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
In the cases since that have interpreted and applied the duty, lawyers’ claims of ignorance of technology have never helped them avoid sanctions. My poster child for this proposition has long been the 2014 Delaware case of James v. 2019 is a real case. Upon double-checking, I found that the case Varghese v.
By guest blogger Elizabeth Townsend Gard , John E. Koerner Endowed Professor of Law, Tulane University Law School [See part 1 about defendant opt-outs and part 2 about defendant defaults.] In 2019, he had a simple website that included a “Where We Work” page. Screengrabs from October 29, 2019 from the Wayback Machine.
In the cases since that have interpreted and applied the duty, lawyers’ claims of ignorance of technology have never helped them avoid sanctions. My poster child for this proposition has long been the 2014 Delaware case of James v. 2019 is a real case. Upon double-checking, I found that the case Varghese v.
CiteRight Elevator Pitch: CiteRight helps litigation teams save, organize, share, cite, and assemble caselaw — so they can draft faster and spend more time on what matters. CiteRight is the only tool that allows lawyers to save caselaw and automatically cite it inside Microsoft Word. What makes you unique or innovative?
Professor Kenton Brice, director of the Donald E. Pray Law Library at the OU College of Law, had a helpful analogy at our OBA Solo & Small Firm Conference program on ChatGPT and AI. Upon double-checking, I found the case Varghese v. One of the keys to future law firm success will be to automate as much as possible.
To fully understand these conflicting views of the majority opinion, it is necessary to understand both the specific facts of the case and the history of the Supreme Court’s caselaw concerning the fair-use doctrine. 2019) (citations omitted). Although Goldsmith’s lawyers pleaded the discovery rule ( id.
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