As you prepare for your upcoming product liability trial, things could not seem any better. You have qualified experts waiting to testify that your client's product is not defective. The client is credible, well established, clearly safety conscious and responsible. Throughout lengthy pretrial depositions, your client has never denied ownership or control of the product, and never claimed that purported safety measures suggested by the plaintiff were not feasible. He claims only that the measures would have been inconsequential based on the facts of the case. Therefore, it is your impression that the warning label your client added to the "Super Widget" subsequent to the accident will never be presented to the jury based on the protections of Federal Rule of Evidence 407, a conclusion the judge will surely come to as she flips through your motion in limine.
- May 26, 2005Alan D. Kaplan and Christopher P. Greeley
During the course of discovery in product liability matters, a key liability theme is often whether the defendant company complied with its regulatory obligations in connection with the product at issue. For example, in product liability litigation concerning chemical compounds, the focus might be on whether the company properly registered the compound with the EPA or with state environmental agencies. Likewise, in a pharmaceutical or medical device product liability case, plaintiffs will often focus on whether the product complied with FDA regulatory requirements. Plaintiffs' approach to such liability issues will often result in depositions that focus on whether, how, and when the defendant company informed the appropriate regulatory agencies of any risks potentially associated with use of the product at issue. Did the company submit the requisite scientific data; did it properly report known adverse events associated with the product at issue, and did it seek appropriate approval from the regulatory agency regarding the nature of its warnings to users and consumers? To that end, plaintiffs will often notice depositions of fact witnesses whom they think can provide testimony on the company's regulatory compliance or they may seek depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(B)(6) of witnesses "with knowledge" of the company's regulatory compliance.
May 26, 2005Kurt Hamrock and Lisa AbramsEd Wesemann's book Creating Dominance provides an impressively coherent guide to strategic thinking for law firm planners. The book draws on Wesemann's…
May 26, 2005Joe DanowskyThe Law Firm Business Institute, a law-firm consultancy run by A&FP Board member Stephen M. (Pete) Peterson, has merged with certified public accounting firm Maxfield & Co. Headquartered in Grand Junction, CO and serving clients nationally and internationally, the new firm is named Maxfield Peterson, P.C.
May 26, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |This two-part article explores career path opportunities for individuals who have an accounting or finance background and experience working with law firms and attorneys. Part One focuses on opportunities to consult as an external service provider.
May 26, 2005Stephen M. (Pete) Peterson and Ronald L. SeigneurWeb logging is an increasingly popular medium of expression, but many blogs (or "blawgs" as legal blogs are called) offer musings that are not useful or even credible. By contrast, A&FP Board member Ed Poll, long on the forefront of communication technology, provides comments with actual substance at www.lawbizblog.com. Here's a sampler to introduce our readers to Ed's online thinking.
May 26, 2005Edward PollIn a rare victory for a telecommuter in a "convenience of the employer" rule case, an administrative law judge has held against the state Division of Taxation and said New York has no business taxing all of the income of a man who worked from his home in New Canaan, CT.
May 26, 2005John CaherI see a lot of law firm strategic plans that talk about "establishing a position of dominance" or "being preeminent" in an area of practice, an industry or a geographic area. In my mind these are precisely the kind of market-driven, externally focused goals that law firms should be setting for themselves. The obvious question, however, is how does a law firm know whether or not it has created a position of dominance?
May 26, 2005H. Edward WesemannThe Women's Bar Association of the State of New York has joined the New York State Bar Association in lobbying for a no-fault divorce law. Mindy Zlotogura, president of the 3300-member women's bar group, said that she planned to lead a delegation to Albany to meet with key legislators about changing the law. The decision to support the state bar initiative represents a sea change for the women's bar, which has traditionally opposed no-fault divorce measures.
May 26, 2005Andrew HarrisIn last month's newsletter, we discussed two 1970s New York decisions that held marriages between transsexuals and persons of their birth sex to be invalid. No recent cases on this issue have been brought in this State, so we are left to ponder what would be the outcomes of those cases in present-day New York. Recently, however, the Florida Court of Appeal relied on those old New York cases -- Frances B. v. Mark B., 78 Misc. 2d 112 (1974) and Anonymous v. Anonymous, 67 Misc. 2d 982 (1971) -- when it decided that marriage in Florida between a female-to-male transsexual and a woman was invalid at its inception. In light of recent social trends in the State of New York, was that reliance justified?
May 26, 2005Janice G. Inman