Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

LJN Newsletters

  • The IRS and the Obama administration have taken a less-than-favorable view of some modern trust-planning techniques. Practitioners need to be aware of these risks so that they can encourage clients to act quickly when advisable.

    July 02, 2014Martin M. Shenkman
  • It's a mistaken assumption that if an employee has exhausted all his or her time under the Family and Medical Leave Act, he or she is not entitled to additional leave under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    July 02, 2014Marlisse Silver Sweeney
  • Every day brings new national headlines about a cyberattack, an alarming trend. The latest iteration of an annual report shows that these growing concerns have not necessarily translated into developing and deploying the proper defensive capabilities.

    July 02, 2014Rebekah Mintzer
  • If there are many reasons that proposed QDROs are rejected, what are a few of the more common ones, and how can they be avoided? This Practice Tip provides some answers.

    July 02, 2014ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
  • This is the second installment of a four-part series offering a model for attorneys to use when faced with the task of deconstructing a forensic custody assessment.

    July 02, 2014Jeffrey P. Wittmann, David A. Martindale and Timothy M. Tippins
  • If your clients aren't careful to attend to their finances, they could wind up in a major credit hole with no easy way out. Here's how to help them.

    July 02, 2014Anthony Davenport
  • Rarely do lawyers have the benefit of a decision that is a primer on permissible causes of action arising from property insurance coverage disputes.Kings Infiniti v. Zurich American Ins. is one of those decisions.

    July 02, 2014Jason L. Shaw
  • A look at gender dysphoria in "a growing cohort of children who, at ages as young as three or four, announce they do not accept ' the gender assigned to them at birth."

    July 02, 2014Eliana T. Baer
  • In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., a unanimous Supreme Court held that the test for patent claim definiteness in 35 U.S.C. '112, '2 (2006) "require[s] that a patent's claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty."

    July 02, 2014Darren Donnelly