Because information has become increasingly easy to obtain and transfer, employers must take precautionary measures to ensure that confidential data is adequately protected. This applies not just to proprietary business information, but also to confidential employee data. <br>This article provides an overview of statutory, constitutional and common law concerns with res-pect to obtaining and maintaining confidential employee information, and penalties that employers may face for failing to protect the security of confidential employee records.

You've read about it, you've heard about it, but let's say it again: Your employees, on their own or in collusion with others, can make your firm a victim of fraud. Understanding how fraud takes place can help you and your clients minimize its possibility; yet statistics show that many businesses do not understand fraud and do not recognize its red flags.

Features

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Most of us who have had some experience with 'Hague' cases typically become involved only after children have been transported to or from the United States by one parent. Unfortunately, our clients living here or abroad rarely seek legal advice before their spouses travel internationally with the couple's children, leaving the client behind. Of course, many parents leave clandestinely with their children, thus rendering it impossible for the remaining spouse to seek preventative legal advice. However, we need to be prepared to offer advice prospectively.This article addresses the 'retention' issue.

In Part One of this article, which ran in the March, 2006 issue of The Matrimonial Strategist, we defined the newly evolving role of the parenting coordinator (PC), and discussed various statutory authorities for the PC role; its purpose and scope; how PCs are appointed; what decision-making authority PCs have or do not have; the timing of PC appointments; and the court's jurisdiction to make such appointments. Part Two deals with additional PC topics, including continuing jurisdiction and judicial review of PC decisions or recommendations.

While it is often thought that the marital privilege prohibits a spouse from testifying at all against, or relating to communications with, the other spouse, there are a number of well-accepted limitations on the scope and application of this statutory privilege. Based on long-standing exceptions and limitations, the privilege is often unavailable in many contexts in both criminal and commercial litigation.

Features

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark <i>Daubert</i> decision (<i>Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.</i>, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)), established an empirical standard of evidentiary reliability to ensure that only those expert opinions predicated upon demonstrably valid knowledge would make their way into evidence. Daubert further instructed that when the expert testimony comes from a discipline that purports to be scientific, as does psychology, evidentiary reliability translates to a standard of scientific validity. This article examines the peer-review/publication process and explores its value and its limitations as a measure of evidentiary reliability.

We want to know how we can make this newsletter an even better resource for your professional needs. Are we covering all you want to see? Are there sections you would like to see enhanced or replaced?<br>Your views and opinions are essential in our effort to continue to provide you with the top notch News, Strategy and Analysis you have come to expect from Law Journal Newsletters.<br>Help us help you! Please click <a href="http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=604771980045">here</a> to complete a short survey or type the following URL into your browser: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=604771980045.<br>Your answers will assist us in making this an even better newsletter for you! Thank you.<br>Regards,<br>Colin Graf<br>LJN Marketing Director