Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Developments of Note
FDIC Advises Banks On Avoiding Risks
Of Spyware Instrusion
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) recently issued an advisory to banks on how to avoid risks associated with spyware. The advisory recommends “best practices” to mitigate against the risks posed by spyware within an institution's network and on bank customers' computers. Among the actions recommended to mitigate internal risks are restrictions on the downloading of unapproved software, installation and maintenance of anti-virus and anti-spyware programs, and expanding bank risk-assessment procedures to consider risks from spyware. The FDIC advisory is available at www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2005/fil6605.html.
AZ Attorney Ethics Opinion Requires Security Measures
Attorneys must take “competent and reasonable steps” to secure client files from disclosure or destruction if they are stored on a computer network that is accessible to the Internet. Arizona Ethics Opinion 05-04 (Ariz. State Bar Comm. on Rules of Prof. Conduct July 2005). The committee said that to take such steps, an attorney must have the necessary technical competence, either personally or through the retention of an expert, “to evaluate the nature of the potential threat to client electronic files and to evaluate and deploy appropriate computer hardware and software to accomplish that end.” The opinion is available at www.myazbar.org/Ethics/pdf/05-04.pdf.
NJ Ethics Committee Says Domain Name
Needn't Include Firm, Attorney Name
A law firm may use a domain name that does not include either the firm name or the name of any individual attorney within the firm, provided that certain conditions are met. Ethics Opinion 32 (New Jersey Comm. on Attorney Advertising June 6, 2004). The committee opined recently that the home page to which the domain name points must “clearly and prominently identify” the actual name of the law firm and its address, and must include certain advisories and disclaimers specified in ethics rules. The committee also stated that the domain name must neither be false or misleading. The opinion is available at http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/ethics/caa/caa32_1.html.
Developments of Note is written by Julian S. Millstein, Edward A. Pisacreta and Jeffrey D. Neuburger, partners in the New York office of Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP (http://www.brownraysman.com/).
FDIC Advises Banks On Avoiding Risks
Of Spyware Instrusion
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.