LJN Newsletters

When a jury hears an argument, how do you know if they're getting it? They may start out conscientious and alert with good intentions about performing their civic duty, but that enthusiasm may dissipate throughout the trial and adversely affect the decision-making process. Like it or not, attention spans wane, boredom creeps in and life gets in the way all the while you're trying to win your case.

Consider this not unimaginable scenario: Opposing counsel calls for production of a confidential memorandum that details your impressions of the case and trial strategies. This is clearly protected as core work product, right? Not necessarily. In fact, if you shared the memo with your testifying expert in a federal court case, the answer is 'probably not.' Perhaps even more troubling is the following situation: On cross-examination, your expert is asked to reveal the content of confidential oral communications between you and your client to which he was privy in his capacity as a testifying expert. Once protected by the virtually impenetrable shroud of the attorney-client privilege, these types of communications also may now be discoverable if the testifying expert 'considered' the information in forming his opinions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).

As firms strive to differentiate themselves through marketing techniques and stave off mergers through network affiliations, they are gearing up alumni programs to net referrals and maintain positive relationships with former employees.

Confronted by increased competition and changes in the way expense conscious corporate clients procure legal services, law firms are responding by building capacity ' increasing their size through aggressive lateral hiring and acquisition. It is an appropriate response; driven by the market perception that in order to compete today for global corporate business, it is imperative that the modern law firm be large enough to handle both commoditized work as well as provide high end counsel, deep enough to handle any and all matters that a company may face, and streamlined enough to take advantage of technological and other economies of scale. But the myriad of market-based arguments that enable the creation of these large partnerships with hundreds of partners beg the question: 'Now that we've built the infrastructure, how do we truly distinguish ourselves in a manner that actually confirms these assumptions and secures the business?'

Practice management is gaining strength as a discipline in many mid-sized firms. Long adhered to in large firms as a way to interact most effectively with clients, produce the client's work in the most timely and cost-effective manner, and generate collegiality among lawyers, in mid-sized firms many managing partners have relegated the practice of law to individual partners, reluctant to impose their judgments on how individual client matters were being performed. This results from their belief that lawyer management should not have to follow up on partners responsible for performing client work or for managing substantive practice areas.

It has become an increasingly common fact pattern: An employer discriminates against an employee, for example, because of her gender. She files a claim of discrimination against the employer with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In a matter of days, the employer finds out about her charges and decides to make her work life miserable. This might create a straightforward claim for unlawful retaliation, that is if the employer's actions made her life 'miserable enough.' The question of what is 'miserable enough' has divided the courts, and thus there may not be a clear answer to questions on adverse employment actions for employers or employees.

Part One of this series discussed the rationales courts typically draw upon in deciding whether to apply a heeding presumption in failure-to-warn cases in general. This installment analyzes the application of the heeding presumption in pharmaceutical failure-to-warn cases specifically and explains why justifications for the presumption in the general product liability context do not necessarily hold true in the pharmaceutical failure-to-warn setting.

New Internet Phone Wiretap Rules Challenged
Congress May Consider Mandatory ISP Snooping
Movie Piracy Losses Bigger Than Expected, Says a Recent Study
House Panel Approves Bill to Ban Cyber-gambling
Group Sues NY to Overturn Law Banning Internet Tobacco Sales