Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b>Online Exclusive:</b> Around the States
California. The California Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney that out-of-state callers must comply with California law that requires consent from all parties to tape a call. This law affects even out-of-state callers who reside in states where consent is not required. The issue arose when clients of investment brokerage firm Salomon Smith Barney challenged the company's practice of recording calls made to brokers in Atlanta. (Georgia does not require consent by both parties.) Interestingly, in April 2006, a New York City appellate court ruled in Locke v. Aston that a New York resident on the phone with a California resident does not have a presumption of privacy because New York does not require consent by both parties.
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.