LJN Newsletters

Despite the time, energy, and money that some large and small law offices funnel into products to maintain network security, their computer network's biggest threat is frequently from the uninformed computer users on the inside. A security program is only as strong as its weakest link, and that is where the human element comes into play.

After all the sophisticated analysis and strategies are stripped away, the key to a successful law practice often comes down to getting the fundamentals right. Just as the success of a baseball team ultimately depends on the proper execution of "throw, catch and hit," so too law firms have to facilitate the execution of those processes which are fundamental to the firm's business. The time-tracking process is the one law firm fundamental that has proven to be the most resistant to improvement. Yet, this tradition-bound process can most benefit from a fresh all-inclusive approach.

For a new firm having limited experience with the inner workings of time and billing systems, the inclination would be to find a system offering the most features for the least amount of money. In fact, that's the route our consultant suggested we take. But what we really wanted was a system that supported our most critical business needs: accurate and timely billing with single-click review of fees and hours billed and realized.

Highlights of the latest Product Liability cases from around the country.

LexisNexis has a new service it calls "CourtLink" (www.Courtlink.com). In "Avoiding Ambush: Tips for the Successful Preparation and Presentation of Witnesses," August 2003 Product Liability Law & Strategy,author Kimberly D. Baker, Esq. suggested using Courtlink to ambush key adverse witnesses by "finding the dirt" on them through searching for divorce proceedings, custody issues, probate proceedings, property disputes, other business disputes and criminal matters such as driving under the influence of alcohol or acts of violence.

In many kinds of litigation, document production is a dirty term. Even when done carefully, responsibly, and well by both sides, the process of producing documents (and, for the other side, the process of dealing with documents that have been produced) is tedious, thankless, and consumes a remarkable amount of resources. Things become much worse when the parties clash over what should be produced and how, and worse still when the party receiving the documents is more interested in using the discovery process to inflict pain or to generate a record for sanctions motion practice than he is in getting documents to help him prepare his case.

Product liability trials are difficult for juries. They are long. They involve highly technical subjects, the testimony of conflicting "experts," and what may or may not be scientific evidence. Jurors may be asked to consider and decide the feasibility of two or more alternative designs for a product with which they are unfamiliar.

Ordinarily, the focus in a product liability case is on the defendant-manufacturer's duty to design and manufacture a safe and useful product and to warn adequately of any risks associated with its use. But an interesting and unexpected battleground can arise from a tag-a-along consumer protection claim. Here is the scenario: Plaintiff, in an individual action, sues defendant-manufacturer for injuries allegedly sustained in connection with the use of defendant's product. Plaintiff sues under traditional product liability theories as well as under the state's consumer protection statute, which proscribes deceptive and misleading trade practices. In particular, plaintiff alleges a consumer fraud has occurred because she has been injured by a product that, she claims, had been sold in connection with deceptive sales practices; in this case, certain allegedly false or misleading advertisements.