Discovery demands on in-house legal staff have changed drastically in recent years. Historically, complying with subpoenas and document production requests were quotidian chores for in-house legal staff. After receiving a complaint, counsel's office issued a standard 'document hold' to affected employees and directed that those involved in the case preserve their files and not destroy anything. Questions might arise, but they were manageable. What must be disclosed? What documents are privileged? How long will it take to retrieve documents from storage? How many staff hours will complying require? How much will it cost? Who bears the cost? Which discovery requests should be challenged?
Dianne R. Sagner(Editor's Note: With the FRCP amendments on e-discovery becoming effective on Dec. 1, this issue features articles, including this one, that address areas of critical concern for corporate attorneys.)
Discovery demands on in-house legal staff have changed drastically in recent years. Historically, complying with subpoenas and document production requests were quotidian chores for in-house legal staff.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
An annual tradition continues as we present the responses to our Legalweek question. For 2026, it was "where are we with prompting"?
The volume and sophistication of work hitting law firm marketing departments is accelerating. That moves the burden from responding to being ready: ready with differentiated positioning, ready with competitive intelligence, ready to get a compelling pitch to the right client before a formal process even begins. That requires more sophisticated output, produced faster, by teams that are already stretched past capacity.
In categories where products are difficult to differentiate on performance, and that describes most of the AI industry today, customers do not choose on features, they choose on trust. Brand integrity, in those markets, is a material business asset.
The annals of copyright decisions could provide a reasonably representative catalog of what our culture has been up to over the past 200 years. A Feb. 3 decision from the Southern District of New York is a case in point. It involves a sex-trafficking conspiracy, Tweets attacking a troubled crypto firm, and a claimed transfer of copyright ownership through a restitution order in a criminal case, all over an undercurrent of competing First Amendment and victim-privacy concerns.
Matthew McConaughey secured eight federal trademark registrations covering his voice and iconic catchphrases in a novel legal strategy aimed at combating AI’s unauthorized use of his voice and likeness. The move signals an important evolution in the power dynamics between talent/brands and the companies providing generative AI tools.
