Protecting E-mail For Complete Client Privacy
Attorney-client privilege, liability for breach of confidentiality obligations and damage to a firm's reputation were all reasons originally cited for stopping the use of e-mail at law firms before it even started. Convenience and responsiveness to clients became justification enough to ignore the basic issue that e-mail was inherently insecure. The standard form disclaimer that we now see at the end of every lawyer's e-mail became the solution to protecting the confidential nature of attorney-client communications. Is it sufficient today?
Special Medical Malpractice Courts
In the midst of the medical liability crisis and a nationwide movement toward tort reform, including caps on non-economic damages, a new player has appeared on the scene. The "Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act," S. 1337, was introduced to the U.S. Senate in July 2005 in a bipartisan effort led by Sens. Michael Enzi (R-WY) and Max Baucus (D-MT). The stated purposes of the Act are: "1) to restore fairness and reliability to the medical justice system by fostering alternatives to current medical tort litigation that promote early disclosure of health care errors and provide prompt, fair, and reasonable compensation to patients who are injured by health care errors; 2) to promote patient safety through early disclosure of health care errors; and 3) to support and assist States in developing such alternatives."
Lessons from the First Vioxx Verdict
What do you get when you cross Court TV with the Food Channel? One answer: a recipe for a multi-million dollar jury verdict! Drug giant Merck will not see such blended TV programming, but it may have seen stars after getting hit with a $253 million jury award on Aug. 19, 2005. The first product liability trial against its Cox-2 inhibitor drug Vioxx in Angleton, TX, in August, 2005 produced a quarter-billion dollar award, $229 million of which was for punitive damages. Merck plans a vigorous appeal on multiple grounds. (Reportedly, grounds for appeal include: 1) letting in testimony from unqualified experts; 2) letting in testimony not based on reliable scientific evidence; 3) allowing irrelevant but prejudicial evidence in against Merck; and 4) letting in an undisclosed "surprise" witness against Merck.) Even pro-plaintiff observers concede that the award will likely drop to "only" $26 million due to recent Texas tort reform caps on punitive damages. (Merck fared better in its second and third Vioxx trials, which ended with a defense verdict and hung jury, respectively. Three Vioxx cases down -- only about 5998 to go!)
Witness Preparation Checklist for Deposition
My field is communications. My specialty is witness preparation. I am not a lawyer. Because I do not have to split my time between preparing a case and preparing a witness, I am free to focus exclusively on the problems and needs of witnesses. Over the years of preparing witnesses for both deposition and trial, I have made some interesting discoveries. For one thing, with proper preparation, there are very few witnesses who will remain bad ones. Almost all of them want to do the best job possible. They are highly motivated. The major reason for the problems and mistakes is lack of understanding of what is expected and lack of practice time to turn instructions into behavior.
Planning For The Inevitable
People who negotiate tech deals and draft contracts for legal or other services ' such as partnerships and the instruments that monitor them and give them teeth ' must remember one constant in today's ever-changing world: The technology we depend on every day often does not work. <br>As a result, the traditional wisdom, "failing to plan is planning to fail," has been transformed into a rule of thumb for the tech sector: "plan for failure." Firms that do not explicitly anticipate systems failure run the risk of being unprepared for a catastrophe
Building A State- of-the-Art Anti-Bribery Program
Anti-bribery laws have serious consequences for ordinary companies doing business internationally. Violations come to light during routine M&A due diligence, when competitors complain or employees blow the whistle, or when companies voluntarily disclose as a part of their Sarbanes-Oxley reporting obligations. When they do come to light, strong internal controls may shield executives from some liability and restore confidence amongst shareholders and regulators. <br>To mitigate the risk arising out of events like these, every company operating internationally should have a compliance program. The critical elements of a robust program are clear. With the right combination of leadership, training, and follow-up, companies can increase their chances of preventing or catching employees determined to break the law. An effective anti-bribery program need not be expensive or labor-intensive, but it does require management commitment, a systematic roll-out, widespread training, and diligent follow-up.
Libeling Lawnmowers?
The tort of commercial disparagement falls generally within the penumbra of libel and slander-related claims, although it is overshadowed by the more commonly recognized version of the tort relating to personal claims (like those celebrities frequently bring against supermarket tabloids). Yet not only are claims based upon the libeling of an object a legitimate cause of action, they can result in verdicts for plaintiffs. A better understanding of this little-known tort is necessary if a company is to evade the risks it poses.
Creating an Effective In-House Resource Guide
Living in the technology age, we are besieged by information: constant "breaking stories" on 24-hour news channels, e-mails at all hours to our handhelds, and phone calls to our cells. To remain competitive, companies have also followed the trend, providing reams of information and data to workers. As a result, employees now grapple with information overload and must evaluate and prioritize what information to read, disseminate and store, and what information to discard. This is a particularly significant problem for in-house counsel who must ensure that all employees have access to -- and know about -- information that is key to the operation of the company. More importantly, much of this information is meant to keep the company out of the courtroom and facing down litigation. So what's an in-house counsel to do?
