LJN Newsletters

When companies, especially financial institutions, and not individuals are charged with serious offenses, criticism is now common. Yet such criticism may be particularly unwarranted in the high-profile BSA prosecutions of recent years, where criminal liability rests on an institutional failure to maintain appropriate systems and controls.

Between 2009 and 2011, there were 23.2 million college students in the U.S. In 2013, the Census Bureau recorded that 25% resided off-campus. What does that mean for insurers of these properties?

Proponents of Legal Project Management (LPM), Legal Process Improvement (LPI) and other approaches for driving greater efficiency and value into legal service delivery get a lot of blow-back. One of the more common gripes we hear is that "LPM encourages corner-cutting." Is this true?

In Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another in a line of cases dealing with the issue of the patentability of software inventions. Based on this opinion, one thing remains clear: The issue is far from definitively decided.

Inter-company indemnification agreements in underlying contracts often require not only the insured's indemnification of the would-be additional insured, but also that the indemnifying company secure CGL coverage, sometimes written as coverage that is "not less than" a certain amount.

In the first half of 2014, at least 96 significant data breaches were reported, compromising more than 2.2 million records. Of these breaches, at least 46 involved records that may have contained Social Security Numbers (SSNs). What the affected businesses may not know is that the mere collection of SSNs may have put them in violation of state laws, in addition to the liability they may now face for having failed to protect the SSN information.

Shouldn't we be more deliberate and questioning about the assumptions we make about clients ' in order to ensure that we don't end up with self-inflicted client relations issues? An in-depth discussion.

When a patient takes a medication that does not at first appear to harm him but that could cause later-developing consequences, or when a medical error is made that causes no immediately measurable harm but that could lead to future injury, is a medical monitoring remedy available? The following article discusses one state high court's recent analysis of the issue.