The Applicability Of The WARN Act To Law Firms
In addition to its obligations to its clients and creditors, a law firm partnership which is in dissolution, or about to merge or be sold, may have certain statutory obligations to its employees. In recent years there has been litigation surrounding whether the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) is applicable to partnerships, and in particular, law firm partnerships.
A Second Look at JRS Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp.
<i>JRS Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America</i>, 115 Cal.App.4th 168, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 840 (2004) (<i>JRS Products</i>), decided earlier this year, provides important clarification of the scope of remedies available under California law to franchisees who have been wrongfully terminated. The California Appellate Court decision holds, among other things, that the California Franchise Relations Act (CFRA) does not bar a franchisee from recovering damages for breach of contract for wrongful termination.
Online Contracts
Nearly 2 years have passed since the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in <i>Specht v. Netscape Comm. Corp.</i> threw what some thought was a large monkey wrench into online contract formation. The practical effect of the decision, however, has not been as significant as had been feared, and businesses operating in cyberspace continue to successfully reach online agreements with end users and customers. <br>As a close reading of the Specht ruling and other decisions make clear, "clickwrap" and other online agreements that meet certain basic requirements for contract formation are, indeed, enforceable.
Client Profiles Version 7.0: Case Management Solution
Our firm wanted a program that would not only organize our case files electronically, but improve workflow and allow for easy access from a desktop as well as remotely. Because of our team approach to handling cases, we also needed a product that would allow each of us to see what tasks or issues another person was handling, without having to inquire as to the status or physically look at the file.
Anatomy Of Trial Technology
In June 2004, the American Bar Association's Legal Technology Resource Center completed its annual technology survey, published in five parts. The Litigation and Courtroom Technology volume serves as a sobering background for those who crave a total technology trial. Firms are slowly embracing litigation technology, but there is still a long road to follow before the technology is ubiquitous. Courtrooms have yet to provide much technology in the way of hardware or software, citing expenses and implementation as key barriers. Many lawyers are hesitant to spend thousands, much less hundreds of thousands, of dollars on sophisticated hardware and software. So what are the courts and attorneys embracing, and what are they putting off for another day?
<i>Legislative Update</i> Federal And State Governments Turn Their Attention To Spyware And Adware
Legislative proposals to regulate spyware and adware have proliferated in Congress and in state legislatures in recent months. To date, only one state ' Utah ' has enacted legislation (enforcement of which as of mid-July had been temporarily enjoined on Constitutional grounds), but several other states and Congress may well do so before the end of the year. <br>This article describes the various legislative proposals for the regulation of spyware and adware, and their potential impact on e-commerce ' and provides a snapshot of these efforts' status as of the beginning of August.
Practice Tip: A Synopsis of Trademark Licensor Liability
A case in strict products liability is available in all states against the manufacturer of a defective product. A "manufacturer" is often defined as one who designs, produces, sells or otherwise distributes the product. Suppose, however, a company's logo is on a product that has been manufactured by someone else. Is the non-manufacturer responsible to a plaintiff and if so, under what theory? The answer depends upon the state in which you sue. Some jurisdictions hold a non-manufacturer liable as an "apparent manufacturer" if it has merely licensed its trademark. Other states require that the licensor have a "significant role" in the chain of distribution, and some states are hybrid, <i>eg</i>, they permit liability against trademark licensors but require more than just licensing the trademark. The following examples illustrate the way some states analyze this liability.
Former Government Employees as Opposing Expert Witnesses
It is increasingly common in product liability cases for a plaintiff to disclose as an expert a former employee of a government agency such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") or the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). These witnesses frequently advertise themselves as experts in "product/drug safety" and refer to their regulatory background as their primary qualification. Frequently, however, these witnesses' responsibilities as government employees had little, if anything, to do with the subjects about which they are now testifying. Nevertheless, these witnesses are dangerous if allowed to testify to a jury, because they lend the credibility of the U.S. government to the plaintiff's case.
