Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On-the-job Internet surfing has become a problem that employers can no longer ignore. A recent Office of Inspector General investigation, for example, revealed that senior-level SEC staff, including an attorney, used their workplace computers to view online pornography for up to eight hours per day during the period of time that led this country's biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. See, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/SECPornSummary.pdf. The workplace Internet-abuse epidemic is not restricted to massive operations, either. Small companies express concerns that their staff wastes valuable office time tagging photos in Facebook and sending personal e-mails instead of doing work. Yet the blurry divide between prolonged, purely personal workplace Internet (ab)use and the occasional, legitimate need to use temporarily a company computer to communicate with a bank, an online vendor, or an attorney, continues. A company's decision on where to draw the line on personal use of workplace computers poses a great challenge to employers, and recent court rulings do not make the decision and its enforcement any easier.
Under what circumstances do employees who use a workplace computer to communicate with their attorneys waive the attorney-client privilege that would normally attach to such a communication? A recent ruling from New Jersey addressed this question. In Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 2010 N.J. LEXIS 241 (N.J. March 30, 2010), the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that an employee's private, password-protected e-mails containing communications with her attorney remained privileged, despite the existence of a detailed, written workplace technology policy that expressly placed employees on notice that the employer could intercept and review communications made using the employer's computers at any time. The issue of how the attorney-client privilege applies to workplace e-mails remains murky in many jurisdictions, and this New Jersey ruling, and a few others, provide some much-needed guidance for employers and employees alike.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.