Emerging Litigation Podcast

As political forces target Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, companies reassessing their DEI strategies must tread carefully—because while the rhetoric has shifted, the law largely hasn't.Joining us on the Emerging Litigation Podcast is employment attorney Patice L. Holland of Woods Rogers, a Principal in the firm's, Roanoke, Va., offices, where she is co-chair of the Government & Special Investigations Practice. Patice unpacks what companies need to know as they reassess their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in light of recent executive orders and rising political pressure. Patice explains that while the administration has moved to eliminate disparate impact liability and deprioritize federal enforcement, core legal protections under Title VII and state laws like Virginia's Values Act remain fully intact. Employers—especially federal contractors—face complex new certification requirements and exposure to potential False Claims Act liability, while private businesses must weigh operational risk, employee morale, and public perception in their decisions. We also examine the ripple effects across corporate America—from Costco and Apple, which continue to invest in DEI, to Target and Amazon, which scaled back initiatives and faced backlash. Patice offers a practical roadmap for compliance, emphasizing clear communication, leadership buy-in, and smart risk assessment. Listen in as we explore what executive orders really change about DEI law, how obligations differ for government contractors and private companies, the legal and strategic risks of altering DEI policies, and the real-world business consequences of staying the course—or stepping back.

Southern California's wildfire season has turned into a year-round crisis, and with it comes a surge in litigation. On this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, we explore the aftermath of the devastating January 2025 wildfires, including the high-profile Eaton and Palisades fires, and the complex legal battles now unfolding.My guest, Ed Diab, is a founding partner of Diab Chambers LLP, a boutique law firm with a sharp focus on wildfire litigation. Ed and his team have worked alongside national firm Baron & Budd to represent over 100 public entities in wildfire cases dating back to 2015. His deep experience in this area, combined with an insider's perspective on utility liability, makes him uniquely qualified to discuss the challenges and strategies involved in these high-stakes cases.As of early 2025, more than 100 cases have been filed against utilities like Southern California Edison, with public entities, individuals, and insurance carriers seeking damages for widespread destruction. In this conversation, Ed breaks down the causes of these fires, the legal strategies in play, and the uphill battle plaintiffs face when going up against major power utilities.Ed walks us through California's unique inverse condemnation doctrine, negligence claims, and how utility companies defend themselves—challenging liability, infrastructure management, and fire prevention efforts. We also discuss the challenges of evidence preservation, particularly when transmission towers remain critical to the state's power grid.From the legal wrangling over the Eaton Fire to the complexities of the Palisades rekindle, Ed shares the latest developments and what litigators should expect moving forward. His insight into the coordination between local and national firms and how they've successfully pursued wildfire claims makes this a must-listen episode for anyone following disaster-related litigation.

Whopping jury verdicts from 2024 illustrate why trial teams sometimes include appellate counsel, because including them -- even as you prepare to defend a high stakes case at trial -- can improve your chances on appeal should a jury hand you a half-billion-dollar verdict.But what functions do appellate attorneys perform at trial? Are they listening for errors or proactively guiding trial counsel? Do they ever address the court or sit quietly at the defense table or maybe in the back row?To answer these questions and more is Jeffrey P. Doss, a partner in the White-Collar Criminal Defense & Corporate Investigations practice group at Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC, a civil defense litigation firm. Jeff has served as appellate counsel for an automobile manufacturer for 10 years. In this role, he has supported trial teams pre-trial, at trial, and post-verdict through appeal. Jeff has developed and implemented strategies to address a range of legal issues, from jury selection errors to expert exclusions, evidentiary objections, and post-verdict challenges to punitive damages awards.Thanks to Jeff for taking the time to share his insights on this, and for entertaining my curiosity about the efficacy of beards in the practice of law.If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn

The horrific wildfires unleashing carnage in Southern California underscore the need for reliable insurance protection both for businesses and homeowners. As of Jan. 16, 2025, these wildfires have scorched more than 60 square miles, claimed at least 25 lives, and left 26 people missing. With more than 12,000 structures destroyed and tens of thousands displaced, the economic impact is estimated between $135 billion and $150 billion.  Joining me to discuss the types of damages and losses typically covered under homeowner and commercial property insurance policies, policy limitations, navigating the claims process, and business interruption coverage. We also discuss a Jan. 10, 2025, ruling out of the Northern District of California in Bottega v. National Surety which held in a business interruption case that whether smoke damage caused the suspension of operations at the policyholders' businesses is a genuine issue of fact.My guests are all from the long-time insurance recovery law firm of Anderson Kill. Dennis Artese is a shareholder in the New York office and is chair of the firm's Climate Change and Disaster Recovery practice group. Marshall Gilinsky is a shareholder the firm's Boston office and practices in the firm's Insurance Recovery and Commercial Litigation groups, as well as its Restaurant, Retail & Hospitality Group. Joshua Gold is a shareholder in the New York office. He chairs the Cyber Insurance Recovery Group and co-chairs the Marine Cargo Insurance Group. He also handles directors and officers insurance and business income/property insurance matters.If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn

NFTs – or non-fungible tokens – have taken the digital world by storm – or perhaps just a downloadable picture of a storm – promising to revolutionize not only the way we perceive, protect, purchase, and own digital assets, but how we might even buy a house or other assets in the real world.  These unique digital certificates, recorded on a blockchain, exploded onto the scene in post-pandemic 2021 with record-breaking sales and widespread media coverage. One of the most amazing examples is "The Merge" by the anonymous artist Pak, which sold for a staggering $91.8 million. The Bored Ape Yacht Club is another fascinating story. This collection of 10,000 unique, cartoonish apes, each with its own distinct features, became incredibly popular in 2021. Owning a Bored Ape would become a status symbol in the NFT community.However, the meteoric rise of NFTs was followed by a significant downturn, leading many to question the future of NFTs. While the initial hype and astronomical prices may have subsided, the underlying technology and potential of NFTs remain promising.For insights into this evolving landscape, listen to my conversation with Cameron Pick of Marshall Gerstein. An experienced expert in intellectual property law with a focus on emerging technologies, Cameron advises clients on a range of legal issues related to NFTs, blockchain, and cryptocurrency. He holds a J.D. from Duke University School of Law and a B.S. with honors in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn

As if the rocketing evolution of technology isn't presenting enough challenges to inventors under patent law, the Supreme Court has done its part, too. I just finished reading Graham Moore's novel "The Last Days of Night," where titans of the late 1800s and early 1990s Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, and Nikola Tesla "clashed with sparks flying over AC and DC electrical power systems," a corny description suggested by my AI editor. Having read the book, it was fun to speak with modern day attorney Ryan N. Phelan of modern day Marshall Gerstein. Listen as this seasoned patent attorney walks me through: The intricate landscape of patent eligibility in the United States. Twin patent law decisions from the Supreme Court -- Mayo and Alice (the name of a singer-songwriter group if I ever heard one, or a sandwich shop).The proposed Patent Eligibility Restoration Act and how -- if passed -- it could unlock new opportunities for innovation amid the challenges posed by judicial exceptions. *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform! 

Once again we dive into one of the hottest topics in environmental law right now: PFAS.  Specifically, our guest talks about the EPA's new PFAS Safe Drinking Water Final Rule, which mandates acceptable levels of PFAS in public water systems. This episode is based on a CLE webinar our guest recorded for HB Litigation a couple months back. Since then,  if you've been following PFAS developments, you know pushback on the rule is coming from several directions, as our guest predicted. Industry groups, chemical manufacturers, and water utilities alike are challenging the rule as, among other things, arbitrary and capricious and exceeding the EPA's authority. Water utilities are especially concerned about compliance costs. On the technical side, there is debate over whether current technology can even reliably detect PFAS at the levels EPA seeks. Also raised are the complexities associated with increased monitoring and lab testing. Our guest is John P. Gardella, whose 2024 CLE webinar on the subject explored the PFAS litigation landscape, from multidistrict and class action lawsuits to medical monitoring and greenwashing claims. He talks about federal and state regulations that are driving litigation, and offers an outlook for what may be in store in the next few years. A leading voice in PFAS litigation and recognized thought leader, John is a Shareholder at CMBG3 Law, known for his expertise in environmental and toxic tort litigation. A veteran of more than 75 trials, John chairs the firm's PFAS, Environmental, Risk Management & Consulting, and ESG practice groups. This episode comprises audio from John's excellent webinar. If you are interested in the CLE version of the episode, look for it on the West LegalEdcenter. Go to our page to learn more and to use our partner link.  *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform! 

Soon after emergency response teams scramble into action to address chemical fires, explosions, or other toxic events, attorneys begin gathering and analyzing information either to mitigate corporate risk or to seek remedies for anyone impacted by such an event. Listen to my interview with Edgar C. "Ed" Gentle III and Katherine "Kip" Benson of Gentle, Turner & Benson LLC, about legal activity that goes on in the immediate aftermath of a toxic event, using as a backdrop the recent chemical plant disaster that forced 17,000 Conyers, Georgia, residents to evacuate and many more to  shelter in place as a toxic plume hung stubbornly over the homes of as many as 100,000 residents. Ed and Kip draw on their deep experience resolving this type of litigation -- including the settlement of a 20-year-old disaster at the same location -- to discuss the flurry of activity that unfolds at law firms and inside legal departments within hours of a disaster. They also share the impact on such cases of a recent $600 million court-approved settlement of claims that followed the highly publicized toxic train derailment that occurred in East Palestine, Ohio, in early 2023. This is Ed Gentle's second appearance on the podcast. He spoke with me on Episode 48 titled Medical Monitoring for Modern Times. He was the featured speaker on that subject for an HB CLE webinar distributed on the West LegalEdcenter, then Kip Benson joined him for an advanced level webinar on the Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy. You can download his article on the subject for free as published in the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. ******* This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform! 

People. We're complicated creatures. We can be compassionate. We can fall in love. Sometimes we don't care for each other, but here we are.  Also, some people cross the lines of propriety, causing emotional or even physical harm to others on our teams, whether we work with them, for them, or whether we supervise them. And sometimes we work more than regular hours, either because we're directed to or because we're willing to do what it takes to help our teams succeed. The workplace can be a labyrinth of tricky situations, and employers need to know how to make sure workers are able to navigate them smoothly, appropriately, and within changing laws and regulations.  Our guest is Leah M. Stiegler, a principal attorney at Woods Rogers, who comes to the podcast with extensive experience across a broad spectrum of employment law matters. Leah is a trusted advisor to employers, providing guidance on complex personnel issues, performance management challenges, and fostering a positive work culture. Leah earned her J.D. from University of Richmond School of Law, cum laude, Order of the Coif, and her B.A. and B.S. degrees from Virginia Tech, summa cum laude.  Listen as Leah shares practical solutions for a variety of challenges, like love at work, pregnancy at work, discord at work, harassment at work, and working overtime. She talks about gender identity protections, implicit biases, and microaggressions, plus conducting administrative investigations, and ideas to mitigate risk, stay out of court, and maintain a positive work environment.  Thanks to Leah for sharing her insights on issues that arise where many of us spend most of our waking hours – at work! Her enthusiasm and passion for this work will be obvious to anyone who listens. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did producing it.  *******  This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Home Page Follow us on LinkedIn Subscribe on your favorite platform. 

The United Nations and World Economic Forum calculates that the cost of corporate corruption globally is $5 trillion a year, or 5% of the world's 2022 GDP. Corruption can hamper economic growth by discouraging investment, increasing transaction costs, and distorting market competition. It can perpetuate poverty by diverting resources away from essential services and benefiting the wealthy and powerful. It can undermine democratic institutions and erode public trust in governments. It can hinder sustainable development by diverting resources away from essential infrastructure and social services.The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or the FCPA – the government's leading weapon in this global war on corporate crime – has far-reaching implications for companies engaged in international business. For those who violate it the consequences can be severe. And with the recent addition of the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA), the federal government has even more to work with. I had the pleasure of learning more about this fascinating and complex area of the law by speaking with two attorneys with Reed Smith who practice in the firm's Global Regulatory Enforcement Group. Mark E. Bini is a former federal and state prosecutor in New York, has led multiple multi-year cross-border investigations of corporations and individuals and has particular experience in investigations involving potential Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations. As a prosecutor, he worked closely and in parallel with many domestic and foreign law enforcement agencies and regulators, including the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority and Brazil's Ministerio Publico Federal.Thomas H. Suddath, Jr., is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia, has extensive experience conducting international and domestic internal investigations and frequently counsels companies on compliance and voluntary disclosure issues related to the FCPA. He has handled FCPA and other internal investigations in many countries including Russia, Poland, Turkey, Greece, Hungary, Czech Republic, Mexico and Colombia.Thanks to Mark and Tom for sharing their insights based on decades of experience. *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform.

The DOJ's annual report for 2023 revealed that the agency's Health Care Fraud Unit was its busiest criminal enforcement section, responsible for convicting more than $3.8 billion in False Claims Act and whistleblower claims. There has reportedly been an uptick in whistleblower work among law firms and a record number of whistleblower cases. Still, some healthcare providers and hospital systems tend to hide their heads in their scrubs after being served.  Today we're going to talk about how whistleblower cases come about, the benefits of rewarding whistleblowers, how things are done differently outside the U.S., what's driving the acceleration of this area of law, and best practices when your company is served.  Drawing on his background as both public servant and private practitioner, my guest, Justin M. Lugar, counsel with WoodsRogers in Roanoke, Virginia, is going to walk through these issues and others. Justin represents clients in all types of government investigations. He's obviously well suited for the task. Prior to WoodsRogers he was Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Virginia, where he led the Affirmative Civil Enforcement team managing dozens of fraud investigations, many of which had parallel criminal investigations under the False Claims Act and related state statutes. Justin served as the Department of Justice's Civil Health Care Fraud Coordinator, Affirmative Civil Enforcement Coordinator, and Civil Rights Coordinator for the Western District of Virginia. Justin was recently recognized by the Drug Enforcement Agency for his efforts enforcing the Controlled Substances Act, leading to the largest fine assessed against a hospital system in the United States at the time.  When he was a  federal prosecutor, Justin led investigations involving numerous state and federal agency partners, from the FBI to the IRS to the Department of Energy to the FDA and the Defense Department.  Justin started his career at a major global firm in London, conducting international investigations around the globe.  But my favorite part of his background is – when he was a religious studies major in college – he lived at a Tibetan Buddhist Monastery in Kathmandu, Nepal. Not to brag, but I just returned from Vermont. There is more to Justin's background, like his LLM in international dispute resolution, which he earned at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, his J.D. from Liberty University School of Law, and his B.A. from the University of Virginia.  *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform. 

How secure is our nation's critical infrastructure? One recent event serves as a cautionary tale. In this episode, we tackle this pressing question in the context of cybersecurity. We'll address President Biden's recent National Security Memorandum on Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience,  and its implications for sectors like energy, water, and transportation. Our guest, Elizabeth Burgin Waller, from Virginia's WoodsRogers law firm, brings her extensive knowledge in privacy and cybersecurity law to the discussion. Join us as we discuss ransomware as a service, shedding light on its franchise-like model and the significant challenges in tracking and prosecuting these cybercriminals, especially those hiding in countries like Russia. We discuss the recent takedown of the LockBit ransomware gang under Operation Kronos, and the persistent and growing complications of IoT security.CrowdStrike's recent software glitch, while not a malicious attack, serves as a stark reminder of the importance of testing and transparency around cyber incidents, and the vulnerability of the systems that drive critical industries. Tune in for expert insights and reflections on the evolving regulatory landscape and what it means for mitigating risk in the Digital Age.Beth is Principal and Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Practice Chair at WoodsRogers. In addition to a J.D. from William and Mary School of Law, she is certified as a Privacy Law Specialist by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), which is accredited by the American Bar Association, a Certified Information Privacy Professional with expertise in both U.S. and European law (CIPP/US & CIPP/E), and a Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM), also from the IAPP. Beth also graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in creative writing, so maybe I should have let her write the show notes. *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform. 

Listen as intellectual property attorneys Tiffany Gehrke and Kelley Gordon of Marshall Gerstein in Chicago share their insights into three matters relevant anyone watching copyright and trademark law, or anyone fond of branded t-shirts and fancy French beverages.  I talk to Tiffany Gehrke about two cases. One is Vidal v. Elster, better known as the “TRUMP TOO SMALL” case. Just decided by the Supreme Court, this deals with whether a mark containing criticism of a government official or public figure – which is barred by the “names clause” of the Lanham Act – violates free speech. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which Tiffany outlines.  The other case is Penn State v. Vintage Brands, which is pending in Pennsylvania federal court and is expected to have wide-reaching implications for retailers and brand owners alike. Vintage Brand uses Penn State's registered Nittany Lions trademarks on t-shirts, hats, and other goods, and argues that use of the trademarks constitute a defensible “ornamental use.” We shall see! Finally, I ask Kelley Gordon for her take on a dispute between a popular Instagram influencer, Lauren Holifield, and champagne brand Veuve Clicquot. Holifield temporarily and surprisingly lost her IG account after Veuve Clicquot raised trademark infringement concerns on three of Holifield's videos. This was a big deal for her. She was earning six figures. OMG. Hear what Kelley has to say. *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform. 

Everyone knows that price fixing is against the law, chiefly Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Competitors may not collude, i.e., agree, to keep prices where they want them, but there are relatively new pricing platforms that some companies maintain take them out of the equation, so they do not have to share private information directly with competitors. Instead, they claim, they feed their data to a third-party which uses algorithms to come up with pricing for these competitors based on data they all contribute. The subject has been getting a lot of attention as cases mount against a company called RealPage, a firm that provides shared pricing services for landlords. The company faces dozens of suits in multidistrict litigation and has also captured the attention of federal antitrust law enforcers. But they are not the only company finding themselves in litigation. As our guest recently wrote: “When pricing algorithms are used by individual firms, such as airlines, e-commerce platforms, ride-share and room-share companies, stock traders, and others, there are unlikely to be anti-competitive consequences. It is when market competitors avail themselves of the same algorithmic program or service that the specter of unlawful collusion arises.” That risk increases as markets become more concentrated, he says. He is Jonathan Rubin, Partner and Co-Founder of MoginRubin LLP, a widely recognized competition law attorney, economist, and commentator who has presented at antitrust conferences in the United States and Europe, testified before several congressional committees, and before the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission.  “The fact that these services employ an algorithm is not central to what's going on in this scenario,” he told me, “because what's important is the conduct of the businesspeople involved.”Listen to my interview with Jonathan Rubin as we discuss what algorithmic or software-facilitated pricing is, what the law says about price collusion, how this new pricing mechanism violates that law, and recent developments in litigation. *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform.  

Companies are grappling with how to market the eco-friendly, people friendly, and animal friendly characteristics of their products and services, while also not getting in trouble with the law. Some have learned this the hard way. Some have wisely consulted experts. (That's foreshadowing.) ESG – or Environmental, Social and Governance – reporting and so-called greenwashing litigation have implications for a wide range of stakeholders. Companies face significant financial and reputational risks, while investors, regulators, advocacy groups, and consumers all have an interest in ensuring the accuracy and transparency of ESG information.Last year the SEC adopted amendments to the Investment Company Act with the “Names Rule,” which addresses fund names that are likely to mislead investors about a fund's investments and risks. On the consumer side, the FTC has been on the case as it stalks misleading advertising claims. Violations have real consequences. In 2022 the FTC reached multimillion dollar settlements with store chains Kohl's and Walmart over claims that certain products were eco-friendly and made from bamboo, when they were really made from rayon. More recently, a class action was filed in federal court in New York over the "carbon neutral" branding on bottled water. But there are some important court decisions our guest wants to know about, involving shoemaker AllBirds and beauty products company Sephora. She is Ramya Ravishankar, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary of the HowGood company, an independent research firm that helps the world's largest food brands meet their sustainability commitments. Ramya is a former environmental biologist turned attorney who is – as you will soon hear -- passionate about the intersection of food and sustainability. Previously, Ramya was Associate General Counsel at Bowery Farming – producer of pesticide free lettuce, other leafy foods and herbs. Before that she was a regulatory enforcement associate at Skadden Arps. Ramya earned her J.D. from Columbia Law School in New York and a B.S. from Queen's University in Ontario, Canada.Enjoy the interview!*******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform. 

In this episode we talk about litigation automation, and another case in which innovators are using artificial intelligence to transform legal operations.We also speak with our guest about his transformation from a litigator to a tech entrepreneur, and how the company he co-founded is using modern tools to do in minutes what used to take hours. These tasks include responding to demand letters, complaints, and discovery requests, and executing matter profiling and data analytics, all of which are traditionally rote and repetitive and time-consuming undertakings. He is James M. Lee, co-founder and CEO of LegalMation. James conceived the idea behind LegalMation -- which is to leverage the power of generative artificial intelligence to transform litigation and dispute resolution -- while managing a litigation boutique.  An experienced and recognized litigator and trial attorney, James received his J.D. from Stanford Law School. Also joining me, I'm pleased to say, is the ever-inquisitive and always attentive Sara Lord, legal analytics professional extraordinaire, who raised questions from the litigator's perspective. I hope you enjoy the conversation!*******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform. 

Biometric data is big business. It many cases it even helps make our lives better.  It also presents  significant risks for a variety of parties, in addition to those of us who surrender our data. Companies collecting,  storing, utilizing, and monetizing the data face penalties and litigation bolstered by the increasing number of states enacting biometric information privacy acts, or BIPAs, the first of which was in Illinois. Biometric information --  fingerprints, facial and retinal scans, and DNA -- it's all used in many ways we don't even think about, like building security, banking access and online payments, smartphone access, patient identification in healthcare, employee tracking, law enforcement, air travel security and hotel check-ins, consumer tracking and customer experience analysis, border security, validating recipients of government welfare benefits, identifying students taking exams, and more. I just finished hosting a webinar titled “Litigation After Biometric Privacy Law Violations” with attorneys John M. Leonard and Cort T. Malone of Anderson Kill. They spoke extensively about the state of biometric privacy litigation, the regulatory landscape,  insurance coverage considerations, and recent rulings. They're both shareholders at Anderson Kill and they are both graduates of the Fordham University School of Law. John M. Leonard is co-chair of the firm's biometric liability group. He has recovered millions of dollars for policyholders in a full spectrum of insurance coverage matters, including disputes over business interruption, D&O and E&O, defense and indemnity, general liability losses, and environmental liability. Cort T. Malone, chair of the firm's Biometric Liability Insurance Recovery Group, is an experienced litigator who focuses on insurance coverage litigation and dispute resolution, with an emphasis on commercial general liability insurance, cyber insurance, employment practices insurance, advertising injury, D&O, E&O, and property insurance. He's also a member of the firm's practice groups relating to restaurant, retail and hospitality; environmental law; cyber insurance recovery; and COVID litigation. Following the webinar (coming soon to the West LegalEdcenter), Cort and John stuck around to answer some of my questions about a couple of recent cases I thought illustrated the types of underlying and coverage matters we're seeing out there. I hope you enjoy it. *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform. 

This episode is dedicated to Mental Health Awareness Month -- May 2024 -- in which we explore some of the keys to achieving wellbeing as a human litigator. Lawyers contemplate suicide at "an exceedingly high rate." Whereas 4.2% of adults have reported contemplating suicide, that figure is 10-12% among lawyers. According to a study published by MDPI, lawyers are prone to mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. "[O]ur findings suggest the profile of a lawyer with the highest risk for suicide is a lonely or socially isolated male with a high level of unmanageable stress, who is overly committed to their work, and may have a history of mental health problems."  Released in 2023, the authors of the study -- Stressed, Lonely, and Overcommitted: Predictors of Lawyer Suicide Risk (Krill, Thomas, Kramer, Degeneffe, and Anker) -- say there is a need for interventions to address these risks,  including  "education, resources, and support for lawyers to better manage their workload, modifying work demands and expectations, and promoting a culture of openness and support within law firms."With that as a backdrop, guest host and legal analytics professional Sara Lord interviews success coach and former litigator Gary Miles about the professional dissatisfaction litigators experience  when the pursuit of fulfillment clashes with high-stress demands -- from burnout to depression to imposter syndrome. Explore practical strategies for managing anxiety and embracing mindfulness, like reframing your thoughts, celebrating even small achievements, identifying trusted colleagues and mentors, the importance of rest, and reaching out for help. Learn some of the wisdom Gary imparts via his counseling services. Feeling emotionally crisp?  “There is always a solution. Always,” Gary says.*******Need Immediate Help? If you are in the U.S. and experiencing thoughts of suicide, call or text the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline at 988 or IMAlive at 1-800-784-2433. In the UK and Ireland – Call Samaritans UK at 116 123; in Australia – Call Lifeline Australia at 13 11 14; in other countries – Visit IASP or Suicide.org to find a helpline in your country.*******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome Page

The art and science of forecasting litigation outcomes just got a lot more sciencey. Years of immersion in complex business disputes is bound to shine a light on problems begging for solutions. In this case, our guest observed the laborious and ineffective slog that is trying to forecast how long a case will take, how much it might cost, which jurisdiction will treat it with kindness, or how a judge might rule on a motion for summary judgment. These are some of the critical questions our guest set out to address through the use of technology and assessment of massive data sets. He is Dan Rabinowitz, Co-Founder and CEO of  Pre/Dicta, a six-year-old company that provides litigation prediction and forecasting services.  Before Pre/Dicta, Dan was an attorney in Sidley Austin LLP's Supreme Court and Appellate Group and the firm's Mass Tort Litigation Group. Later, he served as trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice, general counsel to a data science company, and associate general counsel, chief privacy officer, and  director of fraud analytics for WellPoint Military Care.Listen to what Dan has to say about how the power of technology is going to make predicting litigation as commonplace as predicting the weather. He also shares insights into a study Pre/Dicta conducted that tested assumptions about judges based on their political affiliations.  *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome Page

Our Legal Tech Host Sara Lord speaks with data scientist and eDiscovery expert Lenora Gray of Redgrave Data.  Discovery is a staple in any litigation practice, and it has been transformed by technology assisted review tools – or TAR. eDiscovery has developed into its own specialty – with eDiscovery experts on staff who know all there is to know about the technology, standards, processes, and practices.But every litigator needs to understand how eDiscovery tools work. They should be able to answer questions around the approach being used, why that approach was chosen, reliability of the assisted review, human oversight implemented, and more.This, like many areas of law, is filled with acronyms, specialized terminology, and a changing landscape – from technology developments to evolving legal standards to ethics competency issues. But because so much of the work is done by a technology vendor that has specialized tools, it can feel like your review is based on blind faith and that finding the pieces to support your case requires you to rely on dumb luck.Can we do more than pray to the document gods? Listen as Sara Lord interviews Lenora Gray, Data Scientist at Redgrave Data.Lenora Gray is an eDiscovery expert and data scientist who is skilled in auditing and evaluating eDiscovery systems. In her role as data scientist at Redgrave Data, she designs and analyzes structured and unstructured data sets, builds predictive models for use in TAR workflows, implements automation solutions, and develops custom software. Prior to joining Redgrave, she spent 12 years as a paralegal, a role in which she managed discovery teams. Lenora is currently pursuing her M.S. in data science from John Hopkins University and earned a B.S. in computer science from Florida Atlantic University.I welcome back Sara Lord as legal tech guest host for the Emerging Litigation Podcast. A former practicing attorney with a decade of experience in data analytics, Sara applies her time at law firms and companies to explore and address the cultural and practical barriers to diversity in law, supporting value-creation through legal operations and client-first business-oriented practices. In her recent work as Managing Director of Legal Metrics, she led a team of experts focused on providing the tools to support data-driven decision making in legal operations and closer collaboration between law firms and their clients through automation and standardization of industry metrics. Sara earned her J.D. from New York University School of Law.*******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome Page

Tom Hagy interviews jury and trial expert Tara Trask about picking juries in an age of misinformation, general distrust, tribalism, unleashed social media warriors, flamers, and propagandists, and unorthodox legal strategies that seem to unfold on a daily basis. All of these conditions began to accelerate in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election in which Donald Trump prevailed over Hillary Clinton, continued to heat up in Trump's race against then-candidate Joe Biden, culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capital, and continues to blot out the sun amid civil and criminal actions against the former president and some of his supporters and colleagues as the 2024 election roars at us like a freight train.  In this episode we ask: How does what some have called a Cold Civil War affect our ability to listen and decide objectively when presented with arguments and evidence in court? How much increased bias, skepticism, and hostility for institutions -- from courts to corporations to witnesses -- do people carry into the jury box?  Tara Trask is a nationally recognized author and lecturer on juror psychology and other trial science topics. As President of Trask Consulting, a boutique litigation strategy, jury research and trial consulting firm with offices in San Francisco, Houston and New York, Tara focuses on civil litigation with an emphasis on complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property, antitrust, securities, breach of contract, and fraud. She has assisted plaintiffs and defendants in products liability, insurance, and oil and gas matters, and has extensive experience assisting institutions and individuals in matters involving regulatory enforcement and white-collar defense. *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome Page

“Of all the opportunities legal operations teams might identify to save time, money, and resources while potentially improving quality, Robotic Process Automation may currently offer the biggest and most immediate opportunities.”That is from the forthcoming book, "Legal Operations in the Age of AI and Data," specifically the “Automation in Legal Departments” chapter written by Tara Emory, Wilzette Louis and Adam Poeppelmeier of Redgrave Data, and Kassie Burns of King & Spalding.  (Available for pre-order now from Globe Law & Business.)Automating repetitive tasks and workflows required to effectively advance litigation frees litigators and support teams to focus on “strategic, analytical, and high-value work,” say the authors. Boosted by AI technology, like natural language processing, these tools can conduct data extraction and analysis from volumes of documents, create new documents, summarize documents, or initiate document drafting.How can litigators best leverage these capabilities? Listen as our first-time guest host Sara Lord interviews Redgrave Data's Tara Emory, SVP, Legal AI Strategy, and Wilzette Louis, Director of Client Solutions. Tara is a highly regarded legal industry executive and recognized expert in legal AI, ediscovery,  information governance operations, and consulting. She plays a leadership role in The Sedona Conference and was contracted to serve as eDiscovery Lead on the House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. Tara holds a JD and LLM in International and Comparative Law from Duke University School of Law.Wilzette is an ediscovery expert and advisor focused on approaches for using technology and workflows to  maximize effectiveness, efficiency, and overall client satisfaction. Wilzette has a BS in computer science from the New York Institute of Technology.I welcome as guest host for the podcast Sara Lord, a former practicing attorney with a decade of experience in data analytics. Sara applies her talents in large and small law firms and businesses to explore and address the cultural and practical barriers to diversity in law, and client-first business-oriented practices. As Managing Director of Legal Metrics, she leads a team of experts focused on providing the tools to support data-driven decision making in legal operations and closer collaboration between law firms and their clients through automation and standardization of industry metrics. Sara earned her J.D. from New York University School of Law. Listen as Sara speaks with Tara and Wilzette about the game-changing potential of robotic process automation and AI, and how these are not just futuristic concepts but practical solutions to today's legal challenges. *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome Page

Surveys abound on artificial intelligence and the law – many of them by companies bringing the technology into their products for attorneys. One survey says three quarters of lawyers expect AI to be integrated into their legal practices in the near term. Half say they expect it will boost productivity, half feel it will be transformative, while  nine out of ten attorneys expressed concerns about artificial intelligence applications and attendant ethical issues.  In an article she wrote for Above the Law, you're going to hear even more about generative artificial intelligence in the coming months, “especially” she says, “as legal technology companies ramp up their generative ai releases.” She forecasts “a rapid, exponential uptick in the number of new GAI tools for legal professionals.” And, as she reminded me, litigators have an ethical duty of technology competence.  Nicole "Niki" Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and is senior director of subject matter expertise and external education at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of cloud computing for lawyers and is co-author of social media for lawyers: the next frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for abajournal.com and Above the Law; has authored hundreds of articles for other publications; and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Nicole earned her J.D. from Albany Law School.Listen as I interview, first, Google Gemini fka Bard, for fun, then our real-life human attorney guest, about the current state and future of generative artificial intelligence and the practice of law. Tom HagyHostEmerging Litigation Podcast***This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn

Laundering money generated in the drug trade. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion to $2 trillion is laundered annually. Laundering money intended to support terrorism. The International Monetary Fund is concerned about terrorism financing, and proliferation financing, providing funds for nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Money that is embezzled or other schemes also must be laundered, that is, if you're a criminal or criminal enterprise. As of Jan. 1, 2024, domestic and foreign entities registered to do business in the United States must comply with new “beneficial ownership reporting requirements” imposed under the Corporate Transparency Act. Listen to what veteran attorney Lori Smith of Stradley Ronon has to say about the Act, something 30 million companies will have to follow during the Act's first year. Lori provides insights for business executives and attorneys on key facets of the requirements, potential penalties, and chances for litigation.***This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn

Litigators who do other things besides litigate -- you know them. Some perform comedy, act on stage or in film, or they are gifted musicians. Some are even drummers. (Drummer joke, if that's not too edgy.)  One highly acclaimed San Francisco class action litigator is talented on the kit and owns her own drum company. Another Los Angeles-based litigator started his own record label. Another San Francisco litigator left the profession, moved to South Africa, and led people on safari. Others write books, or develop technology solutions to common problems. Still others launch businesses, teach, and back causes.The point is: Litigators do many things. One job closer to home is when he or she moves from private practice to a corporate legal department. But what about when the company is on the smaller size, with a modest legal department whose members are expected to handle an assortment of matters?  Hiring is an important decision for any company, but when it's a smaller organization selecting in-house counsel is arguably even more critical. When companies like this aren't engaged in litigation, one might think a litigator wouldn't be the first choice.In this episode we talk about all the things one litigator has done, and the advantages she feels a litigator can bring to a small company – one that isn't embroiled in litigation and would like to keep it that way.    She is Somya Kaushik, in-house counsel, entrepreneur, adjunct law professor, writer, leader, a children's book author (“You, YES You! Yolki's Journey Within," illustrated by Annie Hagy* and available on Amazon and other fine platforms), and a former litigator. She is senior corporate counsel for Mineral, an HR and corporate compliance company which was recently acquired by Miratech, a tech solutions company for legal, HR, and governance, risk and compliance. Before Mineral she was an intellectual property litigator representing large and small companies, including SaaS and tech firms. In 2013 she founded EsqMe, Inc., a sharing platform where lawyers can exchange legal documents, templates, motions, and forms, where she served as general counsel. She is also an adjunct professor at Lewis & Clark Law School. Now located in Chicago, for nearly five years Somya was president of the South Asian Bar Association of Oregon. Somya is on the Fastcase 50 list honoring innovators and leaders in the legal industry.  Education: New York Law School, J.D.; George Washington University, B.A., Psychology and Political Science; London School of Economics; and Harvard Business School. *Ms. Hagy is the younger daughter of the host of this podcast, which, now that I think about it, could use some illustrations to brighten up the place. ********This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn

Today we talk about liability forecasting and the role it plays in the administration of massive, sometimes multi-billion-dollar mass tort settlement trusts. These mechanisms were built to fairly and judiciously compensate current and future claimants for their injuries. Mass tort litigation is a complicated beast as is the administration of these trusts. Exposures, injuries, and the discovery of injuries can occur over decades. In the meantime, companies come and go. They are are bought and sold. They declare bankruptcy. People are exposed to new elements or conditions in the environment and the workplace. On the financial side, market fluctuations and interest rates impact the value of the funds. On the medical side, advancements in diagnostics can affect the number of claimants and the timing of their claims. New technologies can be a factor, too, like the ability to create deep-fake evidence or even claimants. Then there are the unpredictable events. The Covid-19 pandemic offered another confounding factor when many Americans suddenly had virus-related respiratory issues, perhaps joining injuries they may have suffered, or were quietly developing, from a toxic exposure. In other words,  there are many overlapping, interlocking, intersecting, and dynamic layers involved with people, companies, diseases, certain financial externalities, and "black swans" that complicate the oversight of settlement funds. Listen to my conversation with Mark Eveland and Ed Silverman, both with Verus LLC, which provides litigation support services to law firms working on mass torts, such as case management and medical review services, settlement administration, business and advisory services, and analytics. They explain that liability forecasting is a practice best understood through the three areas it analyzes: (i) the risks and injuries created by a product and its use, (ii) claims filed and approved, and (iii) finances. Liability forecasting is both a science and an art, they say, with plenty of risks.Eveland, founder, CSO, and chairman of the board, is an expert in building settlement and claims management programs for mass torts, class actions, and insurance runoffs. Throughout his career, Mark has provided research, discovery, analytics, settlement administration, and expert witness support litigators around the country. Trained in molecular biology, genetics and epigenetics, and biochemistry, Silverman is an analytics executive, a life science expert, and biomedical communications specialist. Ed assists with data analytics, scientific collaboration networks, patient based medical claims, and more. I hope you enjoy the episode! Bonus: I left in a little introductory jazz in the beginning, then  encouraged Ed to discuss his background and research, which I was thrilled to find included how fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) form memories. I can't tell you how glad I was I asked. Yes I can. Very glad.  ********This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please dr

In this episode we talk about artificial intelligence in the world of invention. My guest recently co-wrote an article for the Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law about a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that expounded on the principle that only human beings -- not machines -- can be named as inventors under U.S. patent law. The decision applies a straightforward interpretation of patent statutes, our guest says. Beyond invention, what about that initial spark of innovation? What about the decision might make it difficult to obtain intellectual property protection for inventions generated by advanced AI systems? Isn't AI kind of like using computer modeling? Don't inventors already get considerable assistance from technology? What did the court say about all that? Joining me to answer these questions is Robert A. McFarlane, an intellectual property litigator and registered patent attorney and partner with Hanson Bridgett LLP in San Francisco. Rob chairs the firm's technology practice, co-chairs its IP practice, litigates and advises on a variety of IP matters in the U.S. and abroad, and teaches patent law at the University of California College of the Law San Francisco (formerly Hastings College of the Law). Rob earned his J.D. from the University of California College of Law San Francisco and his B.A.S. with departmental honors, in Industrial Engineering & Political Science from Stanford University. I hope you enjoy the episode. I mean, we get to talk about everything from Tom Jefferson to monkeys with cameras.  That's five-star material right there!***********This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn

Annual U.S. litigation cost estimates vary wildly.  Some say $250 billion, others say $430 billion. When you consider indirect costs, such as lost productivity or economic damages, some put the costs as high as  $1.5 trillion. According to Statista, more than $5 billion is spent on employment litigation alone, and another $4.5 billion on commercial litigation. Litigation surrounding intellectual property, product liability, and real estate disputes, cost more than $3 billion each.  Time is also a factor. As any litigator knows, resolution of a lawsuit can take three to five years on average. Some cases drag on for more than a decade.Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is increasingly attractive. Its benefits were  on full display during Covid lockdowns. It's more convenient for almost everyone involved, especially in cross-country or cross-border disputes.  An important and dangerous side effect of litigation expense is access to justice. Everyone will have disputes and conflicts in their lives, but not everyone can afford to go to court. More ADR is moving from mediation to arbitration partly because of the perceived finality of going to a panel. The American Arbitration Association says there were 25,000 ADR cases filed in 2020. Meanwhile, there are more than 400,000 federal suits and as many as 60 million state suits filed each year.Listen to my interview with Rich Lee, CEO and Co-Founder, New Era/ADR as we discuss hot topics and issues involving what is referred to here as "Advanced Dispute Resolution." Before New Era/ADR, Rich was general counsel of a financial technology company that he helped to build, grow, and sell. Rich  serves as an advisor, board member, and investor in technology startups and venture funds and in a leadership role in the Economic Club of Chicago.  He serves on the national Leader's Council of the Legal Services Corporation (a U.S. Senate-funded 501c3) and on the board of Illinois Legal Aid Online. He has a J.D. from Loyola University Chicago School of Law and a B.S. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!***********This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn

This isn't going to be another theoretical sermon on the business of law, but how two partners  – with the help of a business expert – re-envisioned their practice, throwing out traditional models and transforming their firm into something unique.First, we're going to talk about looking strategically at your law firm as you would any business. The goal here, being tweaking or adjusting your practice in a way that has the most impact on your bottom line. Second, we're going to talk about one litigation firm's journey through that process, where they basically took their practice apart, examined each piece, and put it back together again. They rebuilt it with parts based on their strengths as attorneys and on activities that were most profitable.  My guest is James M. Grant, an attorney who has embraced the idea of applying strategic business thinking to the practice of law.  In that spirit, we talk about how and why he and his partner, Mark Kirchen, tried such an exercise and what he learned from it. Then James talks about a pretty profound transformation of his firm, developing a unique offering that is demonstrably different, as you will see. James is co-founding partner of Georgia Trial Attorneys at Kirchen & Grant LLC.  He's an experienced personal injury litigator and trial attorney, whose list of defendants include insurance companies. James started off as a state prosecutor before getting into personal injury law. He has a B.S. from Georgia Institute of Technology, and received his J.D. from Faulkner University (J.D., 2011). I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!***********This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

The PFAS family of man-made compounds are found in countless consumer products, as well as medical devices and firefighting foam. The incredibly strong carbon-fluorine bond that make PFAS so useful also makes them incredibly persistent. They are so ubiquitous that PFAS can be found in the blood of every human on earth and rainwater throughout the world. In this episode we are going to give you some history of the compounds, discuss some important differences, review what litigation we're seeing (including the various claims and defenses), note what we can learn from recent settlement structures, forecast the impact of any new regulation, and predict what litigation might be next. My guests have been at the forefront of PFAS litigation since they began defending carpet manufacturers in suits brought by two Alabama municipalities in 2017. They are: David J. Marmins, a partner with Arnall Golden Gregory LLP in Atlanta, Georgia. He is part of the firm's litigation and real estate practices and co-chair of the firm's retail industry team. David has concentrated his practice on complex civil litigation since becoming a lawyer in the last century. He earned his JD from Georgia State University College of Law. Morgan E. M. Harrison, partner, in AGG's litigation and dispute resolution and employment practices. She is also a member of the payments systems and fintech, and background-screening industry teams. Morgan has a JD from Vanderbilt University Law School. BONUS! Read David and Morgan's article on the subject, just published in the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

According to the Department of Agriculture Americans consume 137 pounds of fresh produce per year. That not only fuels our bodies but also a $146 billion industry.  Produce starts to degrade immediately after harvest, so transporting fresh fruits and vegetables from farms to stores in a safe and timely manner poses numerous challenges. What legal and reputational risks do growers, brokers, and shippers face? What laws come into play? What are the essential components of contracts among participants in the supply chain? Listen to my interview with Katy Esquivel,  founder and principal attorney with Esquivel Law Chartered. Katy focuses on trust enforcement cases under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and representation of stakeholders in the transportation industry. Katy represents transportation brokers and shippers in matters including drafting contracts, handling claims, and advising clients on evolving legal issues impacting their businesses. She also counsels growers and sellers. Katy has also successfully completed the Produce Safety Alliance Grower Training Course to ensure that she is up to date on the latest food safety standards within the industry. She earned her J.D. from St. Thomas University Benjamin L. Crump School of Law. I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

What's gotten into some corporations these days?  Some are reducing their carbon footprint and reducing waste. Some are demanding ethical behavior. Some are even paying attention to wages of frontline workers. In this episode we discuss the role of attorneys and in-house counsel in the courageous new world of Environment, Social, and Governance, or ESG. And, not to disappoint, I mention a beloved cartoon duck who, when you think about it, raises questions about inclusivity and workplace safety. Throw in the fact that he doesn't always wear pants to work and you have an ESG trifecta. A few questions addressed in this episode: How can law firms themselves adopt ESG practices and what role do they play with clients? What are some common pitfalls attorneys should avoid when navigating ESG regulations and standards? How can in-house counsel drive ESG initiatives within their organizations?What role to they play in  communicating ESG risks and opportunities to their C-suite and board or directors? What about mitigating risks associated with ESG disclosures? And what about external partnerships and supplier contracts?And another thing. Ever wonder why corporations set ESG goals, why ratings matter, or how ratings are calculated? Listen to my interview with Kai Gray, CEO and co-founder of Motive, an ESG advisory and support service firm, as we explore what ESG is, what it is not, what good it can bring to an organization, and where attorneys fit in.  Kai generously offers his perspective based on more than two decades of work at some of the most innovative companies in the U.S.  Kai also reveals the secret to the secret sauce behind compelling corporations to the right thing! I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently struck down Berkeley, California's ban on natural gas infrastructure in new buildings. The court ruled unanimously that the ban violates federal law. This subject is important as we will likely see more natural gas bans in the future and the Berkeley case has set a precedent for how similar cases may be treated.  The case was brought by the California Restaurant Association, the National Restaurant Association, and the American Gas Association. The plaintiffs argued that Berkeley's ban was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which gives the federal government exclusive authority to regulate energy efficiency standards for appliances. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that Berkeley's ban was "a direct regulation of energy efficiency standards for appliances." Now, New York has implemented a natural gas ban starting in 2026. Listen to my interview with Gary Toman, Partner at Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial LLC, as we discuss this seminal case and the impact of the court's ruling on consumers and businesses across the country. Gary  has extensive experience representing corporations, banks and professionals in complex litigation and arbitration matters and business disputes. Gary has substantial experience defending corporations in a wide variety of class actions.  Gary received his J.D. from Harvard Law School.  I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

Challenged by the pandemic, war, trade conflicts, natural disasters, consumer demand, and inflationary pressures, the global supply chain has drawn heightened scrutiny for its impact on the economy, the labor market, the delivery of goods and services, and national security. What have the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission had to say? Have they sufficiently addressed the issue? Any further measures in the works?  Are we seeing disputes in the courts? How can supply chain and manufacturing companies limit their risk of being subject to government investigation?  Listen to my interview with Jennifer M. Driscoll, Counsel at Robinson + Cole, LLP, as we explore recent developments related to the manufacturing industry and supply chains and their impact on marketplace competition. Jennifer  focuses her practice on investigations, litigation, arbitration, mergers, and counseling. She has extensive experience in the medical devices, pharmaceutical, electronic components and automotive industries, with a particular knowledge of industries in Japan. An experienced commercial litigator, Jen defends corporations and individuals against alleged antitrust and anti-corruption claims, both civil and criminal. She is active in the American Bar Association's Section of Antitrust Law, where she serves as Vice Chair of the Section's Corporate Counseling Committee and Vice Chair to the Section's U.S. Comments and Policy Committee during the 2022-2023 Section year. Jennifer received her J.D. from University of Pennsylvania School of Law.This episode is based on Jennifer's article -- "Supplier Beware: DOJ and FTC Investigating Manufacturing and Supply Chains" for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.  Give it a read!  I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

The Federal  Trade Commission's proposed rule banning non-compete agreements between employers and workers has met with considerable support and just as much opposition. Proposed on Jan. 5, 2023, a vote on a final rule not anticipated until Spring 2024.Will all of the challenges to the rule result in a substantially different final version? Why has the FTC chosen now? Who is contesting the rule and what are some of the challenges it raises? What does it mean for employers and other entities today? What impact might the rule have on litigation? Listen to my interview with Andreya DiMarco, attorney with the Hatfield Schwartz Law Group LLC, as we explore the nuances of the proposed rule as well as the legal and practical impact it will have if it is adopted.Andreya  focuses her practice on employment law and transactional matters. She is well versed in the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, and has represented clients in federal court, state court, and before administrative agencies including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights.  She also advises clients on a variety of aspects of employment law and compliance, and provides training and policy drafting.  Andreya received her J.D. from NYU School of Law.I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn     

The IRS closed more than 72,000 appeals last year and its Chief Counsel's Office received more than 65,000 cases. That's a lot of disputes. Safe to say they are about rules. Following rules. Not following rules. Questioning rules. Then, there are rules about rules that the IRS must follow.  The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is such a beast. The APA places requirements on federal agencies when engaged in a “rule making” that has the force and effect of law. The APA has become a focal point in tax litigation, due in large part to the IRS's record of refusing to comply with the law's notice-and-comment mandate. In his article for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, our guest – Jeffrey S. Luechtefeld, shareholder at Chamberlain Hrdlicka – wrote about challenging the IRS, recent trends in tax litigation, and the future of APA challenges. And now, he's here on our humble podcast.  Jeff is a tax controversy and litigation attorney with a strong technical tax background and a deep understanding of the inner workings of the agency. Jeff advocates on behalf of clients in IRS examinations, appeals and litigation. Previously, he led the regional tax controversy practice for a Big Four accounting firm. He began his career with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel as a litigator, eventually becoming a Special Trial Attorney in the Large Business and International Division. Jeff received his JD from the University of Missouri, Columbia School of Law. I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences, and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm -- all now part of vLex. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. I'm often polite. Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

There are no borders when it comes to commerce, which means there are no borders when it comes to business disputes and litigation, either.  In addition to evidence and witnesses being spread across continents -- from Chicago to Shanghai to Sumatra -- nations'  various rules and traditions governing discovery is another substantial complicating factor.  Navigating these complexities requires specialized tools, a thorough understanding of how they do things from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and how to get your case over hurdles not seen in the U.S. Listen to my interview with Benjamin Daniels of Robinson+Cole, an experienced litigator and advisor to financial institutions and global corporations. As a member of the firm's Business Litigation Group, Ben provides creative and ardent advocacy during litigation, enforcement actions, investigations, crisis management, and white-collar defense matters.  He received his J.D.  from Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. Also, and this is important, Ben had very nice things to say about Switzerland.  I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

Auto-GPT is a new generative artificial intelligence application which autonomously “self-prompts” to engage beyond a human-chatbot discussion. This takes us into a realm of AI self-prompted actions that do not need additional human inputs. It also potentially puts the “traditional” GPT models on a fast track to further reduce human interaction. The number of use cases as well as the number of legal and ethical questions is inevitable. For that reason, it's becoming increasingly important for businesses to understand how Auto-GPT technologies use data, the potential for biased results, and how to responsibly leverage these powerful technologies.Listen to my interview with Jason I. Epstein, Partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough as we explore this emerging field. Jason is the co-head of the firm's technology and procurement industry group which provides legal services to global buyers and sellers of technology in industries that include FinTech, HealthIT,  and manufacturing. An experienced business and technology negotiator, Jason has dealt with a variety of matters, e.g., the metaverse, technology transfer, privacy, cryptocurrency, IoT, open-source code, and more. Jason received his JD from the University of Tennessee College of Law. He also teaches "Law of Cyberspace" as an adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University Law School.  I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

You might think that if you purchase a product for a price inflated by bad actors in the supply chain that you would be able to collect damages. Unfortunately, depending on who you are, you would be wrong. Consumers and businesses, indirect purchasers of products whose prices are fixed by those who supply the maker of your purchase may not collect damages in states that, surprisingly, do not have antitrust laws that give them standing. But what about federal law? Why do some states provide for damages and others do not? Are there alternatives?  Are there any pro-purchaser changes on the horizon that could impact antitrust litigation brought by indirect buyers?   For answers to these questions and more, listen to my interview with attorney Austin Cohen of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP of Philadelphia. His practice focuses on  antitrust and business law, class actions, torts and products liability, and environmental damage litigation. Austin received a BA in Economics and History from the University of Pennsylvania and his JD, cum laude, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

Consumers are driving a wave of litigation against companies for allegedly sharing details of what videos they watch on their platforms. Will litigation tamp down this activity? What harm is being caused? How will existing laws be interpreted? Are these organizations within their rights? Dozens of organizations -- ranging from the rough-and-tumble NFL to the decidedly less rough-and-tumble NPR -- are among the defendants in nearly 50 proposed class actions which claim Meta Platforms Inc.'s pixel tracking tool facilitated the sharing of personal video consumption data and identities from online platforms to Facebook without user consent. This, the plaintiffs say, violates the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPAA) of 1988. The rising number of VPAA cases demonstrates how plaintiff attorneys are creatively applying traditional causes of action to litigate modern privacy issues in the absence of a federal law. An act that far preceded the proliferation of online video streaming, it followed the publication of one-time Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's Blockbuster video rentals. The titles the judge rented disappointed anyone looking for scandal. They included nothing more salacious thanThe Man Who Knew Too Much  starring Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. Listen to my interview with someone who knows plenty:   Myriah V. Jaworski, a member at Clark Hill PLC.  Myriah helps me explore the privacy issues raised by these cases and what the future holds for businesses and other parties who handle consumer data.Myriah represents clients in defense of data breach class actions, privacy torts and statutory claims (IRPA/BIPA), pixel tacking and commercial surveillance matters, internet defamation, technology disputes, and cyber subrogation claims. She defends them in response to regulatory inquiries and investigations arising out of data incidents and privacy practices, including before state Attorney General offices, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Human and Health Services – Office of Civil Rights. Myriah is a Certified Information Privacy Professional, United States (CIPP/US) and a Certified Information Privacy Professional, Europe (CIPP/E) as certified by the International Association of Privacy Professionals. She was also a Trial Attorney with the Department of Justice. She received her JD/MS degree from Syracuse University College of Law. And now, I am happy to say, she is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

In this episode we talk about the advantages of having technology and software development capabilities inside your law firm. Can you imagine? And we're not just talking about someone who is adept at unjamming the printer.  While the legal tech industry offers myriad high-quality solutions (some of my best friends are technology solutions), there are times when a litigator just wants that one thing that the tech doesn't do. Or, working with the tech has such a long learning curve that the attorney won't embrace it, that is, if he or she even tries it. There are also service enhancements attorneys would like to offer clients – capabilities that set the firm apart, that demonstrate the firm has the client's best interests at heart and that the firm is even (gasp!) innovative.Litigators want to get an edge at trial. They want to be able to collaborate smoothly with clients. They want clients to get answers to important questions quickly. Focusing on customer experience is not just for retailers anymore.Joining me to talk about how one law firm benefits from having its own in-house technology developer is Sam McAllister, Director of Litigation Technology at Lightfoot Franklin & White in Birmingham, Alabama.Sam works on creative solutions for the firm's litigation defense teams in the categories of communications, workflows, automation, multimedia, task efficiency, jury selection, information organization, and courtroom visualization, and more. The results come in the form of proprietary software, custom platforms, and apps. Many make the firm more efficient, cost-effective, and better equipped to collaborate with clients. Some have the effect of wowing clients, too.It's no wonder Sam found himself on the Fastcase 50, a unique award that celebrates innovative professionals in the legal field. Sam, they said, exemplifies the "build-your-own spirit" of the award.He is the leader of the firm's Case Clarity Group, which provides "highly-developed technology to clients throughout the duration of a case, e-discovery collaboration with Lightfoot lawyers, and adaptive evidence models to make complex ideas simple." And – I like this part – "ask any lawyer who knows him - Sam does what it takes to help you win a case and is known for bringing calm to the most intense of trials." (I can think of some work groups that would benefit from a position I just made up – Director of Calm. I mean, a cat can only do so much.) Sam received his B.S. in computer science from Auburn University. Speaking of cats – Go Tigers! I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating! This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

Last year the Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz law firm filed the first class action against L'Oréal and Softsheen-Carson for injuries, primarily to Black women, allegedly caused by hair relaxers and straighteners.  Now there are more than 60 cases consolidated in multidistrict litigation.  Recent studies cited in the litigation show that Black women who use these products develop cancers at a rate disproportionate to that experienced by white women. The plaintiffs say the products are marketed not only to women but to girls as well. The companies challenge the accuracy of the study methods and say, in the case of a key NIH study, that all of women had sisters who were diagnosed with cancer.  Listen to my interview with veteran mass tort plaintiff attorney Jennifer M. Hoekstra, a partner with Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz. Jennifer boasts an impressive academic and professional record, including graduation from two of the nation's top schools.  She earned her Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Science from Columbia College, Columbia University in the City of New York. She relocated to Louisiana to attend Tulane Law School, where she earned her J.D. while also completing a certificate in Environmental Law.  During her law school career, she spent a semester studying at the University of Wisconsin School of Law and visited on their International Law Journal as a Junior Member during her Hurricane Katrina evacuation semester.This is Jennifer's second appearance on the podcast. She also was my guest on Greatly Exaggerated: The Impact of Bankruptcy on Mass Tort Litigation. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

According to studies cited in a 2019 article in Business Insider, people develop first impressions of you “even before you open your mouth,” that your mere appearance “affects how trustworthy, promiscuous, and powerful people think you are.” It's the trustworthy part that attorneys need to pay attention to. Regardless of the strength of their case or whether the law is on their side, an attorney still must be persuasive. And, unless the audience – whether it is a judge, a panel of judges, a regulatory body, or a jury – sees you as credible, the rest will likely not matter. But what makes an attorney, or anyone for that matter, credible? Is this something you're born with or is it something you can develop over time? Is it true, as some studies suggest, that you can change some first impressions by making some changes in how you present yourself, or are you just stuck with a less than trustworthy vibe? Listen to my interview with attorney Jack I. Siegal, a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP in Boston,  who believes we can all make positive adjustments in the nuanced practice of achieving credibility. Jack is a seasoned trial lawyer with 20 years of experience in complex litigation, during which time he has taken cases to trial in several jurisdictions. He also provides transactional counseling for such things as executive comp agreements and mergers. Jack's litigation practice focuses on complex commercial disputes, government investigations and white-collar defense, regulatory proceedings, and compliance across a wide range of industries, including the financial, healthcare, high-technology, government contracting, and related fields.  Education: Santa Clara University School of Law, J.D., magna cum laude; Santa Clara University, B.A., Greek and Latin, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa; University of Virginia, Graduate Study, Classics and Classical Languages, Literature, and Linguistics.This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Home Page LinkedIn P.S. Toward the end I could barely manage my ADHD and took the conversation into a chat that ranged from TikTok clips of the attorneys in the Amber Heard / Johnny Depp trial, somewhat on point, to discussion of great drumming, which would take some crafty knots to tie that in. Jack, being good natured and a good sport, went right along with me. Also, that's me on bongos. 

Diversity and inclusion initiatives aren't just valuable for checking off compliance boxes and writing marketing copy. Those benefits are a distant second and third to the genuine value team diversity has on the success of a company or a project. That also means law firms and trials.A recent article published by the American Bar Association Tort and Insurance Practice Section hailed diversity of perspectives for how they improve a team's ability to resolve legal issues, innovate solutions, and introduce  factors homogeneous teams may miss. The National Association for Law Placement reported that women and people of color are making great progress at major law firms. Nearly half of associates are women and, based on summer associate statistics, women are expected to break the 50% as early as this year or next. Black associates made impressive gains, but there remains room for improvement. At the partner level, however, Black and Latinx women and men remain stuck in the low single digits. In this episode we drill down even further to examine trial teams in the intellectual property arena. I was thrilled to speak with Tara Trask, one of the nation's leading experts on IP trials and juries, having directly worked on or observed more of these proceedings than just about anyone. Tara has championed research on this topic as part of her work and presentations for the American Intellectual Property Law Association. The diversity spark lit up for Tara when she and her panelists enjoyed an enthusiastic reaction to an AIPLA conference session she moderated titled, “Perspectives on Diversity: Views on Trial Teams From the Bench, The Boardroom, and the Jury Box.” Listen to Tara's insights based on analysis of her own cases, analysis of related studies, and expanded fact-gathering she is leading in collaboration with the association. BREAKING NEWS! This episode kicks off a series of guest-hosted sessions for which Tara will take the mic to interview professionals from her impressive network on legal team diverity.Tara Trask is the President of Trask Consulting, a boutique litigation strategy, jury research, and trial consulting firm with offices in San Francisco, Houston, and New York. She focuses on civil litigation with an emphasis on complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property, antitrust, securities, breach of contract, and fraud. She has assisted both plaintiffs and defendants in cases involving products liability, insurance, and oil and gas. Tara has extensive experience in assisting institutions and individuals in matters involving regulatory enforcement and white-collar defense, as well. She has been involved in more than 500 jury trials.This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Home Page LinkedIn P.S. Also, check out the video version of this episode. [insert hyperlink]

It's unlikely Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a future in copywriting for the fintech industry. (That was sarcasm.) Warren, who championed the creation of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), calls the Zelle digital payments network a “preferred tool for grifters like romance scammers, cryptocurrency con artists, and those who prowl social media sites advertising concert tickets and purebred puppies — only to disappear with buyers' cash after they pay.”   Scams and fraud committed via the Zelle platform and other peer-to-peer services are surging. According to one lawsuit 18 million Americans were defrauded by schemes perpetrated via apps like Zelle in 2020. Some 1,500 member banks and credit unions participate in the Zelle service. People sent $490 billion via the app in 2021. But Zelle owner, Early Warning, and its consortium comprising Bank of America, Truist, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo, have refused to refund customers for most of their losses. Sen. Warren issued a report that the claims for fraud received by just four banks will likely exceed $255 million by the end of 2022 – a $165 million increase over 2020. The senator and consumers say Zelle is violating federal consumer protection law.  The heart of the problem is this: banks and consumers do not agree on the definition of “fraud.” For clarity on issues surrounding  the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and its implementing regulation—Regulation E—listen to my interview with fintech attorney Brad Rustin of Nelson Mullins. In addition to chairing the firm's Financial Services Regulatory Practice, Brad counsels  financial institutions in regulatory matters, including strategic agreements, product development, and operational compliance.  Brad is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist and a Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager.  He received his JD, magna cum laude, from the University of South Carolina School of Law and his BA in Political Science and History, cum laude, from Furman University. Brad is also the FinTech advisor on the  Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.  *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

Maryland and Missouri are the latest states to legalize recreational cannabis for people 21 and older. Voters came out in favor of legalization in the November 2022 midterms, bringing the total recreational jurisdictions to 22 states and the District of Columbia. Voters in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas, however, decided against recreational marijuana. It remains legal for medical reasons in all five states. In the employment context, both recreational and medicinal uses raise questions about protections for employees who use the drug legally. Which states are enacting those protections? What do multi-state employers need to do? What about drug testing? As a requirement to get a job and as a requirement to keep your job? What about this: who is going to say whether a worker is impaired? Will there really be hall monitors trained in spotting your high? For answers to these questions and more, listen to my interview with Keya Denner, a partner at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP. Keya is an experienced litigator who has been practicing labor and employment law for almost 20 years. Few attorneys nationwide match Keya's expertise in the area of legal cannabis and its impact on the workplace. He has counseled Fortune 500 companies in the retail, hospitality, and global logistics spaces to create compliant policies and better understand the ever-changing legal landscape brought about by the legalization of cannabis across the United States.  Most recently, Keya was named co-chair along with this colleague Ashley Orler of the firm's new practice group focused on cannabis and employee substance abuse law. Keya received his J.D., cum laude, from Seton Hall University School of Law, J.D., cum laude, and his B.A., also cum laude, from Boston University. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Home Page LinkedIn 

The European Union's new Unified Patent Court is an international body set up by participating EU Member States to deal with the infringement and validity of both Unitary Patents and European patents. The court's objective is “putting an end to costly parallel litigation and enhancing legal certainty.” Unitary patents are intended to make it possible to get patent protection in up to 25 EU Member States by submitting a single request to the European Patent Office, making the procedure simpler and more cost effective for applicants. The new system goes live on June 1, 2023. What must U.S. and multi-national U.S.-based companies understand about the court? Why should inventors and their organizations factor it in to any existing or new patent strategy they may be developing?For answers to these questions and more listen to my interview with attorneys Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier who practice out of the Paris office of Reed Smith. Marianne heads the intellectual Property team in Paris and the patent practice in Europe. She manages complex national and transnational patent, trade secrets and trademark disputes in the healthcare, chemistry, technology and telecommunications sectors. Thierry is part of the firm's global Intellectual Property Group. With a dual legal and engineering/scientific background, Thierry uses his understanding, knowledge, and experience to provide clients with creative, technically robust, and business-oriented patent strategies. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Home Page LinkedIn 

Before COVID-19 came to America in early 2020, “going to court” literally meant putting on your shoes and walking into a courthouse, typically a large building with courtrooms inside, and people in robes and business suits and, in some cases, more restrictive attire.  Stoked by necessity, courts sprinted toward solutions for keeping the wheels of justice spinning while also keeping everyone away from each other. Until then it didn't seem possible that attorneys could or would appear before judges via digital screens, like George Jetson getting yelled at by Mr. Spacely over some hilarious mishap at the sprocket factory.Pew Charitable Trust concluded an in-depth study of the courts with the 2021 release of a report,  “How Courts Embraced Technology, Met the Pandemic Challenge, and Revolutionized Their Operations.” After examining emergency orders from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and court approaches to virtual hearings, e-filing, and digital notarization, the researchers wrote that it was a time for "reimagining how to administer justice.” Was the adoption of technology effective? Were there any hiccups? Was technology widely embraced? Were the effects of new efficiencies enjoyed evenly across the socio-economic spectrum? Do we think courts will continue to reimagine how they administer justice without the crushing pressure of widespread disease? Listen to my interview with Qudsiya Naqui who leads Pew's research at the intersection of technology and civil legal system reform. In this role, she evaluates and tests new technologies to ensure that they further efficiency, equity, and transparency in the legal process. This work is part of Pew's Civil Justice Modernization Project. Before joining Pew, Qudsiya designed and implemented immigration, housing, and disaster recovery legal services programs at Equal Justice Works and the Vera Institute of Justice. She began her legal career representing immigrant women and girls seeking relief from deportation.Qudsiya holds a bachelor's degree in political science and human rights from Barnard College and a Juris Doctor from Temple University.For more information about their work and the research, contact them at media@pewtrusts.org.This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Home Page LinkedIn 

It's apparently (and hopefully) on its last legs. The Covid-19 pandemic was the most recent health issue to raise questions around government's involvement (or interference) in an individual's control over their own medical treatment. In their article – Government Involvement in Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far is Too Far? – our guests wrote about the intersection of law and medicine. They reviewed medical mandates, implications brought about by the impact of advances in science and medicine, and where role of government to protect public health intersects (or collides) with personal healthcare choices. They focused is on governmental responses to the pandemic, that is, what the government can mandate in the spirit of public health, and not on the separate issue of abortion, which is a “choice” subject for another day.  How much authority do government agencies or even the courts have over a person's healthcare decisions? People often assume the practice of medicine and the enactment and enforcement of laws are separate and independent enterprises; that they remain fixed in their respective corners. However, they wrote, after a deeper  dive  into  history and precedent, it's evident that the tension between individual rights and health-related mandates has existed for some time. Listen to my interview with the authors, Bryce McCloskey and  Sandra M. Cianflone with Hall Booth Smith, P.C. Bryce is based in Jacksonville, Fla., where he focuses on medical malpractice and professional liability law. Sandie is a partner in the firm's Atlanta office where she concentrates on a variety of aspects of healthcare defense She chairs the firm's Coronavirus Task Force and is a member of the firm's National Trial Counsel team. She is also a valued member of the Editorial Board of Advisors of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.  ***********This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn p.s. Hey! Give us a rating and share this episode with colleagues!

The judicial system is overburdened for a number of reasons, and greater efficiency is a must if court systems are to achieve their important objectives. Technology and openness to all that it offers is a key solution, something that was tried, tested and proven during the Covid pandemic which closed courthouses and law offices around the nation. Along with technology, improvements can be made by reexamining their orthodoxies about how things should be done based on decades of "that's how we've always done it."  This is a matter of importance to judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, and numerous others whose lives are impacted directly or indirectly when either the civil or criminal justice systems are inefficient, cumbersome, costly, confusing, slow, and even inaccessible. If only we had an example of at least one judge who is trying to do something about it. But wait ...Listen to my interview with the Hon. Scott Schlegel who presides over criminal civil and domestic matters in Louisiana's 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish. Judge Schlegel was elected to the bench in 2013, and quickly earned a reputation as a modern judge using technology to bring his court into the digital age, even before the pandemic forced the change on other jurists. He partnered with tech companies to develop efficiency tools like chat bots and online forms software. He launched courtonline.us and onlinejudge.us to consolidate his processes for the public. Judge Schlegel has received numerous awards and accolades, like the National Center for State Courts' 26th Annual William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence. He was the American Bar Association's 2021 Legal Rebel. And he received the Fastcase 50 Award for his innovative approaches to the administration of justice. Prior to becoming a judge, he was a prosecutor and litigator. Judge Schlegel graduated with honors from Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn

When large companies face massive mass tort litigation, one way they can survive is to file for bankruptcy protection and reorganize.  3M recently put its Aearo Technologies subsidiary into bankruptcy in the face of more than 230,000 claims  that's its defective earplugs caused hearing loss.  When it came to filing bankruptcy 3M said Aearo was solely responsible for the product. But for several years of litigation 3M argued that it, as the parent, was solely responsible, not its various subsidiaries. That was a strategy that was beneficial to the company in multidistrict litigation.Why did 3M suddenly change course? What impact does bankruptcy have on claimants? Could corporations use bankruptcy law to neuter mass tort litigation for all eternity?  And how did the strategy sit with the federal magistrate judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation? Joining me to discuss this incredibly complex litigation is Jennifer M. Hoekstra , a partner with Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz. Jennifer has been involved in all varieties of complex litigation since 2007, focusing on mass torts, drug and device litigation, and others.  She has a J.D. from Tulane, which she earned while also completing a certificate in Environmental Law. She has actively served as trial counsel or an integral member of the trial team in several of the 3M Earplug trials securing nearly $300 million in compensatory damages for military veterans. Jennifer shared her insights on the intersection of complex mass torts and bankruptcy, an intersection that wasn't originally on her roadmap.  This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedInP.S. During the podcast I mentioned an article and wanted to share the link. It's called "Bankruptcy Grifters" by Lindsey D. Simon. It was published in the Yale Law Journal.