on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal on Emerging Issues in 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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

View Details

Maryland and Missouri are the latest states to legalize recreational cannabis for people 21 and older. Voters came out in favor of legalization in the November 2022 midterms, bringing the total recreational jurisdictions to 22 states and the District of Columbia. Voters in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas, however, decided against recreational marijuana. It remains legal for medical reasons in all five states.

In the employment context, both recreational and medicinal uses raise questions about protections for employees who use the drug legally.

• Which states are enacting those protections?
• What do multi-state employers need to do?
• What about drug testing? As a requirement to get a job and as a requirement to keep your job?
• What about this: who is going to say whether a worker is impaired? Will there really be hall monitors trained in spotting your high?

For answers to these questions and more, listen to my interview with Keya Denner, a partner at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP. Keya is an experienced litigator who has been practicing labor and employment law for almost 20 years. Few attorneys nationwide match Keya’s expertise in the area of legal cannabis and its impact on the workplace. He has counseled Fortune 500 companies in the retail, hospitality, and global logistics spaces to create compliant policies and better understand the ever-changing legal landscape brought about by the legalization of cannabis across the United States. Most recently, Keya was named co-chair along with this colleague Ashley Orler of the firm’s new practice group focused on cannabis and employee substance abuse law. Keya received his J.D., cum laude, from Seton Hall University School of Law, J.D., cum laude, and his B.A., also cum laude, from Boston University.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

View Details

The European Union’s new Unified Patent Court is an international body set up by participating EU Member States to deal with the infringement and validity of both Unitary Patents and European patents. The court's objective is “putting an end to costly parallel litigation and enhancing legal certainty.”

Unitary patents are intended to make it possible to get patent protection in up to 25 EU Member States by submitting a single request to the European Patent Office, making the procedure simpler and more cost effective for applicants. The new system goes live on June 1, 2023.

What must U.S. and multi-national U.S.-based companies understand about the court? Why should inventors and their organizations factor it in to any existing or new patent strategy they may be developing?

For answers to these questions and more listen to my interview with attorneys Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier who practice out of the Paris office of Reed Smith. Marianne heads the intellectual Property team in Paris and the patent practice in Europe. She manages complex national and transnational patent, trade secrets and trademark disputes in the healthcare, chemistry, technology and telecommunications sectors. Thierry is part of the firm’s global Intellectual Property Group. With a dual legal and engineering/scientific background, Thierry uses his understanding, knowledge, and experience to provide clients with creative, technically robust, and business-oriented patent strategies.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

View Details

Before COVID-19 came to America in early 2020, “going to court” literally meant putting on your shoes and walking into a courthouse, typically a large building with courtrooms inside, and people in robes and business suits and, in some cases, more restrictive attire.

Stoked by necessity, courts sprinted toward solutions for keeping the wheels of justice spinning while also keeping everyone away from each other. Until then it didn’t seem possible that attorneys could or would appear before judges via digital screens, like George Jetson getting yelled at by Mr. Spacely over some hilarious mishap at the sprocket factory.

Pew Charitable Trust concluded an in-depth study of the courts with the 2021 release of a report, “How Courts Embraced Technology, Met the Pandemic Challenge, and Revolutionized Their Operations.” After examining emergency orders from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and court approaches to virtual hearings, e-filing, and digital notarization, the researchers wrote that it was a time for "reimagining how to administer justice.”

Was the adoption of technology effective? Were there any hiccups? Was technology widely embraced? Were the effects of new efficiencies enjoyed evenly across the socio-economic spectrum? Do we think courts will continue to reimagine how they administer justice without the crushing pressure of widespread disease?

Listen to my interview with Qudsiya Naqui who leads Pew’s research at the intersection of technology and civil legal system reform. In this role, she evaluates and tests new technologies to ensure that they further efficiency, equity, and transparency in the legal process. This work is part of Pew’s Civil Justice Modernization Project.

Before joining Pew, Qudsiya designed and implemented immigration, housing, and disaster recovery legal services programs at Equal Justice Works and the Vera Institute of Justice. She began her legal career representing immigrant women and girls seeking relief from deportation.

Qudsiya holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and human rights from Barnard College and a Juris Doctor from Temple University.

For more information about their work and the research, contact them at media@pewtrusts.org.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

View Details

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 Schlegelwho 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 University New Orleans College of Law.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

View Details

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 participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

P.S. During the podcast I mentioned an article and wanted to share the link. It's called "Bankruptcy Grifters" by Lindsey D. Simon. It was published in the Yale Law Journal.

View Details

The pressure on trial lawyers, judges, plaintiffs, defendants, and court systems is only increasing. Take New Jersey as an example, where the backlog of cases nearly quadrupled in a year 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, “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,” NJSN reported.

One court official told the state Assembly Budget Committee about the impact the pandemic had 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,” NJSN reported. “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 Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared a judicial emergency and extended deadlines. Virginia’s Supreme Court suspended nonessential proceedings. The Iowa Supreme Court pushed back criminal trials and the Alabama’s Supreme Court suspended in-person proceedings. New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner warned that the judicial shortage “comes with a price.”

Listen to my interview with Diana C. Manning, Managing Principal, Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C., for the fallout from the judicial shortage and swelling case backlogs, and what needs to be done to dig out. An experienced and award winning complex commercial litigator, Diana is co-chair of the firm’s business and commercial litigation practice group. She received her J.D. from Rutgers University School of Law.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

View Details

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 have spent decades in prison for crimes they did not commit. Within two weeks of its release, the podcast shot to #7 on the iTunes charts and has raised more than $1 million to benefit the Innocence Project. Lava for Good's Bone Valley, which tells the tragic story of Leo Schofield, who was sentenced to life for the murder of his wife, Michelle, is also one of the top podcasts on iTunes (#19 as of this writing), and received a highly regarded "four thumbs up" from the Crime Writers On podcast. Jason's father, the fourth named partner in what is now known as Skadden, was dubbed one of the "Lawyers of the Century by The American Lawyer in 1999.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

View Details

In this episode we 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 – combined with an attorney’s insights – cannot only sharpen their predictive capabilities, but it can help them build, defend, and resolve cases.

For insights on the past, present and future of legal guidance and analysis, listen to my interview with Ed Walters, co-founder and CEO of our partners on this podcast, Fastcase, the legal research and software company whose divisions include Fastcase Full Court Press (publishing), Law Street Media (legal news), Docket Alarm (docket tools), and NextChapter (software). An entrepreneur, writer and professor, Ed brings his experience advising global Fortune 500 tech and pharma companies and sports leagues, serving in the White House on media affairs and speechwriting, and contributing to several major newspapers and journals. Ed is an adjunct law professor at Georgetown and Cornell universities. He is also a self-described "weather nerd," which explains my tortured introduction.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

View Details

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

View Details

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, LLCin 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. Education: Bachelor of Science, Auburn University, summa cum laude, Danforth Scholar; Master of Science, University of Miami, summa cum laude, Maytag Fellow; B.A. and M.A. Degrees, Oxford University, Rhodes Scholar, Honors in Jurisprudence; and Juris Doctorate; University of Alabama School of Law, Hugo Black Scholar.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

View Details

Attorneys are increasingly required to demonstrate technological proficiency in addition to remaining current on the law and legal practice. It’s not just a skill requirement but an ethical one, too, as states continue to adopt new rules. The challenge for attorneys, judges, and the rule makers is that technology is generally evolving faster than they can keep up. This creates grey areas and blind spots that pose risks to busy litigators with already full plates and hectic schedules.In 2012 the American Bar Association amended Comment 8 to Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Lawyers Duty of Competence) to address technology competency. “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.” Most states (40) have rules addressing technology competence among attorneys.

Daniel Gold is the Managing Director of BDO's E-Discovery Managed Services practice group and the creator of BDO's Athenagy™, the only patent pending business intelligence solution in the world that created a Common Data Model and data driven insights fueled by both M365 E5 Compliance Suite’s Microsoft Advanced E-Discovery and RelativityOne. Daniel has nearly 20 years of experience in the legal space. As a practicing lawyer, he identified that by harnessing new forms of legal technology, both lawyers and legal professionals could be vastly more productive. This realization led him to the legal service provider space and with it, came years of success at consulting with some of the largest corporate law departments and law firms across the country.

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.

View Details

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 types for two decades, including those seeking coverage in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and Superstorm Sandy. Thanks to Marshall for sharing his insights.

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.P.S. Please excuse my periodic memory lane strolls as I waxed nostalgic while stroking the gray bristles of my chin about the pollution exclusion, the sudden and accidental exception to the exclusion, and, you know, what really does it mean for something to "occur"? I've led a heart-stopping existence. And so can you.

View Details

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.

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. He is a recipient of the Attorney General's Award for Excellence in Information Technology. He served as lead counsel for the interagency working group, making the federal government's information technology accessible. He is founding and former board member of the International Association of Accessibility Professionals and serves on their certification committee. Ken is passionate about the need for regulations to ensure greater accessibility to the internet for all people. You can read his latest post on the subject at the Converge Accessibility Blog.

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. He has more than 25 years’ experience developing and managing custom applications on a variety of platforms and public and private sectors, supporting training and training related services. Hiram is also a frequent contributor to LexisNexis Mealey’s Litigation Report: CyberTech and E-Commerce, which I launched when I was publisher there a thousand years ago. Hiram is passionate about promoting accessible technologies in the field of fields of e-learning and web and application development.

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.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 in my being.

View Details

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. 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, listen to my interview with Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director at leading gun safety advocacy group Giffords Law Center, co-founded by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Prior to Giffords Law Center Adam was senior counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety and at the Brennan Center for Justice, where he worked on election law issues. Adam’s commentary has been published in Slate, Politico, the Atlantic, and the New York Times, among other publications, and he has been widely quoted by media ranging from the Wall Street Journal and Fox News to the New York Times and MSNBC. Adam graduated summa cum laude from Brooklyn Law School, received an MS in Urban Affairs from Hunter College of the City University of New York, and holds a BA, awarded with distinction, from Swarthmore College.

If you would like to learn more about Giffords Law Center and how you can get engaged, please reach out to to them. You may also email Adam directly.

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.

View Details

When a contingency fee case reaches a verdict or settlement, it’s a big day for a plaintiff attorney. You have worked hard and shouldered litigation costs -- often for years without compensation -- to achieve the best outcome for your client.
Finally, your ship comes in. At that point, however, it is officially too late to think about how to best handle a sudden influx of capital; that is, if you don’t mind seeing much of it going to the IRS. But what it taketh with one hand the government giveth with the other. Uncle Sam has created a way for you keep more of your hard-won settlement or award, but there is much to consider and new information to weigh.

In this episode I get to speak with a financial management professional who specializes in advising trial attorneys how they can take full advantage of attorney fee structures. The concept of fee deferral arrangements may be familiar to you, but the landscape continues to evolve.

Join us to learn about the latest thinking and new options to make the most of your hard-earned fees, whether you need funds immediately or wish to maximize their value over time.

My guest is Sam Dolce, an attorney with Milestone, a financial firm that optimizes settlement funds for trial attorneys and plaintiffs. Sam consults with legal professionals about about Qualified Settlement Funds, fee deferrals, and settlement planning. Sam received his B.A. from Macalester College and his J.D. from SUNY Buffalo Law School. Thanks to Sam for sharing his insights.

On a previous episode you can hear Sam's colleague, Erin Waas, who heads up the Milestone Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides low-cost funding to injured individuals in need of cash as their personal injury cases wind their way through court.

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.

View Details

In this episode we discuss reducing corporate risk caused by laxity, inattention, misconduct, unethical behavior, or even illegal activities by people and organizations in your supply chain. Often these things are what happen when people are under pressure. They may feel pressure to bend rules to hit sales targets, or they feel significant competitive pressure. Shareholders demand a return on investments which puts pressure on chief executives who pass the pressure down the line. Pressure builds when budgets are cut and fewer resources are available to maintain the necessary vigilance to remain compliant with often complex and changing regulations. Or, pressure comes from within, from the pressure of simple greed behind conspiracies to control markets at the expense of smaller competitors, consumers, workers, innovation, and the health of the market itself.

Our guests also talk about these issues in the context of new pressures on corporations to demonstrate they are being responsible global citizens by implementing Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) programs. This means making business decisions not solely on the profit potential, but on what harm or good these decisions may cause. We look at these issues through two lenses. One lens is that of a professional operating inside a company to ensure the integrity of its supply chain. The other lens is that of a professional who advises companies on legal and business issues across markets.

It's also our first two-act episode. In Act 1 we discuss the conduct of a fictitious airline that is marketing itself as a green company. Its competitors are crying foul, and by that I mean suing them. Here we discuss the ESG movement, and the compliance and competition law implications. In Act 2 a fictitious semiconductor manufacturer that is using its considerable market power to trounce competitors, raise prices, and hamper innovation. In this act we discuss combatting global monopolies in supply chains.

My guests are:

Travis Miller, General Counsel at Assent Compliance Inc. and Director of Assent Compliance USA. Travis is author of Supply Chain Compliance Laws and Regulations, published by the American Bar Association. He has implemented software enabled supply chain risk management programs for more than 600 world’s largest manufacturers. Assent is the leader in supply chain sustainability management solutions.

Dan Mogin is co-founding and managing partner of MoginRubin LLP, a leading boutique law firm that focuses on antitrust law and other complex business disputes. A true thought leader in the field, Dan has served as lead counsel in numerous large antitrust cases, chaired the Antitrust Section of the California Bar, taught antitrust law, and was editor-in-chief of a leading competition law treatise.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast a

View Details

**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.

But there is at least one area where the primary goal is capitalism, and following right along would be the potential to reduce racial disparities. That would be antitrust law. And that would be amazing.**
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 $3 billion. His recent focus has been representing workers who allege their employers' anticompetitive practices suppressed their pay. Recipient of numerous accolades and awards that include terms like titan, elite, thought leader, visionary, and lawyer of the year, Eric is a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton University where he earned membership in Phi Beta Kappa, and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. Listen to what he had to say about this important subject.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

View Details

Let's assume this is good news. The divorce rate appears to be coming down. Either people are more committed to these unions or have succumbed to lifetimes of misery. But the common belief -- that "50% of all marriages end in divorce" -- doesn't enjoy statistical support. Six percent of people who divorce get back together, so that's something, too.

Not that marriage or divorce is a disease (despite how it might feel to some), it is tracked by the Centers for Disease Control, which says your profession is a primary factor in the equation. It causes stress, takes you away from home, and is reflected in your bank account. According to Monster.com, the rate is higher among people working in fading industries, like certain machine operators. Despite frequent coverage of Hollywood breakups, they don't mention entertainers, other than dancers and choreographers, who don't fare well in marriage. Lawyers, in general, do not have a particularly high divorce rate.

Complex, high-asset divorces involve people who share significant wealth and/or real estate, own lucrative businesses, or make a lot of money, like big-time litigators. In ranking the top 25 professions, from the lowest to highest divorce rates, the legal industry comes in at number 10 with a 35% divorce rate. Intuition tells us there are likely different rates for different practice types, but we could not find relevant surveys . But you don't need stats to imagine what it's like when one lawyer divorces another. (Note: Attorneys do, however, suffer very high rates of alcoholism and depression, and the ABA offers a directory of resources.)

For insights into high-asset divorces, listen to my interview with Robert D. Boyd and Kimberli C. Withrow of Boyd Collar Nolen Tuggle & Roddenbery.

Bob Boyd is a widely recognized leader in the practice of high-net-worth divorce litigation and contested custody cases. He is a former prosecutor and a U.S. Army Ranger and Paratrooper. Education: J.D., West Virginia University (Editor-in-Chief, West Virginia Law Review); B.A., United States Military Academy at West Point.

Kimberli Withrow has 16 years’ experience representing clients in family law matters. She has served as trial counsel and hearings involving divorce, child custody, and child support matters. Education: J.D., Emory University School of Law; B.A., Duke University.

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.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

P.S. I don't know why, but at some point I believe I mentioned chihuahua's as a form of currency, and then something about Bezos. I'm sure it made sense at the time. It's more likely, however, that it didn't.

View Details

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 – like the loss of a limb in a railroad accident -- or is undergoing treatment for disease – like cancer from a toxic herbicide -- that explodes the level of stress on a person and their family.

Add to that, in recent years, the compounding effect of living in a pandemic, where children are attending school from home and courts are clogged and leaving the house, already a challenge, becomes a bigger one. I add this all up just in case you think you’ve had a bad day. And maybe you did.

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.

Our guest is going to describe a different approach taken by the non-profit foundation she oversees, one that is infinitely more understandable and affordable for claimants.

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. Speaking of fundraising, and if you believe in the cause, consider supporting the Foundation with a donation today.

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.

View Details

While we may be in the final days, months, or years of it, the use and possession of cannabis remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. But a patchwork of state laws is bringing the country closer to some form of legalization.

Some states allow its use for medical purposes, others have made it legal for recreational purposes, and others have decriminalized it. But when cannabis is involved in disputes that lead to litigation, and that litigation leads to policyholder vs. insurer disputes, that state law patchwork and the illegality of cannabis under federal law is when things get complicated. This tension plays out in several other aspects of running a cannabis business, such as banking and interstate transportation of goods.

My guests co-wrote an article for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, titled “Taking the High Ground: Where Cannabis Insurance Litigation Is Trending (and Why).” They write that it is up to litigators to frame their cases in ways that will determine the outcome of important disputes over insurance coverage.

They are John B. McDonald 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. And, Jihee Ahn, also an experienced complex commercial litigator with Harris Bricken, and chair of the firm’s Dispute Resolution/Litigation practice group. Their partner, Hilary Bricken, years ago founded the outstanding Canna Law Blog, a tremendous resource. Hilary and Harris Bricken co-founder Dan Harris are on the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation and this podcast.

Speaking of which, this podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project produced by 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, or want to tell me how much you learned today – or if you’d like a copy of John’s and Jihee’s article -- please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

p.s. If you know why we call it “recreational” cannabis use but “social” drinking, please write to me. It’s literally keeping me up at night. So is my uncontrolled sarcasm.

View Details

So, apparently this is true: Running a lending operation without registering with the SEC makes them crabby.

Spoiler Alert: On Valentine’s Day this year the SEC announced a $100 million fine against retail crypto lender BlockFi Lending. Nothing says "will you be mine?" like a nine-figure bill -- for that special someone who has everything. The company agreed to put an end to some of its offers and sales, and to get to work bringing itself into compliance with, you know, the law, like the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

So, what does the SEC want companies to do? What remedies does the SEC have for unregistered securities offerings? What impact will this have on private litigation? Is there a risk that BlockFi Interest Account investors will have claims against BlockFi? Want to find out?

Listen to my interview with attorney Brad Rustin. Brad is a partner in the Greenville, South Carolina, office of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough where he chairs the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice, leading a team of attorneys in a national practice representing clients in financial regulatory and FinTech matters. This is Brad’s third appearance on the podcast! He spoke on one episode about the Impact of the Russia Sanctions on Global Financial Markets, and on another popular episode on the Gamification of Stock Trading. Brad is a valued member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a companion to this podcast. Want a sample copy? Let me send you one. Write to me at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

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, or want to tell me how much you learned from Brad, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Bonus! For those of you who struggle to understand cryptocurrency, like a certain member of my family, listen for the bonus segment after the outro when Brad politely and patiently helps me in my quest to explain crypto to my mother-in-law. And, if I’m being honest, to me, too.

View Details

“Chinese companies view American and EU companies as very risky, in large part because so many American and EU companies are looking to move their manufacturing out of China.” –Dan Harris, co-founder of HarrisBricken and co-editor of The China Law Blog.

A major potential avalanche of risks are those that would shake the business world should – as some expect it will – trade relations between China, and America and EU, come to an end.

China is America’s largest trading partner, a relationship responsible for $600B a year in commerce, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. By comparison, U.S. / European Union trade exceeds $1T. The trade deficit with China for goods is more than $300 billion, while the U.S. has a trade surplus for services of $25B. China is America’s largest supplier of imported goods, while China is America’s third largest export market. U.S. invests roughly $125B in China, compared to China’s investment of $38B in the U.S. The figures vary wildly depending on who you ask, but the Trade Representative puts the U.S. GDP at $21B and China’s at more than $14B.

In case you missed it, U.S./China relations have been strained. President Trump cast a spotlight on the downsides of the relationship for the U.S., and China’s response to the sanctions imposed on Russia by President Biden and the West for invading Ukraine have made the relationship even rockier. The U.S./China marriage needs some serious counseling. Eventually, experts say, the couple is headed for divorce. How that breakup plays out, especially if or when China takes custody of Taiwan – peacefully or otherwise – is something the business world needs to brace for. No; seriously. For example, should the West impose sanctions on China similar to those on Russia, the shift in the business world would be tectonic.

Joining me on this episode is Dan Harris, a leading authority on the legal and strategic aspects of conducting business in emerging markets. Dan is co-founder of the international practice of Seattle-based HarrisBricken, which has offices across the U.S., as well as in China, Spain, Mexico, and Brazil. His China Law Blog was named, and with good reason, to the ABA Journal’s “Blawg Hall of Fame.”

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, or want to tell me how much you learned from Dan, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Host and Litigation Enthusiast

P.S. It's possible I should stay away from forcing metaphors on my guests. The U.S. / China relationship is nothing like a marriage. We do, however, always forget our anniversary. We're more like neighbors who have to deal with each other. Our "good mornings" and "have a nice days" are, at best, phony. There are lingering hurt feelings ("You always park in front of my house," "You never invite us to parties") and suspicions ("I'm pretty sure it's you who doesn't pick up after their dog"), but civility is a must when you share friends and a fence. Oh, man, and now our kids are playing together.

View Details

The PFAS family of chemicals is one stubborn bunch. They are a class of man-made products dubbed "forever chemicals," because of the difficulty of removing them from the environment, humans, and other animals. They are also at the center of sprawling litigation around the country involving alleged property damage, water contamination, and bodily injury. More than 1,500 cases are consolidated in closely-watched multi-district litigation in federal court in South Carolina.In a previous episode I interviewed two environmental scientists about this tenacious and ubiquitous group of chemicals. In upcoming episodes we will interview a plaintiff attorney who represents individuals and water companies, and another who specializes in medical monitoring. In this episode, we will discuss the insurance coverage aspects of PFAS-related claims -- which is a huge part of determining who and how eventual remedies will be paid for.

Listen to my interview with Anderson Kill's Robert D. Chesler, a preeminent expert on insurance coverage law especially in the context of highly complex long-tail claims scenarios involving multiple parties and events that can span decades and always cost many millions of dollars. Considered by many to be an insurance guru on these cases -- as well as on D&O, cyber and privacy, and intellectual property insurance -- Bob holds a Ph.D. and masters degree from Princeton University, and a J.D. (cum laude) from Harvard Law School.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, and Bob is one of our most valued editorial advisors. 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, or want to tell me how much you learned from Bob, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Host and Litigation Enthusiast

P.S. The fact that I make myself laugh during these interviews probably has less to do with the subject matter (most definitely, is more precise) or my sense of humor, and more to do with cabin fever. Or I'm just nuts.

View Details

Economic sanctions leveled against Russia, its leaders, and selected oligarchs by the United States and many other countries for its invasion of Ukraine are arguably the most aggressive in history. Their impact on the Russian economy has been severe and immediate, pushing the nation to the brink of economic collapse.

Yet, the world of business goes on, as it must. But what risks do American corporations and financial institutions face in light of these measures? What difficult reverberations will companies feel across the world? What should global businesses and FinTechs be doing right now to avoid, among other things, violating the restrictions imposed by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)? What role will cryptocurrency play in all of this? Also, do institutions whose data are stored in Russia and Ukraine face an additional risk as a parallel (albeit less horrific) battle rages on in cyberspace?

Listen to my interview with Brad Rustin, a partner with Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP and chair of the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice. Brad is a highly regarded FinTech law and industry expert. This will be apparent when you listen. Brad is also on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. This is a special rapid-release episode given we feel the insights Brad shares are insights business and FinTech’s -- and their attorneys -- urgently need to hear.

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 our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how much you learned from Brad, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Host and Litigation Enthusiast

P.S. We did not get to discuss Russia’s retaliatory sanctions against President Biden, his son, Hunter, and Hillary Clinton. No word on sanctions against the Biden dogs. Oh! This just in from People magazine: “Hillary Clinton Thanks Russia for 'Lifetime Achievement Award' After Country Issues Sanction Against Her.” That's just good comedy.

View Details

Jurors' perceptions of big corporations, insurance companies, drug companies, physicians and other healthcare providers is increasingly colored by TV and social media.

The same is true for people's 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. The phrase has taken on new meanings as it is used in the general press. To some it means tort reform rollbacks, litigation funding, and is most often seen in references to so-called “nuclear” jury verdicts, i.e., awards that exceed $10 million.

What factors contribute to these exorbitantly high jury verdicts?

Our guests today wrote in the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation: “These outsize awards are often driven by myriad factors including sympathetic jurors, societal conceptions about income and wealth of corporations, the use of emotion-driven ‘Reptile Theory’ tactics by plaintiff attorneys, the media spotlight on ‘bad apple’ physicians, and numerous other social factors. A new factor that influences elevated jury verdicts is the increasing volume of information—whether true or false—that is exchanged on social media platforms.”

Listen to my interview with Hall Booth Smith attorneys Sandra Cianflone, Samantha Myers, and Lindsay Nishan, each of whom represents members of the healthcare industry, as they discuss what drives large verdict and what attorneys should consider in mitigating the effects of this phenomenon.

In keeping with tradition, we may have strayed a bit from the topic. One guest’s Aunt Lulu made an appearance. It turns out Covid lockdowns may have produced more enthusiastic jurors. And I added another reason why writing and podcasting, and not the practice of law, was a better career path for me. (Apparently lawyers aren’t supposed to laugh in people’s faces. Noted.)

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 our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how much you learned from Sandie, Sam, Lindsay, or Aunt Lulu, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

View Details

"Your proposition may be good, but let’s have one thing understood: Whatever it is, I’m against it. And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it—I’m against it!"

—Professor Wagstaff (Groucho Marx) in the 1932 movie Horse Feathers

Attorney John P. Blumberg’s new book, Persuasion Science for Trial Lawyers, published by Fastcase Full Court Press, “takes a fascinating new approach to examining why certain advocacy techniques do and don’t work to persuade trial juries,” writes Susan G. Poehls. Director of Trial Advocacy Programs and William C. Hobbs Professor of Trial Advocacy at Loyola Law School, Poehls calls it an eye-opening read, one that will run "counter to what many of us have been taught for decades."

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 to tell me how much you learned from John, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

View Details

In our first two-part episode, we dive into the troubling existence of a group of chemicals referred to as PFAS, with the nickname "Forever Chemicals," because they stubbornly hang around in water, air, fish, soil, people, and animals.

PFAS -- which stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals -- are man-made creations that have been used in industry and consumer products worldwide since the 1950s. There are more than 4,000 of them, so it's a big family. They can be found in non-stick cookware, water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics and carpets, cosmetics, firefighting foams, and products that resist grease, water, and oil. Studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS in the environment may be harmful to humans and animals.

PFAS contamination has sparked some major litigation, with some cases involving hundreds or thousands of individuals that have settled for hundreds of millions of dollars. The PFAS issue is significant enough that -- despite so many other pressing issues -- the White House made it a top priority, kicking eight federal departments into gear to tackle the situation. It's a hot topic that's going to be with us for many years.

In Part 1 of the episode, we discussed the PFAS from the scientific and environmental engineering perspective. And to do that I was fortunate to have Jim Fenstermacher and Dr. Jaana Pietari from the global engineering firm Ramboll. Jim and Jaana have deep experience in environmental remediation involving a variety of contaminants, including PFAS.

In Part 2, I am joined by Robert Chesler of Anderson Kill. Bob is a long-time expert on insurance coverage for long-tail and other claims. He's considered a guru in the field, and has represented policyholders in disputes over coverage with insurers for as long as I've known him.

It's a serious subject and these are seriously qualified folks. I did my part to make a mockery of scientific terms as I struggled to say the name of this family of chemicals. Fortunately for you my guests were much more linguistically nimble and it is their voices you will hear more of.

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 you learned from Jaana, Jim and Bob, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

p.s. Here's a bonus for you. Write to me and I will send you the latest issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation with my compliments. That's some serious value right there.

View Details

“The Telephone Consumer Protection Act had humble beginnings,” our guest writes, “with the bill’s sponsor explaining that the statute would permit consumers to bring small claims cases ‘without an attorney,’ and provides for an ‘amount of damages … fair to both the consumer and the telemarketer.’ Twenty-eight years after its enactment in 1991, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court’s decision to reduce a $1.6 billion jury award in a TCPA class action to only $32 million because the former was ‘shockingly large’ and ‘oppressive,’ in violation of the Due Process Clause .....”

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

View Details

"Attorneys possess many of the same characteristics as their human cousins." Someone said that. Probably me. They often bring to their jobs cognitive barriers that get in the way of negotiating resolutions to conflicts. Same for their human clients. Things like refusal to cede the moral high-ground, or stubbornly believing there must always be someone to blame. Then there is overconfidence (i.e., "I am right and will win in court!") or they might enjoy selective memory, confirmation bias, and loss aversion. Attorneys are often in the position of mediator and problem solver. What can attorneys do to more effectively achieve satisfactory outcomes when the parties bring in their own set of human characteristics and emotions?

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 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 Jeff really got you thinking, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

View Details

According to an article written by our guest, "Some of the most exciting, vexing, and terrifying issues at the intersection of AI and law involve robojudges. Can we build a robojudiciary that replaces human judiciaries? Should we? Doing so would massively disrupt how our legal systems operate. It also might transform democratic self-government." I have to ask: Would any of that be so bad? It's not like humans are doing such a bang-up job. The risk, of course, is what if we get it all wrong?

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, remind me never to assume anything when I ask Josh a question. I said something like, "Surely we're not talking about sci-fi robots here," to which he basically said, "Not so fast." This happened more than once. When will I learn?

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 forward-thinking Josh is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

View Details

There are now billions and billions of interconnected devices in the world with more coming online every day. Smart cars. Smart cities. Smart agriculture and so much more. Even our pets are connected. And you have to look no further than the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack to see the real-world consequences of what criminals can pull off by connecting with things large and small. Worried about your privacy? Well. There is plenty to worry about. Fortunately we also have a lot of people fighting back on the technical, security, law enforcement, and legal fronts.

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

View Details

“Facing the prospect of major financial fallout from an attack, C-suites around the world have turned to cyber insurance. Insurers are issuing more policies, and the amounts of protection available are increasing. In 2020, according to data proprietary to the team I lead, the global insurance community saw the first cyber insurance program to exceed $1 billion — and the second. However, the momentum that has propelled the sector this far may be running out. The cyber insurance sector may still be in its infancy, but there are signs that it’s hit a (hopefully temporary) plateau.”

That is a quote from a Jan. 11, 2021, article in the Harvard Business Review titled "Cybersecurity Insurance Has a Big Problem."

The author of the piece is my guest on our latest episode. He is Tom Johansmeyer, ARM, is head of PCS, a Verisk business. PCS investigates and provides, independent loss estimates on catastrophes and large individual losses to the benefit of the global risk and capital supply chain. Tom has focused on the broad and rapid expansion of PCS, leading the team into Japan, New Zealand, and other APAC regions in 2019 – as well as Mexico. Tom is the architect of the PCS entry into global specialty lines, most recently adding large risk loss reporting to the group’s portfolio. Previously, Tom held insurance industry roles at Guy Carpenter (where he launched the first corporate blog in the reinsurance sector) and Deloitte. Personally, I like his LinkedIn description: "Aspiring cyclist and distance swimmer, former soldier. Leading the global charge at PCS. Haven't driven anything with a motor since 2007." Excellent.

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.

You might notice that I misused a commonly word term, one specifically common in the world of insurance, or maybe you weren't paying that much attention. That would make two of us. Also, Tom J. was just a fun interview and I hope to get him back! I like the way he explained his candor at the end. He suffers from an infliction that I wish were a pandemic. I hope you enjoy it.

Tom Hagy
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

View Details

Besides its people and the quality of their free snacks, an organization’s intellectual property is often its most valuable asset. Whether it’s a patent or a trademark, a graphic design or proprietary market information, or just the unique way they do what they do. Companies must protect their innovations or risk significant damage to their future prospects.

Assessing the vulnerabilities of such valuable inventory is as important as it is time-consuming. But such a review involves answering the same long-set of questions posed to any organization, no matter what type. There is the problem. You have a critical invention. You don’t know if it’s at risk. What do you do? You contact a lawyer, of course. You go through the process, one they have managed many times before. What if you could do this yourself first, before contacting a firm? What if it took just 20 minutes and could be done from the comfort of your desk? An innovative pair of attorneys in Brussels asked that question and came up with a solution. And I had the pleasure of interviewing them.

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

View Details

Wildfires are causing more destruction in North America than at any time in recorded history. In 2010 they consumed 3.4 million acres, but nearly tripled to devour more than 10 million acres in 2020.

They also have been responsible for numerous injuries and loss of life, razing thousands of homes, displacing wildlife, destroying natural resources, and even spewing air pollution thousands of miles away. Fighting these hellish infernos is a massive, all-out-war-like undertaking. The 2020 Dixie Fire was finally brought under control with the help of 6,500 personnel (from firefighters to the people who fed them), 1,000 fire trucks, water tankers, and bulldozers, and 1,000 miles of firehose. While some fires occur naturally, set off by lightening, for example, 84% are caused by humans. And, no matter how you slice it, humans are helping create the conditions of this continental tinderbox.

One group of attorneys from Baron & Budd and Dixon Diab & Chambers LLP is securing and seeking recovery for individuals, municipalities, and insurance companies that pay claims, when they can accomplish the difficult task of identifying the responsible parties. Positioned as "Wildfire Recovery Attorneys," they have done so in cases against Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. and Southern California Edison, which they have sued for allegedly failing to maintain power lines and the areas beneath them, among other things.

I had the pleasure of interviewing Ed Diab, co-founder of Dixon Diab & Chambers in San Diego, about his firm’s role in the litigation, what the claims are, what defenses they encounter, settlements they have secured, what evidentiary hurdles plaintiffs face, and more. They’ve been successful. Since 2018, Dixon Diab & Chambers has recovered more $1.4 billion in settlements. And there is more to come. The firm represents more than 40 public entities – including some of the largest cities and counties in California – as well as thousands of individuals and families. Ed leads the firm’s mass tort practice which, in addition to wildfire litigation, represents people who allege injuries from defective drugs and medical devices.

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.

Thanks to Ed Diab for speaking with me about this fascinating and frightening subject, and to Baron & Budd's Scott Summy for introducing us. For my part, I am sure my suggestion that they install smoke detectors all over the forest is complete nonsense. Also, I spoke with a friend who majored in Latin. Even though I showed zero confidence, I apparently stumbled close to the pronunciation of flammagenitus, Latin for “fire cloud.” I promised you a photo of one. Also called pyrocumulus clouds, they look as terrifying as they sound.

Tom Hagy
Host
Emerging Litigation Podcast

View Details

As brokerages focus on enhancing user experience, they risk shifting their customer’s focus from serious financial decisions to a game-like experience. Some think this is a good thing. That it will help engage the next generation of traders. Others think it's a bad thing. That it will create a more spastic type of trader with unrealistic expectations on potential returns. State and federal regulators are focusing on digital brokerages and exploring guardrails for these types of platforms.

The challenges facing traditional technology providers (volume controls, fraud, system outages, and liquidity) are now facing these digital brokerages—with real-life consequences for individuals and their savings and retirement accounts. One company that has been making headlines is Robinhood, which was on the receiving end of a $70 million fine handed down by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, for what it called "systemic supervisory failures." In coming up with the award, FINRA said it considered the "widespread and significant harm suffered by customers, including millions of customers who received false or misleading information from the firm, millions of customers affected by the firm’s systems outages in March 2020, and thousands of customers the firm approved to trade options even when it was not appropriate for the customers to do so." Robinhood is also defending itself in litigation involving dozens of cases.

Will we continue to see litigation over these platforms as more and more retail customers (many young and inexperienced) realize that securities involve market risks? What's the deal?

Find out! Listen to my interview with FinTech attorney Brad Rustin, a partner with Nelson Mullins. In addition to chairing the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice, Brad counsels financial institutions in regulatory matters, including strategic agreements, product development, and operational compliance. A large portion of his work is on bank and non-bank partnerships involving white-label deployments, FinTech partnerships, or payments, digital assets, cryptocurrency, and lending partnerships. Brad is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) by ACAMS and a Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager (CRCM) by the American Bankers Association. He received his JD, magna cum laude, from the University of South Carolina School of Law and his BA in Political Science and History, cum laude, from Furman University. And now, he is not only a guest on the Emerging Litigation Podcast, but the FinTech advisor on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.

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 and informative our guests are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Thanks to Brad for speaking with me about this fascinating subject. As for me, I will stay away from "game trading." Hearing people describe it reminds me of my PacMan obsession in college, which frequently cost me many hours that I should have spent differently, and too often a functioning shoulder.

Tom Hagy

View Details

For 30 years attorney Daniel R. Karon has successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in class-action and individual lawsuits. He's also chair of one of the leading class action conferences for lawyers, judges and law professors: the American Bar Association National Institute on Class Actions. He's passionate about educating up-and-coming lawyers. He teaches and writes extensively, and has been featured on podcasts and television news shows.

While practicing law (and some intensely serious matters), Danny became acutely aware of "a societal bias against access to justice where people who need justice the most often get it the least." One response to that was to launch Your Lovable Lawyer, a multi-media website whose goal is to "make justice more accessible to people who don’t know, can’t find, or can’t pay for lawyers." He endeavors to provide actionable insights regarding common legal problems. He refers to his "lovable" concept as "legal wellness," and encourages regular folks to take a proactive approach to legal matters and potential conflicts.

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 lovable Danny is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Thanks to Danny for sharing with me something he clearly feels passionately about. But, I discovered, passion is just one driver. When I asked Danny about all the on-camera video work he does, his replied, "Why not? I have the hair for it." A good a reason as any.

View Details

Nothing illustrates the tragic consequences of building decay more than the June 24, 2021, collapse of the Champlain Towers South in Surfside, Florida, which claimed the lives of nearly 100 residents. The event raises questions about the building inspection process not only in Florida but around the country. What caused this calamity? Who is responsible? How many other buildings are in similar condition? Any compensation for the loss of life, injuries, and property damage will likely be astronomical. Where will any financial awards come from?

Experienced construction law attorney Judah Lifschitz of Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram spoke with me about the near- and long-term impacts of the Surfside condo collapse and how it has reverberated around the country. Judah has extensive experience in construction matters, including power and energy construction representing clients in engineering, procurement and construction contracts and disputes. He represents governmental and private owners, regional, national and international contractors, construction managers, subcontractors, design professionals, sureties and insurance companies in disputes, trials, ADR proceedings and negotiations. Judah won one of the largest liquidated damages awards in the history of the construction industry. Education: George Washington University, J.D.; Yeshiva University, B.A., magna cum laude.

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 Judah is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Thanks to Judah for speaking with me about this important topic. I was especially proud that I pronounced his name correctly on the first try, though he assured me that I could in no way do more damage to it than those who have come before me. (Clearly he doesn't know me well.)

Tom Hagy
(pronounced HEY-ghee, for the record)

View Details

It's not a matter of if, but when. Of course, I'm talking about a sky speckled with commercial drones, bringing us our precious products and pharmaceuticals, or performing work in high places humans find dangerous, like inspecting bridges and buildings, monitoring crops and livestock, and keeping an eye on pipelines and oil rigs.

What must companies know about deploying a drone fleet? What industries are leading the way? What are the potential legal liabilities? How does one begin to navigate the regulatory labyrinth? If one is flying over my swimming pool taking photos, may I shoot it down? And who in their right minds would ever allow a teenage boy to operate one?

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 advises clients on these matters with expertise in the relevant Federal Aviation Administration regulations. She and her colleagues also advise clients on employee and subcontractor contracts, insurance policies, privacy regulations, state and local laws, and best practices as recommended by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. She handles product defect, personal injury, and property damage litigation, too. 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. This podcast is based on an article she wrote for the forthcoming issues of the Journal.

Just to clarify. Kathryn does own a drone, but not a "sheep drone." I regret the error, but wouldn't have it any other way. Thanks to Kathryn for speaking with me about this fascinating area of the law.

Tom Hagy

View Details

Damage awards in litigation against physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare providers have been coming in bigger and bigger, with juries awarding more than $20 million in a string of cases that should send chills down the spines of defendants and counsel.

What are the factors behind this trend? Besides the severe (or even alarming) nature of the harm alleged, what is fueling these mega verdicts? What can defense attorneys do, knowing they are facing a well-organized, well-funded plaintiffs bar? For that matter, what can defense attorneys learn from their opponents? What strategies can defense employ early in the life of a case?

Joining me to discuss this high-stakes litigation is Sandra M. Cianflone of Hall Booth Smith, P.C.Sandiecounsels and defends hospitals, physicians, nurses and institutional employees in a broad spectrum of catastrophic injury and medical malpractice cases. She received her Juris Doctorate from Pace University School of Law and her undergraduate degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University.

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 Sandie is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. This podcast is based on an article she wrote for the forthcoming issues of the Journal.

Note that in my introduction I have created the phrase "badly wrong," which is, itself, badly wrong. Listen to the bitter end when Sandie and I discuss working from home, and how we really feel about family and co-workers. Feel free to scold me at the email address provided. I hope you enjoy the interview and this professional's practical insights into defending healthcare providers.

Tom Hagy

View Details

Law firms are sweet targets for hackers given the rich data they store, from intellectual property to confidential merger details to personal and health information and more. The last decade is littered with headlines about data hacks and ransomware attacks at even the most sophisticated global law firms. Yet, according to the 2020 Legal Technology Survey Report conducted by the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center (LTRC) fewer than half of the firms polled employ some of the most basic security measures, such as email and file encryption. What can smaller firms do to protect their data and that of their clients?

Joining me to discuss this important issue is Ondrej Krehel, CEO & Founder of LIFARS, a New York City based incident response and digital forensics firm specializing in solutions to optimize an organization's cybersecurity protections. Ondrej is recognized for his digital forensic expertise and ethical hacking skills He participates in high-profile engagements around the world using his proprietary methodology to achieve the most rapid root-cause analysis and remediation. He is a former lecturer at FBI Training Academy who has led forensic investigations and cybersecurity involving the U.S. government, including military cyber special operations. He holds an Ph.D. in Computer Forensics from Police Academy in Bratislava, Slovakia, and M.S. degree in Mathematical Physics from Comenius University in Bratislava and an Engineering Diploma from Technical University in Zvolen, Slovakia.

Joining Ondrej and me is Gaspare J. Marturano, Chief Marketing Officer at LIFARS. Gaspare is a former Director of Information Systems for a large Connecticut law firm and has consulted on these issues with a number of other law firms.

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. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Ondrej and Gaspare are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

I particularly enjoyed hearing about what one kid was doing at 17, an age when I was certain I would be sought out for my rock drumming artistry. Of course, that kid was operating a criminal enterprise. I was just trying to impress girls.

Tom Hagy

View Details

Cryptocurrency assets now exceed $1.5 trillion globally. What a great innovation, as is the magic that makes these transactions possible. Of course, I’m talking about blockchain. The possibilities are endless on both counts. No central authority. No regulators. But (there’s always a but), thanks to the world’s miscreants, desperados and other baddies there is escalating potential for theft of these assets whether they are held in Bitcoin or other forms of digital currency. What should businesses consider if they plan to invest in virtual assets? How might they mitigate risk? What security measures should they have in place? Is the theft of digital currency covered by insurance?

Joining me to discuss this paradigm-shattering model is Anderson Kill Partner Stephen D. Palley, a seasoned trial lawyer and litigator with extensive experience in complex commercial disputes like insurance recovery, securities litigation, and corporate governance. Stephen has significant hands-on software development and design experience. Based in the firm’s D.C. office, he is co-chair of its cross-disciplinary blockchain and virtual currency group. At several points during our conversation I referred to an article co-written by Stephen and his New York colleague Joshua Gold, titled Protecting Cryptocurrency Assets. Stephen earned his J.D. from Washington University, his M.A. from the University of Delaware, and his B.A. (cum laude) from Tufts University (Go Jumbos!).

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 Stephen is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

I hope you enjoy the interview, especially when Leo, my cat, knocked over my microphone and when Stephen educated me on the existence of the Weird Beard Festival and other whisker-based celebrations. --Tom Hagy

View Details

President Biden has called for the doubling of offshore wind energy capacity by 2030. To say the process for getting such projects up and running is complex is an understatement. There will be plenty of obstacles to the administration's lofty goal. Where will these impediments to development arise? What role will states play? How will NGOs react to this ambitious ramp-up?

Joining me to discuss this important subject is Jack Smith, a partner with Nelson Mullins in Charleston, South Carolina. Jack's practice includes hazardous waste site management and remediation, contaminated property liability negotiation, litigation, redevelopment and related regulatory counseling. He has also worked for several state and federal government environmental agencies. Jack earned his JD from the University of South Carolina School of Law and a BS in Psychology, also from the University of South Carolina.

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 Jack is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. This interview is based in part on an article Jack is writing for the Journal.

I hope you enjoy the interview, and especially my solution for preventing birds from flying into windmills. I'm going to be rich. --Tom Hagy

View Details

Artificial intelligence has the capability to truly revolutionize how litigators work, and also how companies can avoid litigation in the first place. It can not only do the work of hundreds of people in mere seconds but can be used to predict liabilities before they become liabilities, and outcomes when disputes arise.

Joining me to discuss the incredible present-day applications of AI in law and business, as well as the potential to do much more if humans will let it, is Arthur Crivella of Crivella Technologies Limited. For decades Art has been a leader in developing and applying advanced software engineering, systems engineering and AI methodologies, and holds numerous foundation patents in the field. Art has helped create nationally recognized engineering achievements in weaponry as well as in the metals, rubber and food industries. He was principal design engineer in developing advanced weapons direction systems and wrap-around simulation systems for naval guided missiles. Crivella Tech supports corporations in managing risk and law firms in assessing liabilities. The company also supports law firms in class action and mass tort litigation.

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 Art is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

I hope you enjoy the interview, particularly my observation that you cannot hurt a robot's feelings. --Tom Hagy

View Details

It’s now been more than 18 months since the world was besieged by the novel coronavirus pandemic. In addition to the human toll, it disrupted our lives in ways big and small, new and old, as it raced across continents, first visiting North America in January 2020. There are an estimated 15,000 lawsuits relating to the outbreak, with some 350 filings directed toward the healthcare and medical communities. The number of insurance coverage suits is fast-approaching 1,800.

Litigation has been initiated against aging services, hospitals, and healthcare providers, with the next anticipated wave likely to surround vaccines themselves. What will be the basis of these claims? What defenses will we see? And what can healthcare providers do now in anticipation of this onslaught?

Joining me to discuss this out-of-the-blue rash of litigation is Sandra M. Cianflone of Hall Booth Smith, P.C.Sandiecounsels and defends hospitals, physicians, nurses and institutional employees in a broad spectrum of catastrophic injury and medical malpractice cases. She received her Juris Doctorate from Pace University School of Law and her undergraduate degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University.

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 Sandie is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. This podcast is based on an article she wrote for the forthcoming issues of the Journal.

I hope you enjoy the interview, and especially a brief story (after we wrap up) about Sandie's experience delivering a baby in the Age of COVID-19. I also mangled a bit of basic Spanish, for which I am ashamed (lo siento), and was a little cavalier with some statistics, for which I am mortified. Feel free to chastise me at the email address provided. --Tom Hagy

View Details

Unscrupulous contractors have been ripping off the federal government for as long as there has been a federal government. President Lincoln, tired of being sold lame mules and rancid rations, signed the Federal Claims Act into law during The Civil War. In the last two decades the government, with the help of whistleblowers, has raked in more than $20 billion.

Joining me to discuss this important civil statute is Jack Siegal of McGlinchey Stafford in Boston. Jack's practice focuses on financial services litigation, complex commercial disputes, government investigations and white-collar defense, securities litigation, regulatory proceedings, and compliance.

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 Jack is , please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

I hope you enjoy the interview, and especially how I managed not to include Jack's answer to whether my dog could be sued for violating the FCA. "Nope. Not a person," he said, with zero hesitation. I want to thank Jack for immediately taking on the role as Shiloh's advocate, and for speaking with me about this important law. --Tom Hagy

View Details

The cost of ransomware to businesses is estimated to have doubled since 2019 to $20 billion, according to Coveware. Policyholders turn to their insurance policies to recover losses which average more than $230,000 per incident. More than half (56%) of ransomware victims paid the ransom to restore access to their data last year, according to a global study of 15,000 consumers conducted by global security company Kaspersky. Yet for 17% of those, paying the ransom did not guarantee the return of stolen data.

Joining me to discuss an important ruling on insurance coverage for ransomware incidents Scott Godes, a partner with Barnes & Thornburg. Scott advises and represents policyholders regarding insurance coverage for cyberattacks, data breaches and cyber security issues, business email compromises and CEO fraud, network failures, advertising injury, libel, ransomware, and personal injury claims.

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 Scott is , please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

I hope you enjoy the interview, and how I managed to work in Scott's gymnastics experience with zero finesse.

View Details

Civil unrest. Peaceful protests. Massive marches. Riots. Looting. Which of these things are not like the other? Recent social outrage over police shootings of Black people -- these events in particular -- have sent people to the streets by hundreds of thousands. In some cases these constitutionally protected activities are followed by property damage, injury and death. Observers continue to debate who is responsible for the violence. Whatever the answer, as a very practical matter, someone has to pay for the property damage.

Join me for my conversation with Vince Vitkowsky of Gfeller Laurie LLP. Vince possesses deep knowledge of insurance coverage matters, representing carriers in a variety of areas, e.g. cyber risk, data privacy, general liability, directors and officers liability, health, and more. He combines his experience as a veteran insurance and reinsurance lawyer with a strong background in terrorism and national security law.

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 Vince is , please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

I hope you enjoy the interview, and how deftly we obscured the fact that Vince lives in New York City.

View Details

Participation in labor unions is less than half of what it was 40 years ago. It has seen an uptick in the service sector, but a sharp decline in manufacturing. According to economist Heidi Shierholz decline in union rolls is partly responsible for today's yawning income inequality gap. Recently we've seen the formation of a modest union at Google and a movement among Amazon workers. We've also seen how the pandemic has shone a bright light on the fragility of our nation's workforce struggling to survive at the bottom rungs of the pay scale.

Joining me to speak about these issues is Kathryn Van Deusen Hatfield, a senior managing partner at Hatfield Schwartz Law Group in New Jersey. Kathy represents private and public sector employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, with expertise in litigating state and federal cases on behalf of employers involving Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and providing legal opinions and advice on personnel, employment and labor issues. Kathy shares her insights on recent developments in the labor movement, some of the causes of its decline, how unions get a bad rap, and how, even though she represents management, she believes unions can be a good thing for everyone -- employees and companies alike.

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 David and Dan are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

I hope you enjoy the interview, and how I managed to demonstrate how little I know about sports. I feel made up for it by learning something about baseball Hall of Famer Jim Rice, who did something really cool and heroic in 1982.

View Details

Leave it to people to seize on any opportunity to take advantage of good intentions. The federal government has made available many millions of dollars under the CARES Act, subsets of which are the Paycheck Protection Program and SBA lending which comes with some forgiveness provisions. Fraudsters are popping up. Some are being indicted. Others are paying fines. But this is just the start since more fraud will be exposed when it comes time to pay loans back. Plus statutes of limitations will keep certain claims actionable up to five and even 10 years from now.

Joining me to speak about these issues are two former federal prosecutors who have criminal defense practices in Orlando, Fla. They are David Haas of Haas Law and Dan Eckhart of Dan Eckhart Law. David and Dan come to the podcast with decades of experience on both sides of such claims. They discuss how the fraud is accomplished, the types of remedies involved, and how much more of this we should expect to see.

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 David and Dan are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

I hope you enjoy the interview, and how I managed to bring my own personal PPP loan application into the conversation, likely obliterating any chance that I will get a penny.

View Details

When, in addition to damage, injury and even death, a catastrophe ravages a regional economy, should that be taken into account when valuing the business loss claims brought by a policyholder? The UK Supreme Court recently came down on the issue in a test case based on a batch of different company policies giving some hope to policyholders. What impact will it have on COVID business interruption claims in the U.S.? How will it impact the valuation of claims for other catastrophic events like hurricanes, wildfires, and earthquakes?To discuss these issues, it was my pleasure to interview attorney Peter A. Halprin, a partner in the New York office of Pasich LLP and Christopher Mortifoglio of Procor Solutions, also in New York. Peter represents commercial policyholders in complex coverage matters ranging from data security events to natural disasters to COVID. Chris is both a certified public accountant and forensic examiner, with experience valuing claims in the wake of hurricanes Sandy and Alex, and the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB 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 Peter and Chris are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

I hope you enjoy the interview, and how I suggested that Peter may be old enough to tell us about his experience with losses incurred by merchants sailing wooden ships during the vibrant spice trade of the 1400s.

Episode is Live

Published: Feb. 23, 2021 @ 5AM Edit

Unpublish

Add a Transcript

Get episode better indexed by search engines.

Add Chapter Markers

Listeners can tap through & see what’s coming up.

Create a Visual Soundbite
Best way to share to social media for engagement.

Share Episode On

Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

More Options

Email Link to Episode
Copy

Direct Link to MP3
Copy

View Details

To consumers, class actions can be an invaluable tool when they need to level the playing field in disputes with large companies whose resources far outweigh those of individuals. Two important class action cases are currently before the Supreme Court. One case, TransUnion v. Ramirez, involves innocent consumers who were erroneously added to the government's watch list for terrorists and drug smugglers. In the second, Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teachers, consumers seek to fend off a decision that could limit securities class actions against companies that make generic statements about integrity before a drop in stock prices. Another important issue (not currently before the high court) is mass and forced arbitration, something some observers say substantially impedes the ability of consumers' and employees' to challenge corporations.

To discuss these issues, it was my pleasure to interview F. Paul Bland, Jr., Executive Director of Public Justice, an organization that pursues "high impact lawsuits to combat social and economic injustice, protect the Earth’s sustainability, and challenge predatory corporate conduct and government abuses." Paul has argued and won more than 40 cases that led to reported decisions for consumers, employees or whistleblowers, including one victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, and has won one or more cases in six of the U.S. Courts of Appeals and the high courts of 10 different states.

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB 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 Paul is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

We hope you enjoy the interview, and how I slipped in mention of Schrödinger's cat which, as everyone knows (that's sarcasm and self-deprecation), is a thought experiment that illustrates an apparent paradox of quantum superposition.

View Details

What does the future hold for psychedelics in America? How are states approaching the ownership and use of these drugs, either for recreational or their controlled therapeutic use?

Listen to my interview with Griffen Thorne, an attorney in the Los Angeles office of Harris Bricken LLP.  He focuses on corporate, transactional, intellectual property, data security, regulatory, and litigation matters across a wide variety of domestic and international industries.

As part of Harris Bricken’s corporate cannabis team, he works closely with cannabis and hemp clients, whom he advises on obtaining licenses and permits, regulatory compliance, entity formation and structuring, mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance issues, contract drafting and negotiation, obtaining and protecting intellectual property rights, and administrative appeals and litigation.

He also represents clients throughout a wide range of industries regarding compliance with United States, European, and Asian Internet, technology, and data security laws and regulations.

We hope you enjoy the interview.

Tom Hagy

Send questions or comments to Editor@LitigationConferences.com. 

View Details

More of us are working from home and, given it often has advantages, it's an arrangement that is likely to continue for many of us. This raised the general question: Is your home officially "the office," with all the attendant rules and norms? What new risks do employers face? What new ways can employees find themselves in trouble? We're also getting vaccinated. That's great news, but can companies required employees to get the shot? Further, studies reveal that we're not all bearing the brunt of remote working evenly. Who is carrying more of the load? Given these dramatic changes, should employers adjust their policies?

It was my pleasure to interview Stefani Schwartz, co-founder of the woman-owned employment-and-labor boutique Hatfield Schwartz in New Jersey. Stefani has devoted her legal career to representing employers in all aspects of employment law, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination matters.

Stefani will be featured in the next issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB 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 awesome Stefani is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

We hope you enjoy the interview, and a guest appearance by Benny, her Portuguese Water Dog, you know, because she's working from home. Stefani also shares one retail customer's quick fix for forgetting her face mask.

View Details

As we see liability actions relating to plastics creeping into the nation's dockets, what types of claims will survive? How much more of this might we see? And if it really hits the fan, how will insurance companies respond? Will policyholders find protection in their comprehensive general liability policies? Their directors and officers policies? Other policies?

It was my pleasure to interview Mikaela Whitman for what was an informative and insightful podcast on this potentially enormous area of litigation. It’s based on her article — One Word: Plastics. Two Words: Pollution Exclusion. Why CGL Policies Should Cover Plastics-Related Liabilities — which will be featured in the inaugural issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation in January 2021.

Mikaela (mwhitman@pasichllp.com) is a partner in Pasich LLP’s New York office and a member of the firm’s insurance recovery practice. Her practice focuses on the representation of insureds in all phases of insurance coverage recovery, from pre-suit negotiations through alternative dispute resolution and litigation.

The Journal is a collaborative project between HB 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 awesome Mikaela is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

We hope you enjoy the interview.

View Details

What efficiencies have been foisted upon our nation's courts as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic? What has worked and what has not? Are we going to see permanent implementation of things like webcam hearings and virtual trials?

It was my pleasure to interview Alison Besunder on this timely and evolving subject. It’s based on her article — Crisis is the Mother of Change: How a Pandemic Sparked Progress in Courtroom Efficiency — which will be featured in the January 2021 issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.

Alison brings extensive experience counseling clients on matters ranging from the simple to complex, helping them prevent future disputes through proactive planning and to resolve disputes that proceed to litigation. She is a frequent speaker on topics such as Estate Planning During Divorce, End of Life Decision Making, Cyber-Security for Lawyers, and Social Media and Ethics. She operated her own firm for several years and in 2019 joined Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP.

The Journal is a collaborative project between HB 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 awesome Alison is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

We hope you enjoy the interview.

View Details

What can legitimate cannabis companies do to level the playing field, not only against others who walk the straight and narrow, but dealers still thriving on the black market?

It was my pleasure to interview Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver for what was an informative and even surprising podcast. It’s based on their article — Clearing the Haze: State Laws and Private Plaintiffs Critical to Preserve Competition in Cannabis — which will be featured in the inaugural issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, which will release in January 2021.

Ausra, who is an attorney with the global law firm Dentons LLP, has spent more than a decade advising clients in a range of antitrust matters including merger investigations, competitor collaborations, and pricing and distribution policies. She works closely with cannabis clients to help them navigate the rapidly evolving cannabis laws and regulations throughout the U.S.

Jennifer is a partner at national antitrust boutique MoginRubin LLP, where she litigates and advises clients on competition issues. Her work includes representing classes of plaintiffs in class actions, risk mitigation and regulatory advice in mergers and acquisitions, and other complex business litigation. Check out the MoginRubin Blog.

The Journal is a collaborative project between HB 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 awesome Ausra and Jennifer are, drop me a note at Question@LitigationConferences.com.

We hope you enjoy the interview.

View Details

Are the risks posed by social media — which has added jet fuel to one person’s ability to smear another — adequately addressed by the insurance market?

It was my pleasure to interview Charlie Kingdollar for our first episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast. 

Charlie spent more than four decades with General Reinsurance, three-quarters of which as the company’s Emerging Issues Officer. One colleague described him as “one of the most prescient and gifted industry futurists I have met in my 36 year professional career within the insurance industry. Entertaining and insightful, his ability to digest and communicate complex issues, many before they are readily apparent, is both a gift and a talent.” 

This interview is based on his article on social disparagement coming out in the inaugural issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation in January 2021.  The Journal is a collaborative project between HB and Fastcase. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Charlie is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

We hope you enjoy the interview.