Almost every family law attorney has had a custody case where either his/her client or the opposing party has suffered from some kind of mental health condition. In those cases, the big question is when, if ever, a litigant's mental health records are discoverable.
Last month, we began discussion of the question: "When the court orders a litigant to undergo a psychological examination, is it proper, or permissible, for that party's attorney to attend the session?" The discussion concludes herein.
Writing in many parts of the legal and business worlds have probably changed more in the last decade than in any comparable period over the last five centuries.
Despite the obvious opportunities, the integration of small groups of attorneys into a larger firm does not always succeed. This is precisely why "due diligence" should be the mantra of both parties in anticipation of any acquisition/merger.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently found that a woman who appears on camera for 16 seconds in an 82-minute documentary film about Joan Alexandra Molinsky Sanger Rosenberg (more commonly known as the comedian Joan Rivers), does not have a right to sue for invasion of privacy and misappropriation of her image under the Wisconsin Right of Privacy statute.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
