Fisher Phillips • October 31, 2018
Most attorneys are well aware of statutory obligations that require private and governmental entities to notify individuals of data breaches that involve the loss or disclosure of personally identifiable information. An area that may be less clear, however, is what ethical obligations attorneys have to guard against data breaches involving client information and what steps attorneys must take when a data breach occurs.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • July 18, 2018
Nationwide class action claims against employers under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) are more common now than ever before. On July 13, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion, Dutta v. State Farm, addressing an important procedural issue in FCRA cases: constitutional standing. Standing is a legal rule that addresses whether a person has been adversely affected by some action resulting in a right to assert the claim at issue, and a person without standing cannot continue a lawsuit in federal court. The standing issue is being litigated in courts across the country based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in another FCRA case, Robins v. Spokeo, Inc. In Dutta, the Ninth Circuit ruled for the employer, State Farm, and affirmed summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert his claim for violation of the “pre-adverse action” notice provision in the FCRA.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • July 13, 2018
The increase in connectivity has greatly improved an attorney’s ability to represent her clients. From searching a party on social media, to quickly parsing through online materials, saves hours and hours of time. Furthermore, attorneys can leverage professional organization memberships to seek input from thousands of other practitioners on legal questions or strategic decisions. Thus, an attorney can investigate deeper than ever before and easily liaise with other practitioners. But, this cuts both ways. Attorneys must be aware that technological advances also mean that her own clients and experts are vulnerable, and they must take steps to protect confidential information as necessary.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • May 08, 2018
The smoking gun. That key piece of evidence that will conclusively prove your client’s case and guarantee victory may be out there.
Nexsen Pruet • May 08, 2018
Drafting an agreement that includes a forum selection clause? Preparing to litigate an agreement that includes a forum selection clause and wondering how to argue?
Goldberg Segalla LLP • April 30, 2018
No one is perfect. In the adversarial arena of litigation, attorneys are rarely willing to admit even having a weak legal argument, let alone an actual error. However, the American Bar Association recently issued an opinion which makes it an ethical duty for attorneys to disclose any material errors in representation to their clients.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • February 28, 2018
It’s generally known that communications between attorney and client are privileged absent waiver.
Nexsen Pruet • February 28, 2018
Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Generally, the amount in controversy articulated in Plaintiff’s complaint is controlling. However, it is not always that easy. What happens when specific damages are not alleged? How are damages assessed when the relief sought is a declaratory judgment? The court recently examined both scenarios.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • January 31, 2018
U.S. Customs searches have become increasingly invasive over the years. Pursuant to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) operates under the “broad search exception”, which allows searches and seizures at international borders or an equivalent (e.g. international airports) without probable cause or a warrant. CBP’s searches are deemed “reasonable” per se, and thus not a Fourth Amendment violation, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures”. The broad power of the CBP, of course, stems from concern for national security.
Fisher Phillips • January 23, 2018
In a 5 to 4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that any statute of limitations applicable to an employee’s state law claims are suspended during the pendency of a federal lawsuit in which the state law claims are included. This decision gives employees additional time to refile claims in state court once a federal court declines to decide them.