Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The fourth anniversary of the tragedy in New York has come and gone, and our country remains on alert in an effort to prevent another terrorist attack. While we see frequent warnings published in the news and through industry groups, the heightened awareness those warnings generate does not put our companies in compliance with the laws requiring our participation in the fight against terrorism. This article examines the anti-terrorism laws that affect our industry and outlines best practices for compliance with those laws. It also provides information on enforcement activities that have occurred. It provides a basis for evaluating whether or not your company is in compliance with the anti-terrorism laws.
Features
To outsiders of the legal community, no rule is more familiar than the attorney-client privilege. In simple terms, what a client tells his attorney is supposed to stay between the client and his attorney. It is this covenant of secrecy that prompts some (but certainly not all) clients to be honest and forthcoming with the facts underlying a particular claim. In turn, it allows the attorney to provide the most effective representation to his/her client. Yet, in the world of bad faith claims, courts have proved willing to find that an insurance company has impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege even in cases when the insurer has not argued that it relied upon the advice of counsel in denying the claim. <i>See</i> Steven Plitt, <i>The Elastic Contours of the Attorney-Client Privilege and Waiver in the Context of Insurance Company Bad Faith: There's a Chill in the Air</i>, 34 Seton Hall L. Rev. 513 (2004).
Features
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Reinsurance and insurance contracts would be thousands of pages long if they explicitly defined every possible term, however mundane, or if they anticipated every possible contingency, however remote. Fortunately, (or perhaps unfortunately) for the drafters of these contracts, the U.S. legal system typically employs a more streamlined model. That is, parties commit to an agreement with the understanding that courts and other adjudicatory bodies may play a role in filling in contractual "gaps" and giving meaning to indefinite or indeterminate contractual terms. <i>Cf. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Schumacher Elec. Corp.</i>, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14318 (7th Cir. 2005). Although there are a number of methods by which a court can interpret a contract, the importation of custom and usage evidence plays a special role in illuminating insurance and reinsurance contracts. This article explores whether and when courts will admit such evidence, and it divides into three sections: First, the article explains the rules that courts will employ when they determine whether and when to admit custom and usage evidence; second, it considers the effect of integration clauses on the possible importation of custom and usage evidence; and, third, it provides several practical suggestions for a party seeking to import custom and usage evidence.
Insureds embroiled in litigation with underlying claimants frequently are confronted with demands from their insurers that can place their litigation position at risk. One issue that often arises is whether an insured must and should provide requested privileged materials to its insurer in connection with the insurer's coverage investigation or in coverage litigation. Where the insurer has accepted the insured's defense of litigation and thus its interests appear to be aligned with the insured in a successful resolution of the underlying matter, the insured may have difficulty in refusing to provide certain materials. However, as is often the case, 1) an insurer will reserve rights and then seek all information relevant to the underlying matter, regardless of its privileged status, or 2) deny coverage and seek that information in the context of coverage litigation. Insureds should be aware of possible risks that can be created if they comply with requests for privileged information, and that despite the insurers' claims of a "common interest" or that the privileged information is "at issue," significant case law protects these materials from production.
The MLF 50 ' The Top 50 Law Firms in Marketing and Communications appeared in a special September/October issue of MLF. Here are some of the highlights of that issue, including mention of the top five firms.
Well, it's been an exciting year here at <i>Marketing the Law Firm</i>. As with past practice, this month's issue will be a look back at the year that was. In this issue we will present February (the January issue recaps part of 2004) through July.
Features
After a rigorous search, which involved input from key firm personnel including our IT director, paralegals, attorneys, senior managing partners, and the Chief Operating Officer, we selected Client Profiles as our case management solution. Since the selection, we have been able to revolutionize the way our users access, share and update information related to all cases and matters; have seen firm-wide adoption of 100%, and are realizing numerous technology-related cost savings and productivity enhancements.
During a recent assignment, we were asked to assist a client in evaluating potential litigation involving conspiracy and fraud claims arising out of a complex multi-party transaction. For the task, the client arranged for us to have access to approximately 35 gigabytes of e-mail data restored from a critical time period. With the equivalent of approximately 2 million pages needing review, we immediately faced two contradictory challenges. First, how to effectively review a large body of data in a short time while keeping staffing tight and costs down. Second, and equally important, how to leverage our existing knowledge of the issues to identify and drill down deep into significant documents, test our legal theories and strengthen the strategic recommendation our client was seeking.