Preparing Temporary Attorneys For An Online Repository Review
July 28, 2005
Training large document-review teams to consistently apply specified review criteria to millions of pages of often mind-numbingly dull documents has long been a challenge for counsel. The time- and cost-savings offered by online review tools, along with the enhanced automated quality control features of such tools, have made electronic review an increasingly compelling option for large-scale, time-pressured document reviews. While electronic-document review projects have become more common in the last few years, setting up the project and training attorneys in preparation for review remains challanging.
Inside The Rules
July 28, 2005
The proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) may be among the most significant changes ever to the code, simply because electronic…
Insurance Coverage for Awards of Attorneys' Fees
July 28, 2005
Almost all class actions that are resolved involve an award of attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel. In some instances, the fee awards are specified by agreement and are paid from the overall settlement. In other instances, the fees are determined in a separate hearing and may be awarded in addition to the settlement payment. These awards of attorneys' fees often reach millions of dollars and may, in some circumstances, be one of the most significant components of a settlement or judgment.
The Insurer's Right to Settle: Unfettered Discretion Or Balancing Act
July 28, 2005
As a practical matter, the decision of whether to settle claims brought against a policyholder is typically left to the insurer. The interests of the insurer and the policyholder are typically aligned, whether it is because of the policyholder's inherent desire to resolve the litigation or the insurer's vastly greater experience in defending and settling claims.
Case Briefs
July 28, 2005
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
EU and U.S. Data Regulations
July 28, 2005
You have likely already read a great deal more about the implications and requirements of Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) legislation than you would have otherwise liked. The new reporting, data retention and accountability regulations are of obvious import both legally and financially. What is of equal interest, however, for firms that are either multinational or do business overseas is the conceptual differences between this recent U.S. legislation and privacy legislation and regulations adopted in the EU. Essential in understanding where U.S. and EU data regulations conflict or compliment each other is understanding the root motivations behind each set of rules.
Compliance Assessments
July 28, 2005
In the brave new world following the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) ( Pub. L. 107-204 (2002), 116 Stat. 745), companies are struggling to meet the challenge of developing effective compliance programs. Many of these companies are diligently working with in-house counsel, external counsel, and internal audit and compliance departments to develop compliance programs that demonstrate a strengthened commitment to implementing best business practices, in order to realize the corporate "culture of compliance" contemplated by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Focusing on compliance not only meets good corporate governance practices and satisfies other corporate housekeeping needs, but also helps management prove to itself and its board of directors that the management team really does know what is going on within the company. In addition, proactive directors are using compliance assessments to demonstrate that they have satisfied their obligations as directors -- under the Sentencing Guidelines and under developing standards of due care. In each case, the challenge is how to develop and implement an effective compliance and ethics program.
Ethics and Compliance Training
July 28, 2005
Experienced counsel know to report to the Board about the organization's ethics and compliance training initiatives so that the corporation is protected under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Guidelines require that the Board of Directors be knowledgeable about the content and operation of the program, and exercise reasonable oversight with respect to program implementation and effectiveness. The operational program manager must periodically report on program effectiveness to high-level personnel, and as appropriate, to the Board or a Board Committee. In addition, the organization must take reasonable steps to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the company's compliance program.
