* Dildos and cock rings. Just another day for the Eleventh Circuit down in America’s wang. [Southern District of Florida Blog]
* Everything you need to know about today’s Alabama redistricting decisions from Professor Rick Hasen. It’s a longer and more nuanced way to say “Pyrrhic victory.” [Election Law Blog]
* The Supreme Court is way eloquent. [Lowering the Bar]
* Looks like we already have a real-life example of what happens when white-collar industries adopt new technology. Enjoy unemployment! [Law and More]
* Another scintillating legal debate coming up next week: do the President’s war powers exceed constitutional authority? [Intelligence Squared]
* If you’re in Nashville, you can see Lat in person. It’s on April Fool’s Day, so start thinking of how you want to punk him. [Vanderbilt Law]
* Harvard Law’s Lambda chapter kills its diversity amendment. Guess it was too much to hope a bunch of law students had solved de Tocqueville’s “tyranny of the majority” puzzle. [Harvard Law Record]
* Another installment in David’s chat with Bloomberg. Lat compares some firms to Ferraris… I’m guessing he doesn’t watch much racing unless he meant to say, “some firms spend massive amounts of money to remain woefully second-rate to Mercedes and Renault.” [Bloomberg BNA / Big Law Business]
With its critical impact on the world economy and global trade, privacy legislation in Asia has been extremely active in the last several years. A recently released report, Privacy Laws in Asia, written by Cynthia Rich of Morrison & Foerster LLP for Bloomberg BNA, analyzes commonalities and differences in the privacy and data security requirements in countries including Australia, India, Hong Kong and more.
This report gives you at-a-glance access to a side-by-side chart comparing four key compliance areas, a country-by-country review of the differences and special characteristics in the law, and explanations of the common elements of the privacy laws in 11 jurisdictions.
Lawyers, vendors and even judges continue to want to shove predictive coding down everyone’s throat. Not “technology assisted review (TAR)”, but specifically predictive coding.
Two disturbing cases for different, but similar reasons.
When did parties jump from collection and culling of documents to simply turning over all possible evidence blindly and relying on a claw back agreement to protect the producing party? Putting aside that works entirely in favor of the receiving party, this may be a viable solution in a very small percentage of cases, but for a defendant to argue to a Court that the Plaintiff should blindly produce backup tapes with only a claw back agreement as protection is ludicrous. That is one side of the argument made in Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership, et al, Petitioner vs the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Beekman Vista, Inc vs the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Docket Nos. 2685-11, 8393-12).
Catchy blog titles are usually hard too, but not this one. Discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) is just plain difficult. If you are lucky, it does not come up in your case at all. Or, the parties agree that only certain emails during a certain period of time are relevant to the dispute. If you are unlucky, you might find yourself in the middle of a massive theft of trade secrets case involving customer lists with thousands of names and an email address for each one of them. At that point, expect to spend several months creating an ESI discovery protocol with your opposing counsel – a process of negotiating everything from search terms to custodian/device lists to hard drive/server copying formats, and so on and so forth. Once that part is finished, you still have to engage in discovery according to the protocol.
On September 17, the U.S. Tax Court, in Dynamo Holdings LP v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. No. 9 (Sept. 17, 2014), held that a taxpayer could use predictive coding, over the objection of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to identify relevant electronically stored information (ESI) for production. This is the first Tax Court case to address the use of predictive coding in response to a discovery request.
It has long been the case in Hong Kong that most UK law firms and a very small minority of US law firms have three month notice periods for their US associates built into their employment contracts. But until about 18 months ago it was not common for any firm to enforce a three month notice period when a US associate left solo[…]
The discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) is loaded with potential pitfalls and failure unless the parties add two components to the mix: cooperation and collaboration. Lacking those components, ESI discovery, at least sometimes, can be one of the more painful experiences for the average trial lawyer.
The problem to overcome is largely that trial lawyers, by their nature, are competitive souls and tend toward competition rather than cooperation. Add to this personality that of the client who expects her lawyer to win everything, every time and we are off to the races.
In a recent case, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen seems to deal with overly competitive parties and lawyers not inclined toward collaboration; in the recent decision in Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Delaney, 2014 WL 2112927 (D. Nev. May 20, 2014).
11th Circuit, 4th Circuit, 7th Circuit, Bankruptcy, BARBRI, Career Alternatives, Disability Law, Drugs, Frank Easterbrook, Law Professors, Law Schools, Marijuana, Non-Sequiturs, Paralegals, Technology
* The Dukes of Hazzard and Braveheart cited in the Eleventh Circuit. Other circuits, the gauntlet has been thrown down. [Volokh Conspiracy]
* Dave’s not here, man. Probably not the smartest stoner on the planet. [Lowering the Bar]
* Former Skadden attorney loses her appeal claiming that insomnia constituted a disability. It’s a setback for her, but nothing worth losing sleep over. [National Law Journal]
* The Second Circuit agreed with every other court that heard the motion and denied the effort to recuse Magistrate Judge Peck from the Da Silva Moore predictive coding case. [IT-Lex]
* Maybe it’s time for law professors to get off their duffs and try helping out their unemployed students directly. [Concurring Opinions]
* Judge Easterbrook allows a $25K student-loan discharge for a ‘destitute’ paralegal. The educational-industrial complex is not going to sit still for this. [ABA Journal]
* Saira Rao, of Chambermaid (affiliate link) fame, has a new publishing venture — check it out. [Kickstarter]
* Oh, BARBRI. What’s the Matter with Kansas, indeed (after the jump)….
* Posted previously on Facebook (now pulled):
Bankruptcy, Biglaw, Deaths, Defamation, Education / Schools, Football, Howrey LLP, Law Professors, Law School Deans, Law Schools, Morning Docket, Musical Chairs, New York Times, Partner Issues, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Technology
* “The bottom line is … I’m the 800-pound-gorilla that you want to settle with.” By the way, if you weren’t sure, Howrey’s trustee Allan Diamond wasn’t kidding about suing the firm’s former partners. “Either we’re going to cut deals, or I’m suing you.” [Am Law Daily]
* It takes two to do the partnership tango: in the expansion of its Financial Institutions Group, Goodwin Procter picked up Brynn Peltz, an attorney with more than 20 years’ experience, and an ex-partner at Latham and Clifford Chance. [Fort Mill Times]
* Hello, predictive coding! Goodbye, jobs! Not only can computers do the work of lawyers on the cheap, but they can do it more intelligently, too. Get ready to welcome our new digital overlords. [WSJ Law Blog (sub. req.)]
* Another day, another op-ed article about the law school crisis in the pages of the New York Times. But at least this one is about something most can support: changing the third year of law school. [New York Times]
* As it turns out, with 82 applications for the program’s first five spots, there’s actually a demand for Yale Law’s Ph.D. in Law. So much for this being “[t]he worst idea in the history of legal education.” [National Law Journal]
* Linebacker Jonathan Vilma’s defamation suit against NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in connection with Bountygate was dismissed. Wonder when Goodell will suspend Vilma for thinking he could win. [Bloomberg]
* Francis Lorson, former chief deputy clerk of the Supreme Court, RIP. [Blog of Legal Times]
* Roger Clemens was found not guilty on charges of lying to Congress about using steroids. [New York Times]
* Why did the ABA Journal kill a feature story on mentoring by Dan Hull and Scott Greenfield? The world may never know, and the world may never see the story. [Simple Justice]
* Q: What does a male lawyer do when his female secretary gives him a nice little Father’s Day gift? A: Freak out because random acts of kindness are so unusual, and then write a letter to a New York Times advice columnist. [New York Times]
* If you’ll be in D.C. this Thursday, June 21, check out this battle of the law firm bands — a fun event that we’ve covered before, as well as a fundraiser for a worthy cause. [Banding Together 2012]
* ATL readers are awesome. You guys have already been a huge help to this court reporter who almost died when he fell into the Chicago River. The family is still taking donations, and now there’s a PayPal link, so it’s even easier to lend a hand to Andrew Pitts and his family. [Kruse Reporters Blog]
* A closer look at the continuing rapid progress of predictive coding (or, as skeptics would say, our new computer overlords) in legal discovery. [WSJ Law Blog]
* New York’s “hot dog hooker,” Ms. Catherine Scalia (no, not that Scalia), was sentenced to jail. Maybe she should have deigned to sell chocolate milkshakes instead. [Gothamist]
The back and forth over predictive coding continues.…
Advocates for predictive coding break through another roadblock, as a federal judge shoots down another objection to the technology…
Is acceptance of predictive coding starting to snowball in the judicial system?
One of the parties in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Group, the first federal case in which a judge approved protective coding, has requested that Judge Andrew Peck, who made the order, recuse himself. What is the basis for the recusal request?