LJN Newsletters

Circa 1999, many law firms became accustomed to conducting much of their day-to-day work via e-mail. E-mail, however, has more than its share of shortcomings. For starters, it does not afford the security and confidentiality most clients want in their communications with attorneys and in the exchange of potentially sensitive files. Likewise, e-mail is ill-suited for document collaboration. Trying to track comments from different participants on a given document through a long string of e-mail dialogue while maintaining some notion of version control poses a significant challenge.

Few things can be more annoying for a corporate client than "cybergriping," the practice of using an Internet "complaint name" ' typically the client's trademark followed by the phrase "sucks.com" ' that is devoted to criticism of the company. The Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, decided in February, is the first Court of Appeals decision to address cybergriping. It continues the trend of several district court opinions that have taken a tolerant approach to the practice, at least where it is not engaged in by competitors or for commercial purposes.

A recent decision by a Manhattan appeals court could clear the way for a class action lawsuit against the Internet's second-largest domain-name registration company for its past advertising practices.

In a landmark decision issued on April 25, 2003, a federal district judge in Los Angeles rejected claims that two leading decentralized, peer-to-peer (P2P) networks were liable for copyright infringement. The court quashed the request of motion picture and recording industry associations, professional songwriters and music publishers to shut down the Grokster and StreamCast Networks, two companies that distribute free, P2P software allegedly used for the exchange of copyrighted music, movies and other digital media over the Internet.

Bulk, unsolicited, commercial e-mail ' spam ' is generally recognized as an undesirable, harmful nuisance and responses, including traditional litigation, have been less than effective. A spam class action against the U.S. government, Internet Service Providers and others who facilitate spam may be appropriate. By retarding Internet communication speed, spawning fraud, trespassing chattel and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, spam causes or contributes to a wide variety of problems for network administrators, businesses, other organizations and individual users of the Internet.

Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.

As the article infra, page 1, discusses, attorneys who practice product liability law are not beyond the reach of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. For a complete description of the SEC's proposed rules regarding the standards of professional conduct for attorneys appearing before the SEC, go to www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/31-8186. The site summarizes the rules proposed pursuant to Section 307 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which requires the SEC (Commission) to prescribe minimum standards of professional conduct for attorneys appearing and practicing before the Commission in any way in the representation of issuers.

In the March 2003 Practice Tip, I discussed two of those individuals with whom the trial lawyer should meet within the 30 days prior to trial: the client and the physician. This month's tip discusses meeting with the engineer. For ease of reference, all individuals are deemed male. For purposes of the discussion, the case concerns injury caused by a defective machine. When the lawyer prepares the engineering expert, the plaintiff should be present. There are several issues about which he must be prepared to testify: