Category: ELP

  • Natural Gas Bans and Bans on Bans

    Natural Gas Bans and Bans on Bans

    Natural Gas Bans, Bans on Bans, and the Ninth Circuit

    Concepts:  Natural Gas, EPCA, Climate Change, Energy Efficiency Regulation

    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. 

    Brought by the California Restaurant Association, the National Restaurant Association, and the American Gas Association, the crux of the case was 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. Agreeing with the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit that Berkeley’s ban was “a direct regulation of energy efficiency standards for appliances.” 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 Fastcaselegal 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.

    podcast logo face

    Actual size.

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Gary Toman

    Gary TomanWeinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial

    Gary Toman 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. His practice includes litigation involving business and financial transactions, product liability, business torts, contract matters including participation agreements, shareholder agreements, and non-competition agreements, and environmental, real estate and intellectual property matters. Gary has also handled cases and counseled clients in the healthcare field regarding antitrust issues, practice disputes, employment law matters and other disputes. An experienced appellate advocate, Gary began his career as a law clerk to the Honorable R. Lanier Anderson, III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. He has briefed and argued cases in federal and state appellate courts across the country. Gary often serves as appellate counsel at trials to frame the record for possible appeal. Gary received his J.D. from Harvard Law School.

  • Pixel Litigation Tests Old Privacy Law

    Pixel Litigation Tests Old Privacy Law

    Pixel Litigation Tests Old Privacy Law featuring Myriah Jaworski

    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 Fastcaselegal 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

    (actual size)

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Myriah V. Jaworski

    Myriah V. JaworskiClark Hill PLC

    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.

  • Hair Relaxer Injury Litigation

    Hair Relaxer Injury Litigation

    Hair Relaxer Injury Litigation with Jennifer Hoekstra

    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 Hagy

    (actual size)

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Jennifer Hoekstra

    Jennifer HoekstraAlystock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz

    Jennifer M. Hoekstra is a partner with Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC. A native of Saint Paul, Minnesota, Ms. Hoekstra 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 is licensed to practice before all Louisiana state and federal courts and the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of Texas and Eastern District of Missouri as well as the 5th and 8th Circuit Courts.

  • The Light and Dark Sides of Auto-GPT

    The Light and Dark Sides of Auto-GPT

    The Light and Dark Sides of Auto-GPT with Jason Epstein

    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 formerly taught “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 Fastcaselegal 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

    (actual size)

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Jason Epstein

    Jason EpsteinNelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough

    Jason Epstein is the co-head of the firm’s technology and procurement industry group. Jason and the technology team provide legal services to buyers and sellers of technology both domestically and internationally in various industries, from FinTech and HealthIT to auto and manufacturing

    He often serves as outside general counsel and relationship partner to companies in a variety of industries. His areas of focus include board governance, technology, venture capital and private equity, mergers and acquisitions, reorganizations, international commerce, and litigation. Whether advising clients of Fortune 500, mid-market, or small businesses (including under the SBA), he serves as an advisor to the C-Suite and inside General Counsel regarding business-related law.

  • The Plight of the Indirect Purchaser

    The Plight of the Indirect Purchaser

    The Plight of the Indirect Purchaser with Austin Cohen

    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 Fastcaselegal 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

    (actual size)

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Austin B. Cohen

    Austin B. CohenLevin Sedran & Berman LLP

    Mr. Cohen, a native of West Islip, New York, received a BA in Economics and History from the University of Pennsylvania in 1990. He received a JD, cum laude, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1996. During law school, he interned for the Honorable Lowell Reed (E.D. Pa.) June – August, 1995. He also served as an Executive Editor and Associate Editor for the University of Pittsburgh Journal of Law and Commerce and was a finalist in the Murray S. Love Trial Moot Court Competition.

    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.

  • The IRS and Rules About Rules

    The IRS and Rules About Rules

    The IRS and Rules About Rules with Jeff Luechtefeld

    Concepts:  IRS, Internal Revenue Service, APA, The Administrative Procedure Act

    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 Fastcaselegal 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.

    podcast logo face

    Actual size.

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Jeffrey S. Luechtefeld

    Jeffrey S. LuechtefeldChamberlain Hrdlicka

    Jeff is a tax controversy and litigation attorney with a strong technical tax background as well as a deep understanding of inner-workings of the Internal Revenue Service. Jeff’s practice focuses on representing clients in IRS examinations, appeals and litigation. His knowledge, combined with strong strategic thinking and negotiation skills allows him to effectively advocate for his clients before the IRS.

    Previously, Jeff led the regional Tax Controversy practice for a “Big Four” accounting firm, where he assisted clients in resolving disputes administratively within the IRS either while still in examination or before the IRS Office of Appeals.

    law firm logo

    Read the article.

    man in tie

  • Law Firm Technology Directors? Yes.

    Law Firm Technology Directors? Yes.

    The Value of Law Firm Technology Directors with Sam McAllister

    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 Hagy

    (actual size)

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Sam McAllister

    Sam McAllisterLightfoot Franklin & White

    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.

  • Intellectual Property Trial Team Diversity with Tara Trask

    Intellectual Property Trial Team Diversity with Tara Trask

    Intellectual Property Trial Team Diversity with Tara Trask

    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 diversity.

    Now You Can Watch the Podcast

    WATCH IT NOW

    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

    Loved hearing what Tara said about this subject matter?

    Explore more content from Tara!

    Podcast: Jury Selection in the Age of Conspiracy Theories and Distrust with Tara Trask 

    Podcast: Lawyers for Good with Tara Trask and Jason Flom

    Tara Trask

    Tara TraskTrask Consulting

    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.

    Tara Trask Consulting

    Tags

    Emerging Litigation & Risk Compliance Litigation & appeals Cybersecurity Data Privacy Artificial Intelligence (AI) Insurance Companies Risk Management Corporate & Securities Insurance Claims Recovery Regulations Data Breach Toxic Torts Antitrust Legal Tech Product Liability Settlements Trial Personal Injury Privacy Healthcare Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Data Analytics Arbitration Constitutional Law Climate Change Cannabis Labor Law Insurance Fraud Liability Claims COVID Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mediation Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI) Claims management Professional Liability Legal Research & Writing Business Interruption Law Practice Management Trial Skills Property and Casualty Drug Laws Copyright Law Catastrophic Loss

  • Persuasion as Direct and Honest Trial Advocacy with Jack Siegal

    Persuasion as Direct and Honest Trial Advocacy with Jack Siegal

    Persuasion as Direct and Honest Advocacy with Jack Siegal

    The relevance to jury trials and jury persuasion is obvious. According to studies cited in a 2019 article in Business Insider, people develop first impressions of you “even before you open your mouth.” That means 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? Interested in upping your jury persuasion game?

    A Good Place to Start

    Listen to my interview with attorney Jack I. Siegal, a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP in Boston. Jack believes we can all make positive adjustments in the nuanced practice of achieving credibility.

    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.

    P.S. Toward the end I could barely manager 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 the bongos.

    Tom Hagy

    (actual size)

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Jack Siegal

    Jack SiegalFox Rothschild LLP

    Jack is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience spanning 20 years experience, during which he has tried cases in several jurisdictions. He also provides transactional counseling for executive compensation agreements, mergers, and other matters. Jack focuses on complex commercial disputes, government investigations and white-collar defense, regulatory proceedings, and compliance across a wide range of industries, including financial, healthcare, high-technology, and government contracting.  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.

  • Electronic Fund Transfer Fraud with Brad Rustin

    Electronic Fund Transfer Fraud with Brad Rustin

    Electronic Fund Transfer Fraud with Brad Rustin

    Grifters, scammers, con artists

    Sen. Elizabeth 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.”  

    18 million Americans defrauded

    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.

    What is fraud?

    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 Hagy

    (actual size)

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Brad Rustin

    Brad RustinNelson Mullins

    Brad Rustin chairs the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice.

    He began his career as a litigator focusing on consumer financial services litigation and defense of regulatory claims against chartered and non-chartered financial institutions, finance entities, and money services business. In the wake of the fiscal crisis, he began working with financial institutions, state-licensed lenders money transmitters, non-traditional lenders, check cashers, and mortgage brokers on issues of regulatory compliance.

    Brad is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) by ACAMS and a Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager (CRCM) by the American Bankers Association. He also serves as an expert witness of matters relating to financial regulations and compliance.

    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.