Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In recent years, litigation matters have become even more difficult to manage due to the explosion of electronic data created by today's businesses. In defending our clients, we are often requested by opposing counsel to turn over all relevant data pertaining to a particular issue or issues. These discovery requests can be overwhelming, and often times are very costly for our clients and time-consuming for the litigation team. To help mitigate these costs and expedite the discovery process for our clients, we have turned to Fios' Prevail to help manage these requests.
Features
High-tech tools ' such as auto-coding, linguistic pattern matching and Web-based collaboration ' enable lawyers and their fact experts to take charge of large cases right from the opening days of discovery. Construction disputes are among the document-intensive cases where these new tools are being used to change the dynamics of the dispute-resolution process. As a specialist in providing expert testimony in these disputes, I've learned that these new tools permit quick and cost-effective ways to learn and research the facts of a case from among the hundreds of boxes of documents.
Features
Having used TimeMap since the original version, I was already a satisfied user, and had already realized the impact that a timeline can have on a jury. Even before the original version of TimeMap was introduced by CaseSoft, I had realized that having facts in chronological order makes it easier for a jury to understand. I found the original version of TimeMap very useful, and when TimeMap 2.0 came out, it improved two particular areas of importance; the first being the ability to print charts wider than five pages, and the second, the ability to send information to CaseMap, one of CaseSoft's other products. The changes that have now been added under TimeMap 3.0 are extraordinary.
The challenges of successful software adoption within the law firm environment are daunting. Lawyers historically have lagged behind users in other industries in technology uptake. They have little non-billable time they can devote to learning the nuances of a new software package or attending extended training classes. And unless the benefits of the system are obvious at the onset, they have little inclination to make the time. Everyone knows that enterprise technology is of no use unless it's adopted successfully by the organization, yet internal marketing of new and existing systems is shockingly low. Indeed, the need to formulate a proactive internal marketing strategy within the firm is of fundamental importance when rolling out enterprise software. Law firms have not always done this successfully. This article examines the critical elements of a successful internal marketing strategy and how one firm, Brown McCarroll, used many of these techniques to achieve firm-wide acceptance of its CRM solution.
Using the "John Doe" method, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed another 531 lawsuits against file downloaders on Feb. 17.
Features
On Jan. 13, 2004 the Treasury Department announced a series of legislative proposals, included in the president's fiscal year 2005 budget, for the purpose of closing loopholes, halting several abusive tax avoidance transactions, and simplifying the tax code. Of particular interest to the leasing community is the proposal: "Stop Abusive Leasing Transactions with Tax-Indifferent Parties."
Features
In a discussion of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, in the November 2003 issue of this newsletter, Jeffrey Ellis wrote that: "accountants will be struggling to implement the guidance in FIN 46 for a while longer." The multiple FASB staff positions issued, ongoing public comment, and lengthy discussions at FASB meetings concerning changes to existing guidance on consolidation of variable interest entities, continuing almost a full year after issuance of the rules, confirm his conclusion. The effective date for certain applications of FIN 46 was delayed until Dec. 31, 2003, but all of the Big Four firms continued to clamor for guidance. With that new deadline only days away, FASB issued FIN 46-R on Dec. 24.
The law of consignment sales of goods — under which merchandise is delivered by a seller (a "consignor") to another person (a "consignee") to hold for sale to a third party — has long been a source of confusion and uncertainty for both consignors (seeking to protect their rights to their consigned goods) and creditors of the consignee (seeking to satisfy their claims against the consignee and its assets). Prior to the enactment in 2001 of revised Article 9 ("Revised Article 9") of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the treatment of consignment sales had straddled both Article 2 of the UCC, which covers the sale of goods, and Article 9 of the UCC, which covers the creation and perfection of a security interest in goods. The drafters of Revised Article 9 sought to eliminate this confusion by removing all regulation of consignment sales from UCC Article 2, and lodging all regulation of consignments under the UCC (to the extent not covered by common law) squarely within UCC Article 9. However, the recent Bankruptcy Court decision in the case of In re Morgansen's Ltd., 302 B.R. 784 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2003) would, if sustained on appeal, negate many of the improvements introduced by Revised Article 9 and wreak havoc on the treatment of consignment sales of consumer goods and other "true" consignments not expressly covered by Revised Article 9.
The intersection of intellectual property and antitrust has been the subject of much fanfare over the past decade. The antitrust agencies have held numerous workshops where enforcement officials and practitioners have debated the scope and limitations of antitrust when such principles intersect with IP rights. The most notable work product generated as a result of this focus has been the 1995 Guidelines setting forth antitrust policy for the Licensing of Intellectual Property issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).