This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
When it launched, I questioned in an Above the Law column whether it was a case of Clearspire déjà vu, recalling the demise of the strikingly similar dual-entity firm Clearspire, which opened in 2010 and shut down four years later. Gavelytics. million in funding. There is, however, a somewhat happy ending to the story of Gavelytics.
Dean Whalen, Chief Legal Officer of Readback, a new AI-assisted deposition court reporting platform, explains how AI-assisted court reporting addresses the stenographer talent crunch — with added benefits. By 2010, however, the video rental giant would accrue over $1 billion in losses and file for bankruptcy.
Clayton County case , where the Supreme Court affirmed sexual orientation and gender identity cannot be discriminated against in the workplace. Lawyers, in particular, have played a critical role in solidifying and protecting rights, like in the landmark Bostock v. overseeing well-being initiatives for more than 1,000 attorneys.
They secured a patent in 2010, covering a novel ice-resurfacing machine. Although he appealed the expiry, the appellate court denied his appeal, finding that Taillefer not having a backup system for receiving emails regarding the maintenance fee payments was an accident waiting to happen.
If the subpoena issued is in federal litigation, your company is likely responsible for the cost of compliance, especially if it has a connection to the litigation. 23, 2015) the court observed that responding parties presumptively bear the expense of complying with discovery requests unless the expense is “significant.”
The Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Access to Justice (ATJ Commission) announced that it is accepting nominations for two awards: the Thomas L. This award honors Justice Kilbride, who was elected to the Illinois Supreme Court in 2000 and chosen as Chief Justice by his colleagues in 2010. Colman Access to Justice Award.
Every year since 2010, I have compiled a list of my most-popular posts. For somewhat of a time capsule of the past decade in legal technology, see my prior years’ lists of my most-popular posts: 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2011 , 2010 ). Top 15 of 2021 – First Published in 2021.
The City was found to be grossly negligent in issuing and executing its litigation hold for the preservation of email and text messages. The City did not issue a litigation hold until three years AFTER the complaint had been filed. In all, the Court noted a total of fewer than 25 emails produced from key players. Stinson, at *5.
A new integration between two litigation-focused legal technology products connects more than 500 million federal and state litigation dockets and documents with a database of expert witness and judicial profiles, with the aim of helping lawyers better evaluate expert witnesses.
My roundup of the top Internet Law developments of 2023: 10) California court bans targeted advertising (?). Facebook , a California appeals court shocked the advertising community by suggesting that using common demographic criteria for ad targeting, such as age or gender, may violate California’s anti-discrimination law.
Supreme Court justice and then long hours as a Big Law litigator. In 2010, Chris threw out his own shingle and founded an entertainment law practice. Chris’ career path started with a clerkship for a future U.S. That’s because the world of entertainment law and independent film production was calling him.
I hope this post makes clear why I get so irritated whenever I see the phrases referenced in a court opinion or invoked by a grandstanding politician. April 29, 2010) Hill v. App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation , 2022 WL 4009918 (N.D. Roommates.Com, LLC , 521 F.3d 3d 1157 (9th Cir. April 3, 2008) Milo v.
The Supreme Court in Chevron, U.S.A., 837 (1984), created a two-part framework for litigation involving congressional statutory law and regulatory agencies that enforce that law. The Supreme Court ordered two factually similar cases consolidated, Loper Bright Enterprises v. 11] Image: US District Court. 14] III.
Every year since 2010, I have compiled a list of my most-popular posts. For somewhat of a time capsule of the past decade in legal technology, see my prior years’ lists of my most-popular posts: 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2011 , 2010 ). Top 15 of 2021 – First Published in 2021.
The use of generative AI in litigation has been prohibited by some judges. Starr of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a standing order in April requiring lawyers to certify that generative AI tools were not used to assist with drafting any papers filed with the court. Similarly, U.S.
And we can do it here in the district where the where, where the litigation is. I will say this in 20102010. Yeah, a lot of courts there are a lot of there’s just a lot of adoption that’s required for something like that. But tell me about this little team.
Jump ahead another 5 years, it’s now 2010. Amy went on to describe that one way that her team does this is by subscribing to a variety of different news sources that monitor every time a lawsuit is filed in state or federal court. These alerts could potently be used to detect patterns and trends in certain types of litigation.
And we can do it here in the district where the where, where the litigation is. I will say this in 20102010. Yeah, a lot of courts there are a lot of there’s just a lot of adoption that’s required for something like that. But tell me about this little team.
Every year since 2010, I have compiled a list of my most-popular posts. The second most popular post was a test of the BriefCatch legal editing software using the leaked draft of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Litigation Analytics Company Gavelytics is Shutting Down Tomorrow.
She created Obelisk Support in 2010, which provides a legal service about flexible work environments for female employees. And then I, then the second part I did litigation and employment. I enjoyed, you know, the kind of people problems, it had a litigation aspect, I liked the fact I ended up going to court quite a lot.
In July, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) cast significant doubt over whether entities can continue to use SCCs to transfer their data to the U.S. The EU Commission’s “ Draft Updated SCCs ” are the long-awaited revisions to the current SCCs, last updated in 2001 and 2010.
In fact, you have to petition the courts to see, you have to petition the other side to see if the information or exhibits even still exist. That expert not only recanted his own testimony in the case, but said Biomark evidence should not be used in criminal courts. Court said, great, bill, you're innocent. We finally did that.
9) Supreme Court Tamps Down on Jawboning and Government Social Media Lawsuits. The Supreme Court is taking a steady stream of Internet Law cases, a trend that will continue for some time. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear the TikTok ban, and Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear Free Speech Coalition v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content