LJN Newsletters

The New Reality, for which law firms are scrambling to equip themselves, is that law firms no longer define their own service levels. Now it's the clients, and they have clear expectation parameters.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently provided critical guidance on what the court observed as the "psychedelic confusion" surrounding the intersection of Bankruptcy Code §365, governing the assumption and rejection of executory contracts, and Bankruptcy Code §503, governing administrative priority.

The Northern District of Illinois recently issued an opinion which criminalizes acting in the United States as an agent of a foreign government without notifying the attorney general.

Developing and delivering an IRP or TTE to improve the effectiveness of your incident response approach, in isolation, does not work. If your incident response preparation activity does not include some fundamental tactical actions, when the time comes and your house is on fire, your breach response will fail to meet your expectations.

Part Four In a Series The conclusion of the series on Canada's recently introduced Consumer Privacy Protection Act looks at hot button enforcement issues in the Act.

Like other organizations, including law firms, in-house legal departments have not been spared from the "great resignation." Lawyers and professionals across all industries are actively seeking new opportunities for a host of reasons including better pay, better culture and better balance. When they leave, they take with them not just their talent but the institutional knowledge they've accumulated, while their former team members are left to piece things together.

The promise that the crypto and digital assets markets bring comes bundled with uncertainty — especially on the regulatory front. Until jurisdictions adopt unified and consistent frameworks that account for the unique facets and features of cryptocurrencies, institutional investors and other market participants must keep abreast of ever-changing, dynamic laws to avoid sanctions and fines.

In several recent cases, companies with cyber insurance discovered that provisions in these policies led their insurers to limit coverage. Courts have been strictly construing cyber policies, and have found that the coverage provided is narrow. These decisions hinged upon whether an event constituted a covered "direct" loss and whether intervening actions precluded coverage, like an employee responding to fraudulent communications.