Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Attorneys as Technologists
As the founder of the Electronic Discovery and Data Management practice group at Troutman Sanders, I've spent a lot of time advising clients on the efficient management, production, and use of electronically stored information (ESI) in litigation. With the continued growth in the volume of ESI involved in even the smallest of matters, we made a big decision ' to create Troutman Sanders eMerge, a wholly owned subsidiary of the firm dedicated to consulting, project management, and technology services related to ESI in litigation and internal/governmental investigations.
The decision to separate the group in this way required a great deal of thought and effort. We had to ask ourselves: 'How can we continue to offer strategic legal advice on e-discovery while also leveraging the tremendous technological advancements in the space?' We recognized that achieving this would require talented staff immersed in the legal and technical issues ' and the software ' of e-discovery on a regular basis. These are the types of factors law firms should consider when developing e-discovery solutions. For eMerge, this meant leveraging the talents of our team to create a viable business centered on e-discovery and the management of ESI.
Prior to launching eMerge in June 2012, the e-discovery technology capabilities of the firm were fairly dependent on overseeing the work of external vendors. While this solution may be workable, even advantageous for some firms, our experience suggested some good reasons for Troutman Sanders to take more ownership of the entire operation:
- We had the necessary legal and technical expertise and resources;
- We wanted to standardize on one review platform to more consistently handle matters; and
- We wanted to use our tech-savvy attorney project managers as the single points-of-contact on matters.
Our e-discovery and data management practice group was already made up of homegrown Troutman Sanders lawyers who possessed advanced technology skills and were specially trained on our processes, review tools, and the facts and issues of our cases.
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.