Category: ELP

  • Medical Monitoring for Modern Times with Ed Gentle

    Medical Monitoring for Modern Times with Ed Gentle

    Medical Monitoring for Modern Times:
    Attorney and court-appointed neutral Ed Gentle shares his vision for a new paradigm for mass torts. 

    Marissa, a resident of a small town in Kentucky, learned that for some time her drinking water may have been contaminated with so-called “forever chemicals” or PFAS. It’s really a collection of chemicals used in products like fire-suppression foam, cookware, stain-resistant sprays, and food packaging. A local public radio reporter covering the story asked Marissa for her reaction. “I was never informed,” she said. “And now I’m worried, like, I hope I don’t have issues some day in my life.”  

    Marissa’s concern is like that of many people who find themselves in this situation and is at the center of this episode. When a case like Marissa’s goes to court, plaintiffs will seek a ruling that the responsible parties pay for years of medical monitoring. That means they are suing often without signs of an existing injury, and that defendants must pay for something when an injury may not arise.

    Attorney, author, and court-appointed case neutral, Edgar C. Gentle III, says  that approach is antiquated. He outlines a better way in his 2014 essay titled The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long Term Tort Maladies). Now he shares his latest insights on the Emerging Litigation Podcast.

    Ed Gentle is the Founding Partner of Gentle Turner & Benson, LLCin Birmingham, Ala. He is a Rhodes Scholar and has five college degrees, three in law. He has practiced for nearly four decades, spending 90% of his professional time serving as a neutral assigned by judges to oversee aspects of  mass tort litigation and settlements. He has helped create and administer over $2 billion in settlements during the past 25 years. Education: Bachelor of Science, Auburn University, summa cum laude, Danforth Scholar; Master of Science, University of Miami, summa cum laude, Maytag Fellow; B.A. and M.A. Degrees, Oxford University, Rhodes Scholar, Honors in Jurisprudence; and Juris Doctorate; University of Alabama School of Law, Hugo Black Scholar.

    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

    Loved Ed’s podcast?

    Explore Ed’s additional content on Medical Monitoring Tort.

    JEIL: Medical Monitoring for Modern Times with Ed Gentle

    OnDemand CLE Webinar: The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy with Gentle and Benson

    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

    Ed Gentle

    Ed Gentle Gentle Turner & Benson, LLC

    Ed Gentle is the Founding Partner of Gentle Turner & Benson, LLC in Birmingham, Ala. He is a Rhodes Scholar and has five college degrees, three in law. He has practiced for nearly four decades, spending 90% of his professional time serving as a neutral assigned by judges to oversee aspects of mass tort litigation and settlements.
    Education: Bachelor of Science, Auburn University, summa cum laude, Danforth Scholar; Master of Science, University of Miami, summa cum laude, Maytag Fellow; B.A. and M.A. Degrees, Oxford University, Rhodes Scholar, Honors in Jurisprudence; and Juris Doctorate; University of Alabama School of Law, Hugo Black Scholar.

  • Covid Insurance Coverage Decisions with Guest Marshall Gilinsky. Are Policyholders Catching Up?

    Covid Insurance Coverage Decisions with Guest Marshall Gilinsky. Are Policyholders Catching Up?

    According to the online Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker (CCLT) run by Penn Law there have been more than 2,300 insurance coverage cases filed over denial of claims relating to Covid-19. Restaurants and bars were hardest hit by the pandemic and so led the way in seeking – and being denied – coverage, too. They are also leading the way in suing their insurers. The top five insurers in the defense position are Chubb Limited at #5, then #4 Lloyds of London, #3 Cincinnati Financial, and #2 Zurich.  And in the #1 position facing the most coverage suits is Hartford. 

    The insurance industry started off strong when this litigation began, winning the vast majority of the coverage suits. And they continue to do well, scoring with the argument that many of the claims do not involve actual property damage. Government closures don’t cause property damage, they argue. Courts have largely been siding with the carriers – but not all. Policyholders, a tenacious bunch, appear to be chipping away at the body of law in this suddenly expanding category.

    A recent case involving a New Orleans restaurant against Lloyd’s was penciled into the win column for carriers by a trial court , but an appeals court erased it and wrote the policyholder a narrow 3-2 victory. The appeals court said the language of the policy was ambiguous, and therefore had to be construed in favor of the restaurant.  What’s it  mean? Does this bode well for policyholders? Or can we expect to see, as we did in previous coverage wars, a mixed bag of decisions across the nation?

    For more on that case and today’s Covid coverage landscape, listen to my interview with Marshall Gilinsky, a shareholder in the New York office of Anderson Kill. Marshall has represented policyholders of various policy types for two decades, including those seeking coverage in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and Superstorm Sandy. Thanks to Marshall for sharing his insights.

    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. Please excuse my periodic memory lane strolls as I waxed nostalgic while stroking the gray bristles of my chin about the pollution exclusion, the sudden and accidental exception to the exclusion, and, you know, what really does it mean for something to “occur”? I’ve led a heart-stopping existence. And so can you.

    Tom Hagy

    (actual size)

    Tom Hagy
    Host
    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Marshall Gilinsky

    Marshall GilinskyAnderson Kill

    Marshall Gilinsky is a shareholder in the New York office of Anderson Kill and practices in the firm’s Insurance Recovery and Commercial Litigation Departments. Marshall is co-chair of the firm’s Sexual Harassment and Abuse Insurance Recovery Group, and a member of the firm’s Banking and Lending Group and Hospitality Industry Practice Group.

    During his 20-year career representing policyholders, Marshall has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for his clients, successfully litigating disputed claims under a variety of insurance products, including property and business interruption insurance, commercial general liability (CGL) insurance, errors and omissions (E&O) insurance, directors’ and officers’ (D&O) insurance and life insurance. Marshall has represented clients on numerous high-stakes, complex insurance claims arising out of prominent losses such as 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy and the “Big Dig” in Boston. He also focuses extensively on assisting clients that own and manage captive insurance companies, especially with respect to resolving coverage disputes between the captive and its reinsurers.

  • The Role of Litigation and Regulation in Making the Web More Accessible with Guests Ken Nakata and Hiram Kuykendall

    The Role of Litigation and Regulation in Making the Web More Accessible with Guests Ken Nakata and Hiram Kuykendall

    Are Litigation and Regulation Making the Web More Accessible?

    According to the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness there are 43 million people around the world living with blindness, and 300 million living with moderate to severe visual impairment. Put those statistics next to these: There are nearly 2 billion websites, and 550,000 created every day.

    Shouldn’t sight-impaired people have the same access to these sites as sighted people? Of course they should. There is good news. After previously announcing guidance, the DOJ says new regulations are on the way under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which describes the obligations for state and local governments. My guests say there are many reasons to be excited about this.

    My guests say there are many reasons to be excited about this.

    Ken Nakata is Co-Founder and Principal at Converge Accessibility, whose solutions help make sure websites and other technologies are accessible to people with disabilities. Ken is former Senior Trial Attorney with the DOJ Disability Rights Section where he developed nationwide ADA policies for the internet. Joining Ken is Hiram Kuykendall, Chief Technology Officer at Microassist, an Austin-based learning and development consulting. Hiram is a technical leader with hands-on experience in instructional design and digital accessibility.

    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
    Host
    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    P.S. Anytime I make a self-effacing remark about my ignorance concerning this or any subject, it’s strictly for entertainment value, a story I will cling to with every fiber of my being.

    Ken Nakata

    Ken NakataConverge Accessibility

    Ken Nakata is Co-Founder and Principal at Converge Accessibility, whose solutions help make sure websites and other technologies are accessible to people with disabilities. Ken is former Senior Trial Attorney with the DOJ Disability Rights Section where he developed nationwide ADA policies for the internet.

     Hiram Kuykendall

    Hiram Kuykendall Microassist

    Hiram Kuykendall is Chief Technology Officer at Microassist, an Austin-based learning and development consulting. Hiram is a technical leader with hands-on experience in instructional design and digital accessibility. He has more than 25 years’ experience developing and managing custom applications on a variety of platforms and public and private sectors, supporting training and training related services.

  • Litigation’s Role in Gun Safety Advocacy with Adam Skaggs

    Litigation’s Role in Gun Safety Advocacy with Adam Skaggs

    We’re closing in on 400 million guns in America, weapons that have been used to kill 1.5 million Americans between 1968 and 2017. Can litigation be an effective tool in curbing this loss of life?

    In 2020 alone there were more than 45,000 gun deaths. The beyond tragic and senseless mass shootings at schools has become all too routine. Most Americans want stricter gun laws which they believe will reduce the senseless killing in our country, which leads the world in both the number of privately owned firearms and gun-related deaths.

    The Supreme Court, of course, didn’t take public opinion into account when it struck down a more than century old New York City ban on concealed firearms. Politicians do, however, pay close attention to polls. At the federal level, President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan law designed to make Americans safer in our gun-toting nation. Hailed as a “great start” and a rare but welcome exercise in reaching across the aisle, the law will result in safer citizens, but didn’t include much of what gun advocates say is really needed to effect meaningful change. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a new law that gives citizens incentives to pursue gun manufacturers and dealers who sell illegal firearms. In New York, Democratic leaders, undaunted by the Supreme Court, have pushed through new gun restrictions at vulnerable locations like schools, malls, and stadiums.

    But what can lawyers and lawsuits do about it? Plenty. What reasonable measurers can be put into place that will not infringe on Second Amendment rights?  Several. Are we seeing litigation over these issues? You bet.

    For more specifics, listen to my interview with Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director at leading gun safety advocacy group Giffords Law Center, co-founded by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Prior to Giffords Law Center Adam was senior counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety and at the Brennan Center for Justice, where he worked on election law issues.  Adam’s commentary has been published in Slate, Politico, the Atlantic, and the New York Times, among other publications, and he has been widely quoted by media ranging from the Wall Street Journal and Fox News to the New York Times and MSNBC. Adam graduated summa cum laude from Brooklyn Law School, received an MS in Urban Affairs from Hunter College of the City University of New York, and holds a BA, awarded with distinction, from Swarthmore College.

    If you would like to learn more about Giffords Law Center and how you can get engaged, please reach out to to them. You may also email Adam directly. 

    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.

    Gun Safety: The Role of Litigation in Advocacy

    Adam Skaggs

    Adam SkaggsChief Counsel & Policy Director

    Adam Skaggs serves as Giffords Law Center’s chief counsel and policy director. Previously, he was senior counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety and at the Brennan Center for Justice, where he worked on election law issues. Adam was also a litigation associate at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and a law clerk at the Eleventh Circuit and the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

    Adam’s commentary has been published in Slate, Politico, the Atlantic, and the New York Times, among other publications, and he has been widely quoted by media ranging from the Wall Street Journal and Fox News to the New York Times and MSNBC.

    Adam graduated summa cum laude from Brooklyn Law School, received an MS in Urban Affairs from Hunter College of the City University of New York, and holds a BA, awarded with distinction, from Swarthmore College.

  • High-Asset Divorce Litigation with Robert D. Boyd and Kimberli C. Withrow

    High-Asset Divorce Litigation with Robert D. Boyd and Kimberli C. Withrow

    High-Asset Divorce Litigation 

    Let’s assume this is good news. The divorce rate appears to be coming down. Either people are more committed to these unions or have succumbed to lifetimes of misery. But the common belief — that “50% of all marriages end in divorce” — doesn’t enjoy statistical support. Six percent of people who divorce get back together, so that’s something, too.  

    According to Monster.com, the rate is higher among people working in fading industries, like certain machine operators. Despite frequent coverage of Hollywood breakups, they don’t mention entertainers, other than dancers and choreographers, who don’t fare well in marriage. Lawyers, in general, do not have a particularly high divorce rate.

    For insights into high-asset divorces, listen to my interview with Robert D. Boyd and Kimberli C. Withrow  of Boyd Collar Nolen Tuggle & Roddenbery.

    Bob Boyd is a widely recognized leader in the practice of high-net-worth divorce litigation and contested custody cases. He is a former prosecutor and a U.S. Army Ranger and Paratrooper.  Education: J.D., West Virginia University (Editor-in-Chief, West Virginia Law Review); B.A., United States Military Academy at West Point.

    Kimberli Withrow has 16 years’ experience representing clients in family law matters. She has served as trial counsel and hearings involving divorce, child custody, and child support matters.  Education: J.D., Emory University School of Law; B.A., Duke University.Speaking of which, this podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal  is a collaborative project produced by 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, or want to tell me how much you learned today – or if you’d like a copy of John’s and Jihee’s article — please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    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

    P.S. I don’t know why, but at some point I believe I mentioned chihuahua’s as a form of currency, and then something about Bezos. I’m sure it made sense at the time. It’s more likely, however, that it didn’t.

    Our Guests

    Robert Boyd

    Robert BoydBoyd Collar Nolen Tuggle & Roddenbery

    Bob Boyd is a widely recognized leader in the practice of high-net-worth divorce litigation and contested custody cases. He is a former prosecutor and a U.S. Army Ranger and Paratrooper. Education: J.D., West Virginia University (Editor-in-Chief, West Virginia Law Review); B.A., United States Military Academy at West Point.

    For more than 15 years, he has been selected by the Best Lawyers of America in the area of family law.

    Kimberli Withrow

    Kimberli WithrowBoyd Collar Nolen Tuggle & Roddenbery

    Kimberli Withrow has 16 years’ experience representing clients in family law matters. She has served as trial counsel and hearings involving divorce, child custody, and child support matters. Education: J.D., Emory University School of Law; B.A., Duke University.

  • Attorney Fees and Settlement Funds with Sam Dolce

    Attorney Fees and Settlement Funds with Sam Dolce

    Our Guest

    Sam Dolce

    Sam DolceAttorney

    As an attorney at Milestone, Sam Dolce provides in-depth, comprehensive consultations with attorneys about qualified settlement funds, fee deferral, and settlement planning. He also oversees the establishment of QSFs.

    Sam received a Bachelor of Arts in History from Macalester College, followed by a Juris Doctor from SUNY Buffalo Law School. He served as a participant in the New York State Pro Bono Scholar Program and has received multiple acknowledgements and awards for his dedication to pro bono service and social justice. As a subject matter expert, Sam is a regular speaker and presenter at academic and legal conferences regarding post-settlement strategies.

    Attorney Fees and Settlement Funds with Sam Dolce

    Uncle Sam has created a way for you keep more of your hard-won settlement or award, but there is much to consider and new information to weigh.

    When a contingency fee case reaches a verdict or settlement, it’s a big day for a plaintiff attorney. You have worked hard and shouldered litigation costs — often for years without compensation — to achieve the best outcome for your client.

    In this episode I get to speak with a financial management professional who specializes in advising trial attorneys how they can take full advantage of attorney fee structures. The concept of fee deferral arrangements may be familiar to you, but the landscape continues to evolve.

    My guest is Sam Dolce, an attorney with Milestone, a financial firm that optimizes settlement funds for trial attorneys and plaintiffs.  Sam consults with legal professionals about about Qualified Settlement Funds, fee deferrals, and settlement planning. Sam received his B.A. from Macalester College and his J.D. from SUNY Buffalo Law School. Thanks to Sam for sharing his insights.

    On a previous episode you can hear Sam’s colleague, Erin Waas, who heads up the Milestone Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides low-cost funding to injured individuals in need of cash as their personal injury cases wind their way through court.

    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.

  • Under Pressure: How’s the Integrity of Your Supply Chain? — with Dan Mogin and Travis Miller

    Under Pressure: How’s the Integrity of Your Supply Chain? — with Dan Mogin and Travis Miller

    Our Guests

    Travis Miller

    Travis Miller Assent Compliance Inc.

    Travis is an international trade and compliance attorney who specializes in ITAR/EAR/sanctions, global anti-corruption and anti-slavery, codes of conduct, environmental health and safety, product stewardship, and corporate social responsibility.

    Travis manages Assent’s worldwide legal activities, advises the Board of Directors on legal matters, and oversees corporate compliance, governance initiatives, and other commercial transactions. Before coming to Assent, he served in various high-level counsel positions with companies such as Microchip Technology, Foresite Group, and St. Jude Medical.

    Dan Mogin

    Dan MoginMogin Rubin LLP

    Dan Mogin is co-founding and managing partner of MoginRubin LLP, a leading boutique law firm that focuses on antitrust law and other complex business disputes. A true thought leader in the field, Dan has served as lead counsel in numerous large antitrust cases, chaired the Antitrust Section of the California Bar, taught antitrust law, and was editor-in-chief of a leading competition law treatise.

    Under Pressure: How’s the Integrity of Your Supply Chain? — with Dan Mogin and Travis Miller

    Pressure builds when budgets are cut and fewer resources are available to maintain the necessary vigilance to remain compliant with often complex and changing regulations.

    Corporate risk can be caused by laxity, inattention, misconduct, unethical behavior, or even illegal activities by people and organizations in your supply chain. Often these things are what happen when people are under pressure. They may feel pressure to bend rules to hit sales targets, or they feel significant competitive pressure.

    Listen to my interview in two acts with Travis Miller, General Counsel at Assent Compliance Inc. and Dan Mogin is co-founding and managing partner of MoginRubin LLP, a leading boutique law firm that focuses on antitrust law and other complex business disputes. In Act 1 we discuss the conduct of a fictitious airline that is marketing itself as a green company and its competitors are crying foul, and by that I mean suing them. In Act 2 a fictitious semiconductor manufacturer that is allegedly using its considerable market power to trounce competitors. The fictitious scenarios involving these fictitious companies are as follows:

    Act 1: Greenwashing by AirGreen Corp.

    Commercial jets disproportionately spew high amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. There is no practical way to significantly reduce these harmful pollutants. Corporations are under pressure to be environmentally responsible, and demonstrate they are genuinely embracing the ESG movement. When it comes to carbon neutrality, the FTC says companies should not make “broad, unqualified” claims that they are running green businesses without “reliable scientific evidence” that their carbon offsets will have a timely impact. AirGreen, a major yet fictitious air shipping company, launched a global ad campaign called Super Green Air, dubbing itself the first commercial airline to be carbon neutral. AirGreen hasn’t actually reduced harmful emissions from its flights. Instead, it has purchased carbon offsets, which means it paid to reduce the emissions from other sources, while not actually reducing its carbon footprint. AirGreen’s competitors have filed suits and complaints with the FTC that this is false advertising that gives AirGreen a competitive edge in the air shipping market. 

    Act 2: MegaTech Monopolizing Semiconductor Chips (starts at minute 47:47)

    The global semiconductor industry makes products that run the world. They’re in PCs, large mainframes, smartphones, cable and internet equipment, electric cars, and wind turbines. The demand for silicon chips is enormous. These chips are manufactured by a dirty, environmentally unfriendly process. Their manufacture also relies on a “complex, dynamic and multidirectional global supply and services matrix” (aka supply chain). Recent clogs in that supply chain caused by the Covid pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrate that. When people think of monopolies, they think of big conglomerates that control huge markets, like AT&T and Microsoft. AT&T ruled over telephone communications without competition for years. They were “the phone company.” If you wanted assistance their number was “0.” In the case of Microsoft, it controlled more than 95% of the PC operating system market. But monopolies can also mean dominance of one specific piece of one specific product maybe even in a specific region. You could have a monopoly if you made all cell phones, or you could hold a monopoly if you make a component that makes all cellphones work. MegaTech is one such company, albeit a fictitious one. It makes the chip that makes your cable box work. In fact, they are the only maker of these chips. MegaTech has already been investigated and sued by the FTC. It has already agreed to stop anticompetitive conduct such as exclusivity arrangements with its customers. And, it has already broken that promise and is being investigated again. Some of its suppliers are considering major litigation, too.

    We discuss these scenarios from the perspectives of in-house compliance and legal professionals, outside counsel specializing in competition law, and a journalist covering the legal industry.

    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

    p.s. I add brief insights, humbly, on behalf of the Fourth Estate. In so doing, I also demonstrate why — if you’re no good at multitasking —  don’t. Especially around smart people who are really paying attention.  Also, if at some point you think you hear birds chirping, it might be time to see someone. Special thanks to our sound engineer, Jordan Forbes.

  • Alternative Financial Support for Plaintiffs During Litigation with Erin Waas

    Alternative Financial Support for Plaintiffs During Litigation with Erin Waas

    Our Guest

    Erin Waas

    Erin WaasThe Milestone Foundation

    Erin Waas is Executive Director of The Milestone Foundation, a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides financial assistance to people pursuing a personal injury lawsuit. Erin brings nearly two decades of experience working in the public sector and with nonprofits in fundraising and communications, most recently at the University at Buffalo, where she served as senior advancement writer.

    Prior to relocating to Buffalo, Erin spent the bulk of her career to-date in Boston, where she worked in stewardship at Harvard University and as a consultant for nonprofits of all sizes.

    Alternative Financial Support for Plaintiffs During Litigation with Erin Waas

    For an individual, merely navigating litigation can be expensive, time consuming, and at times overwhelming. But when that individual is also unable to work, or cannot function normally  because they have been disabled by an injury, that explodes the level of stress on a person and their family.

    There are companies in the “non-recourse settlement advancement” space that will provide financial support to claimants in litigation. This helps them with their regular daily expenses – plus medical costs – until their case settles or until they receive an award. But most of these companies, as you can imagine, are for-profit entities. As such, their fees can make their support unaffordable and can leave the plaintiff with a substantially diminished payout.

    Listen to my interview with Erin Waas, Executive Director of The Milestone Foundation, a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides financial assistance to people pursuing a personal injury lawsuit. Erin brings nearly two decades of experience working in the public sector and with nonprofits in fundraising and communications, most recently at the University at Buffalo, where she served as senior advancement writer. Prior to relocating to Buffalo, Erin spent the bulk of her career to-date in Boston, where she worked in stewardship at Harvard University and as a consultant for nonprofits of all sizes.  Speaking of fundraising, and if you believe in the cause, consider supporting the Foundation with a donation today.

    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
    Host
    Emerging Litigation Podcast

  • Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer

    Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer

    Our Guest

    Eric L. Cramer

    Eric L. CramerBerger | Montague

    Eric Cramer is Chairman of the Firm and Co-Chair of the Firm’s antitrust department. He has a national practice in the field of complex litigation, primarily in the area of antitrust class actions. He is currently co-lead counsel in multiple significant antitrust class actions across the country in a variety of industries and is responsible for winning numerous significant settlements for his clients totaling well over $3 billion.

    Mr. Cramer is also a frequent speaker at antitrust and litigation related conferences and a leader of multiple non-profit advocacy groups. He was the only Plaintiffs’ lawyer selected to serve on the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section Transition Report Task Force delivered to the incoming Obama Administration in 2012.

    Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer

    Among the legal and regulatory avenues one might follow to mitigate the impact of racism, most of us would look to various manifestations of discrimination law in  employment, lending, real estate, education, healthcare, voting rights, and other categories. When presented in those contexts, the anti-racism objectives are clear. 

    There are several federal laws and many state laws that prohibit anticompetitive behavior.  At the top of the heap is the Sherman Antirust Act of 1890, which outlaws illegal monopolies and anticompetitive tactics, conspiracies to restrain trade, cartels and syndicates.  But what do wages, including those paid to minorities, have to do with antitrust? What about no-poach agreements, whereby groups of companies agree not to hire employees away from each other?  The answer is “quite a lot.”

    Listen to my interview with Eric Cramer, Chairman of Berger Montague and co-chair of the firm’s antitrust department, a team that handles antitrust class actions across the country involving a variety of industries.  Eric and the firm are responsible for winning numerous significant settlements for clients — a total value that now exceeds $3 billion. His recent focus has been representing workers who allege their employers’ anticompetitive practices  suppressed their pay. Recipient of numerous accolades and awards that include terms like titan, elite, thought leader, visionary, and lawyer of the year, Eric is a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton University where he earned membership in Phi Beta Kappa, and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. Listen to what he had to say about this important subject.

    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

  • Cannabis Coverage Litigation with John McDonald and Jihee Ahn

    Cannabis Coverage Litigation with John McDonald and Jihee Ahn

    Our Guests

    John B. McDonald

    John B. McDonaldHarris Bricken

    John B. McDonald is an experienced litigator practicing in the Seattle and New York offices of Harris Bricken, where he represents clients in complex commercial, insurance, and partnership matters.

    Prior to joining Harris Bricken, John spent two years in Seattle with the Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (a component agency of the Department of Homeland Security), and five years in New York City at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, where he managed several cases. John graduated from the University of Miami School of Law, where he was an editorial member of the University of Miami Law Review. He also served as a research assistant for Professor Charlton Copeland on civil procedure and constitutional issues.

    Jihee Ahn

    Jihee AhnHarris Bricken

    Jihee is an experienced complex commercial litigator and chair of Harris Bricken’s Dispute Resolution/Litigation practice. She primarily represents clients in business, intellectual property, and real estate matters for both domestic and international clients. Having worked extensively in both federal and state courts, Jihee advises her clients from case intake through arbitration and trial. Over the course of her career, she has successfully prepared and argued numerous procedural and substantive motions, regularly conducted and defended depositions, and mediated disputes when appropriate for her clients.

    Prior to joining Harris Bricken, Jihee worked at Baker & Hostetler in Los Angeles, where she served as the lead attorney on several cases and mentored junior associates. Jihee graduated from the UCLA School of Law with a Business Law and Policy Specialization, and she served as a research assistant to Professor Sung Hui Kim on securities regulation issues throughout her third year of law school.
    Prior to relocating to Buffalo, Erin spent the bulk of her career to-date in Boston, where she worked in stewardship at Harvard University and as a consultant for nonprofits of all sizes.

    Cannabis Coverage Litigation: Where’s it Going? 

    While we may be in the final days, months, or years of it, the use and possession of cannabis remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.  So do the complications.

    Some states allow its use for medical purposes, others have made it legal for recreational purposes, and others have decriminalized it. But when cannabis is involved in disputes that lead to litigation, and that litigation leads to policyholder vs. insurer disputes, that state law patchwork and the illegality of cannabis under federal law is when things get complicated. This tension plays out in several other aspects of running a cannabis business, such as banking and interstate transportation of goods.

    My guests co-wrote an article for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, titled “Taking the High Ground: Where Cannabis Insurance Litigation Is Trending (and Why).” They write that it is up to litigators to frame their cases in ways that will determine the outcome of important disputes over insurance coverage. Read the article. 

    They are John B. McDonald an experienced litigator practicing in the Seattle and New York offices of Harris Bricken, where he represents clients in complex commercial, insurance, and partnership matters. And, Jihee Ahn, also an experienced complex commercial litigator with Harris Bricken, and chair of the firm’s Dispute Resolution/Litigation practice group. Their partner, Hilary Bricken, years ago founded the outstanding Canna Law Blog, a tremendous resource. Hilary and Harris Bricken co-founder Dan Harris are on the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation and this podcast.

    Speaking of which, this podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal  is a collaborative project produced by 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, or want to tell me how much you learned today – or if you’d like a copy of John’s and Jihee’s article — please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    p.s. If you know why we call it “recreational” cannabis use but “social” drinking, please write to me. It’s literally keeping me up at night. So is my uncontrolled sarcasm.
    Psykogene faktorer er enten situationsbestemte, dvs. relateret til partnerens egenskaber, skyld eller angst, eller kan være forbundet med neuroser. For eksempel med fobier besøg denne hjemmeside, angstlidelser eller virkningerne af stoffer.