Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In late April 2022, riding a wave of bipartisan political support, the Biden administration and House of Representatives proposed expanding the executive branch’s authority to freeze, seize, and forfeit to the people of Ukraine assets of individuals perceived to be aligned with the Russian government. These proposals seek to punish the Russian government’s contemptable invasion of Ukraine, which has resulted in catastrophic levels of destruction and horrendous numbers of civilian casualties — including some caused by potential war crimes, a global refugee crisis, and a potential global food crisis. By going after the assets of those who, historically, have benefited from political allegiance to the regime of Vladimir Putin, political leaders hope to pressure Putin to reconsider his egregious actions. The goal is laudable, but pursuing it by expanding the reach of asset forfeiture — a domain that has been subject to justifiable criticism in recent years — and by expressly tying forfeitability to historic political support of a nation-state, raises some serious procedural and substantive questions.
*May exclude premium content
By Robert G. Heim
AI currently is playing a growing role in helping white-collar lawyers and their clients analyze vast amounts of data to uncover insights, connections, and patterns that would be impossible to detect through manual reviews. This article provides an introduction to AI technology and discusses the key regulatory developments practitioners should be aware of as they advise their clients on AI.
By Benjamin Rosenberg
Individual employees often act pursuant to advice from their in-house counsel. If named as a defendant in which her action is challenged, the employee may want to assert advice of corporate counsel as a defense. But the privilege belongs to the employer, not the employee, and the employer may refuse to waive the privilege. Can the court abrogate the employer’s privilege over the objection of the employer, and if so under what circumstances?
By Nate Robson
After much saber-rattling, the Biden administration’s focus on white-collar corporate compliance is finally coming into focus. Law firms and white-collar compliance experts have long warned the administration’s ramped-up focus was coming, but the pandemic largely nixed any initiatives. A spate of recent settlements coupled with the addition of a new white-collar leader at the U.S. Department of Justice is giving the public a look into what compliance will look like under Biden.
By Jessica Mach
Employment attorneys say the breadth of new state laws — and the pace at which they are going into effect — means in-house counsel at companies trying to create workarounds for employees in states with restrictive abortion laws by providing benefits that would allow them to travel out-of-state to access abortion services will need to be on high alert, since keeping up on top of the laws will be key to limiting their exposure to litigation — or even criminal penalties.