Hotline
August 19, 2003
Recent developments of interest to corporate counsel.
Bye Bye Billables?
August 19, 2003
The concept of value-based fees for legal services is generating a steady buzz in the legal marketplace. Debate, discussion, reports and articles abound as attorneys and their law firms try to figure out if there is a better compensation model than the billable hour.
Electronic Discovery Puts General Counsel On Front Lines
August 19, 2003
This is part three of a three-part series on technology-related issues of importance to General Counsel. The increasing pressure to produce electronic data and documents in native formats puts in-house counsel on the front lines during, and even prior to, the electronic discovery phase of litigation. The basic obligations in-house counsel have prior to potential litigation include developing a corporate strategy for electronic data preservation and retrieval, implementing the plan, documenting policies and procedures in writing, and disseminating the policies and procedures to appropriate internal parties. Missteps in any of these areas can and has led to various sanctions ranging from fines to default judgments.
Sarbanes-Oxley: Reflections Eight Months Later
August 19, 2003
Since it became the law on July 30, 2002, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been the subject of an endless stream of panel discussions, seminars, speeches, articles and media interpretations. It may or may not be a tsunami in the financial markets comparable to the changes brought by the regulatory scheme developed in the 1930s. But the statute and the corollary changes by stock exchanges to their listing requirements will alter the relationships between the participants in the financial markets in significant and long-term ways. This article highlights and places in context the changes wrought thus far, and concludes by noting areas in which further change is yet possible.
HOTLINE
August 18, 2003
The Second Circuit has held that denying insurance coverage for infertility treatments that can only be performed on women does not violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., 00-9598 (Jan. 15, 2003).
The Next Generation of Electronic Discovery
August 18, 2003
This is part two of a three part series on electronic issues related to litigation. Just as general counsel and their outside litigation attorneys are getting familiar with the challenges of electronic discovery, the definition of what is discoverable has begun to broaden. In most of the literature on electronic discovery, the list of places where discoverable information resides is fairly standard and includes computer hard drives, servers, CD-ROMs, floppy disks, zip disks, backup media, e-mail servers, laptops, home computers, and hand-held devices.
Taking the Fifth in Document Production
August 18, 2003
This is part two of a two part article. Clients subpoenaed by the government or private litigants rarely want to disclose their documents. They reflexively assert that it is all personal, confidential or proprietary. However, they are often surprised to learn that most documents are not protected from disclosure by the Fifth Amendment privilege. There is an entire body of case law that narrowly restricts the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege in document production, which can be a trap for the unwary.
Trademark Dilution: Likelihood of Confusion Among the Courts?
August 18, 2003
As it stands now, if your company brings a trademark dilution claim in federal court, you are risking a ruling that your company's brand is not diluted or, even worse, 'not famous.' There is currently a great deal of confusion among the courts over the concept of trademark dilution, and none of the recent decisions are helping to clear the air. Courts across the country continue to struggle with the very concept of trademark dilution and its application. Issues the courts are struggling with include: How much fame is required for a mark to be 'famous' under the statute? What marks deserve protection under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)? What factors should a court consider when evaluating a dilution claim? Is proof of actual harm or injury required in order to prevail on a dilution claim? These issues are not easily resolved, and it is only the issue of proof of actual harm or injury on which the Supreme Court will provide guidance this spring. In light of these other continued uncertainties, companies should carefully analyze their case before putting their most prized brands at risk.
E & O in the New Corporate Environment
May 01, 2003
Errors and Omissions (E&O) coverage protects policyholders in various professional occupations — such as the legal, medical, architectural, engineering, insurance, and accounting fields — against professional liability claims. This form of insurance, sometimes referred to as professional liability or malpractice insurance, covers economic damages resulting from an error, omission, or negligent act related to the rendering of professional services.
