Blog

  • Despite Relative Inactivity on the Virtual Front in Ukraine, Russia’s Global Cyber-Attacks are Coming

    Despite Relative Inactivity on the Virtual Front in Ukraine, Russia’s Global Cyber-Attacks are Coming

    Editor

    Tom Hagy

    Tom HagyHB Founder

    Tom is HB’s Founder and Managing Director. His career in litigation content spans four decades during which he was editor, managing editor, and finally publisher at Mealey’s Litigation Reports. After Mealey’s was acquired by LexisNexis Tom became a vice president involved in creating new content and services at the legal research and services giant. He has always overseen or directly created articles, blogs, conferences, webinars, data collections, and now podcasts — all on litigation. Tom founded HB in 2008, and four years later he founded Custom Legal Content, a boutique content creation shop serving boutique and specialized legal practices and litigation services. In addition to his work at HB and CLC, Tom is Editor in Chief of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, and host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast. For years he was a leader in an international specialized publishing association, frequently speaking and writing about publishing, and is now active in an open community of content and event producers called Renewd. Sometime during the last millennium Tom proudly graduated with a B.A. in Communications from Bethany College in West Virginia.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    Despite Relative Inactivity on the Virtual Front in Ukraine, Russia’s Global Cyber-Attacks are Coming

    Cyber WarSince his cyber-war capabilities seem to have worked well for him, why isn’t Vladimir Putin launching more cyber-attacks against Ukraine and its allies? Reports suggest he didn’t think he’d need them, plus they take time to execute. Other reports suggest he is trying to get some cyber damage on the scoreboard. Maybe the actual disruption to Ukraine from tanks and bombs, even though the Ukrainians aren’t giving him the satisfaction of a clean and easy parade-style invasion, could be redundant.

    But many experts did think that much of Russia’s invasion – and Ukraine’s defense –  would take place in cyberspace. Some of that is happening, but there are reasons Russia hasn’t launched large-scale attacks. Kyle Fendorf and Jessie Miller wrote for the Council on Foreign Relations on March 24, 2022, that reasons include “the higher efficacy of kinetic attacks and difficulties in planning and executing massive cyberattacks in a short timeline.” Ukraine, meanwhile, has taken a novel approach: “attempting to mobilize international sentiment” to “create an army of cybersecurity professionals to attack military and critical infrastructure targets in Russia.” Fendorf and Miller list several Russian efforts, including DDoS attacks on Ukrainian banking and defense websites. And hackers like Anonymous have “declared war” on Russia. The group has taken credit for several successes, including interrupting television broadcasts with clips from the war and leaking thousands of confidential government files.

    According to Reuters, the pro-Ukraine cyber assaults are hitting their targets, saying Russian government websites are facing “unprecedented cyber-attacks.” Relying on the Russian news agency TASS, websites for the Aeroflot airline, the Sberbank bank, and the Kremlin itself have experienced “outages and temporary access.” The Kremlin, facing greater isolation from global financial systems and supply chains, is taking steps to bolster its IT sector, such as tax breaks and easier access to lending, Reuters reports.

    President Biden has warned U.S. organizations to “lock their digital doors” for fear of a Russian cyber-attack, adding that “evolving intelligence” indicates attacks are coming.

    As quoted in Politico, Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, told 13,000 participants on a recent call that we should “assume that disruptive cyber activity will occur: and “we should consider every sector vulnerable.”

    On March 24, the Department of Justice Department unsealed two indictments charging four Russian nationals working for the Kremlin with “attempting, supporting and conducting” cyber-attacks on the global energy sector between 2012 and 2018. The targets were hundreds of organizations in 135 countries, including the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a Kansas power plant.  “The potential of cyberattacks to disrupt, if not paralyze, the delivery of critical energy services to hospitals, homes, businesses and other locations essential to sustaining our communities is a reality in today’s world,” said U.S. Attorney Duston Slinkard for the District of Kansas.

    BBC News reported that Ukraine “has remained relatively untroubled” by Russia’s cyber weapons, but “experts now fear that Russia may go on a cyber-offensive against Ukraine’s allies. The BBC News article reminds us of the three types of Russian cyber-attacks “the West fears most,” detailing Russia’s takedown of Ukraine’s electricity grid in 2015 in an attack called BlackEnergy; the “most costly” attack in cyber history called NotPetya, a worldwide computer killer that caused $10 billion in damage, followed by WannaCry which scrambled data in 150 countries; and the one executed by a Russian criminal organization called DarkSide which caused a state of emergency in the U.S. in May 2021 when their ransomware strike shut down the vital Colonial Pipeline.

    The insurance industry, which is always impacted by any global calamity, man-made or natural, is also worried about a parallel cyberwar. Ben Dyson, a reporter for S&P Global Market Intelligence, wrote on March 28, 2022, that while the industry’s direct exposures to Russian and Ukrainian cyberrisk “is likely small,” the larger risk is the “potential for spillover” to networks in other countries. “The insurance industry can look back to at least one precedent for a cyberattack related to the wider conflict between Ukraine and Russia having global implications: the 2017 NotPetya malware attack. NotPetya spread to thousands of companies globally, handing the insurance industry a $3 billion claims bill and its first taste of a cyber catastrophe. NotPetya occurred in relative peacetime and was largely covered by cyber-specific policies.”

    Attorney Vincent Vitkowsky, in an article for the Insurance Journal posted on March 25, 2022, agreed that Russia may try to turn up the stress of other countries if the war drags on. “After the conflict ends, however it ends, Russia will be the object of extreme resentment and suspicion. It may launch cyberattacks to increase disorder, believing that an environment of disorder would be serve its position as a significant power.” Vitkowsky said new cyber weapons will only make the threats worse, such as “zero click vulnerabilities” which don’t even need the help of an unsuspecting employee to click on a link, and the so-called HermeticWizard, “a new strain of software designed to autonomously spread another strain, HermeticWipe, to computers in a network.”  He writes that carriers face exposure to losses from direct or indirect cyberattacks against their insureds globally, but says the so-called War Exclusions “may mitigate that exposure,” then goes on to explain how in his article. [Vince is a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.]

    FT technology correspondent Hannah Murphy asked Kevin Mandia, the founder of cyber security company Mandiant (which was just acquired by Google for $5.4 billion) about the current state of the cyber conflict between nations.

    The current state feels like, Mandia said, “braced for impact.”

    The cybersecurity expert noted operation “Shields Up” by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, plus all of the private and public players in the West and NATO, “all watching the cyber domain waiting for what happens.” He sees the war in Ukraine as “an opportunity for us to figure out what is the new normal because we’re used to conflict being air, land, sea, maybe a little bit of space . . . but a cyber domain is part of that conflict, too.” He went on to say, however, he’s “not sure everyone’s got fully fleshed-out strategies for how to do warfare in the cyber domain, and when to bring it to bear.”

    He predicted that if Russia wants to retaliate against sanctions and embargoes, a cyber-attack is “probably the first tool that might be chosen.”

    What do you think?

  • Tanks and Banks: What Fintechs Must Know About Sanctions on Russia

    Tanks and Banks: What Fintechs Must Know About Sanctions on Russia

    The Guest

    Brad Rustin

    Brad RustinPartner | Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough

    A highly regarded attorney and much-sought-after speaker for his expertise on the laws and operations of the technology-driven global financial system. Also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Tanks and Banks: What Fintechs Must Know About Sanctions on Russia

    Tom Hagy Interviews Brad Rustin of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough

    Click below to get the complete article.

    Tanks and Banks: an interview with Brad Rustin on Russian Sanctions and Fintechs

  • Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Year in Review 2021

    Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Year in Review 2021

    The Authors

    The authors are all attorneys with the Kennedys law firm (kennedyslaw.com). Joshua Mooney (joshua.mooney@kennedyslaw) and Judy Selby (judy.selby@kennedyslaw.com) are partners. Tracey Kline (tracey.kline@kennedyslaw.com) and Alexis Childs (alexis.childs@kennedyslaw.com) are associates. Bridget Mead, associate, and Javier Vijil, senior associate, also contributed to this article.

    Judy Selby is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Cybersecurity and Data Privacy 2021 in Review

    By Joshua Mooney, Judy Selby, Tracey Kline, and Alexis Childs

    Abstract:

    As the world emerged from lockdown, it should come as no surprise that cybersecurity and data privacy remained dominant topics in the media and legal industry. Some of 2021 was much like 2020—ransomware attacks continued to fill the headlines, and in the aggregate, constituted significant loss paid under cyber insurance policies. OFAC reminded victim companies and incident response firms (and cyber carriers) that it remains unlawful to pay ransom payments to designated organizations. Comprehensive federal legislation addressing cyber defenses and notification requirements never materialized. Yet in 2021, we saw new and significant developments. U.S. law continued its drift toward comprehensive privacy regulation with two new significant pieces of privacy legislation and California’s enforcement of the California Consumer Privacy Act. In the absence of federal legislation, federal agencies either stepped up enforcement actions or signaled that they intend to do so within their realms of governance. Litigation under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act continued its surge while the Illinois high courts rendered two impactful decisions and a circuit court punted to Illinois’s highest court. This review provides a brief synopsis of many events and developments that made the authors’ list.  

    Perhaps one of the most significant developments in U.S. privacy law for 2021 was the enactment of comprehensive data privacy laws in Virginia and Colorado. Both pieces of legislation, which go into effect in 2023, adopt frameworks resembling those in the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Both laws also grant consumers significant rights with respect to their personal data, but neither contains a private right of action. 

    Get the article now!

  • Climate Change, ESG, and D&O Insurance: Collision or Cooperation?

    Climate Change, ESG, and D&O Insurance: Collision or Cooperation?

    The Authors

    Robert D. Chesler (rchesler@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in Anderson Kill’s New Jersey office and is a member of the firm’s Cyber Insurance Recovery Group. Bob represents policyholders in a broad variety of coverage claims against their insurers and advises companies with respect to their insurance programs. Dennis J. Artese (dartese@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in Anderson Kill’s New York office and chairs the firm’s Climate Change and Disaster Recovery Group. Joseph Vila (jvila@andersonkill.com) is an insurance recovery attorney in Anderson Kill’s New Jersey office.

    Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Climate Change, ESG, and D&O Insurance: Collision or Cooperation?

    By Robert D. Chesler, Dennis J. Artese, and Joseph Villa

    Abstract:
    Climate change has been tied to the recent increase in catastrophic weather events. Insurance coverage for often billions of dollars in damage becomes a source of argument between insurers, who want to limit their exposure, and policyholders, who want the coverage they argue the carriers are contractually obligated to pay. The authors discuss the nature of the underlying suits and the potential coverage issues; the types of policies implicated; cases that have addressed these issues; the rising societal concern over climate change that have played a role in the new corporate emphasis on environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, and the insurance industry’s response to this trend.

    Excerpts:
    Directors and Officers (D&O) policies [are] directly affected by climate change. Two types of suits are already happening. First, there are at least 1,375 climate change–related suits pending in the United States, about two dozen of which have been filed by local municipalities and states seeking damages because of climate change. For example, the attorneys general of New York, Massachusetts, and the U.S. Virgin Islands launched investigations to determine whether Exxon Mobil Corporation misrepresented to investors the risks of how climate change might impact its business. Although the U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general terminated its investigation, the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general filed separate suits against Exxon.

    In the seminal case People of the State of New York, By Letitia James v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 119 N.Y.S.3d 829 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019), the State of New York sued Exxon, alleging that it violated the state’s securities act by making materially false and misleading statements to the public and investors about how the company manages risks of climate change and the cost of carbon in assessing demand for its products. The state dropped its common law fraud claims prior to trial, but proceeded with a claim under New York’s Martin Act, which permits the attorney general to sue for fraud in connection with the marketing of securities without requiring proof of scienter, reliance, and damages, as well as under New York’s Executive Law, which prohibits persistent fraudulent acts. After a trial, the New York Supreme Court held that the state failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Exxon made any material misrepresentations to investors ….

    As regulatory activity and private litigation activity surrounding climate change issues continue to increase, liabilities likely will follow. D&O insurance companies will be called on to address those liabilities with increasing frequency.

    Those claims will present complex coverage issues of first impression, and policyholders can expect a fight. Policyholders also should be on the lookout for more restrictive coverage terms on D&O renewals. Policyholders should work with their brokers to obtain the broadest coverage available, and consult with sophisticated coverage counsel in the event that they are faced with climate change–related claims. 

    Get the article now!

    Explore more from Bob Chesler and contributing specialists!

    Journal on Emerging Issues, Editorial Board of Advisors

    The Use and Abuse of the Pollution Exclusion. By Dennis Artese, Jamie O’Neil, Robert Chesler

    The Environmental, Social, and Governance Police Have Arrived: Is your Insurance Ready. Authors: Dennis Artese, Bob Chesler.

    PFAS Insurance Coverage with Jaana Pietari and Jim Fenstermacher and Litigation with Bob Chesler: Part 1 of 2 Podcasts

    PFAS Insurance Coverage with Robert D. Chesler of Anderson Kill. Part 2 of 2 Podcasts

    How Insurance Companies Defraud Their Policyholders, and What Courts and Legislators Should Do About It

    Climate Change, ESG, D&O Insurance: Collision or Cooperation? By Robert D. Chesler, Dennis J. Artese and Joseph Villa

    Remediating, Insuring, and Litigating PFAS Claims. By Dr. Jaana Pietari, PhD, MBA, PE, Jim Fenstermacher, PE, Dr. Michael Bock, PhD, MS, Robert D. Chesler and Nicholas M. Insua, Sheila Mulrennan, Robin Kelliher, Jason R. Waters

  • The Impact of Sanctions on Russia on Global Financial Markets with Brad Rustin

    The Impact of Sanctions on Russia on Global Financial Markets with Brad Rustin

    The Impact on Global Financial Systems of U.S. Sanctions on Russia with Brad Rustin

    Brad Rustin on FinTechBut what risks do American corporations and financial institutions face in light of these measures? What difficult reverberations will companies feel across the world? What should global businesses and FinTechs be doing right now to avoid, among other things, violating the restrictions imposed by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)? What role will cryptocurrency play in all of this? Also, do institutions whose data are stored in Russia and Ukraine face an additional risk as a parallel (albeit less horrific) battle rages on in cyberspace?

    Listen to my interview with Brad Rustin, a partner with Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP and chair of the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice. Brad is a highly regarded FinTech law and industry expert. This will be apparent when you listen. Brad is also on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. This is a special rapid-release episode given we feel the insights Brad shares are insights business and FinTech’s — and their attorneys — urgently need to hear.

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, 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, or want to tell me how much  you learned from Brad,  please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Tom Hagy
    Host and Litigation Enthusiast

    P.S. We did not get to discuss Russia’s retaliatory sanctions against President Biden, his son, Hunter, and Hillary Clinton. No word on sanctions against the Biden dogs. Oh! This just in from People magazine: “Hillary Clinton Thanks Russia for ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’ After Country Issues Sanction Against Her.” That’s just good comedy.

    Economic sanctions leveled against Russia, its leaders, and selected oligarchs by the United States and many other countries for its invasion of Ukraine are arguably the most aggressive in history. Their impact on the Russian economy has been severe and immediate, pushing the nation to the brink of economic collapse.


    But, as they must, the gears of global business and finance must keep turning.

  • Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts

    Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts

    Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts in Healthcare Litigation

    Our guests wrote in the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation: “These outsize awards are often driven by myriad factors including sympathetic jurors, societal conceptions about income and wealth of corporations, the use of emotion-driven ‘Reptile Theory’ tactics by plaintiff attorneys, the media spotlight on ‘bad apple’ physicians, and numerous other social factors. A new factor that influences elevated jury verdicts is the increasing volume of information—whether true or false—that is exchanged on social media platforms.”

    Podcast on jury verdictsListen to my interview with Hall Booth Smith P.C. attorneys Sandra Cianflone, Samantha Myers, and Lindsay Nishan, each of whom represents members of the healthcare industry, as they discuss what drives large verdict and what attorneys should consider in mitigating the effects of this phenomenon.

    In keeping with tradition, we may have strayed a bit from the topic. One guest’s Aunt Lulu made an appearance. It turns out Covid lockdowns may have produced more enthusiastic jurors. And I added another reason why writing and podcasting, and not the practice of law, was a better career path for me. (Apparently lawyers aren’t supposed to laugh in people’s faces. Noted.)

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, 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, or want to tell me how much  you learned from Sandie, Sam, Lindsay, or Aunt Lulu,  please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Jurors’ perceptions of big corporations, insurance companies, drug companies, physicians and other healthcare providers is increasingly colored by TV and social media. 


    The same is true for people’s understanding of the practice law or medicine, which may be as wrong as it is immovable. “Social inflation” refers to rising litigation costs and the resulting higher insurance payouts which drive up the cost of insurance. The phrase has taken on new meanings as it is used in the general press. To some it means tort reform rollbacks, litigation funding, and is most often seen in references to so-called “nuclear” jury verdicts, i.e., awards that exceed $10 million.

    What factors contribute to these jury awards?

  • The Shifting Gun Liability Landscape: Plaintiffs Say Companies are Marketing Illegally, Insurers End Up Paying

    The Shifting Gun Liability Landscape: Plaintiffs Say Companies are Marketing Illegally, Insurers End Up Paying

    The Author

    Charlie Kingdollar

    Charlie KingdollarInsurance Industry Expert

    Charlie spent more than four decades with General Reinsurance, three-quarters of which as the company’s Emerging Issues Officer. One colleague described him as “one of the most prescient and gifted industry futurists I have met in my 36 year professional career within the insurance industry. Entertaining and insightful, his ability to digest and communicate complex issues, many before they are readily apparent, is both a gift and a talent.” Charlie is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.

    The Shifting Gun Liability Landscape: Plaintiffs Say Companies are Marketing Illegally, Insurers End Up Paying

    By Charlie Kingdollar

    On Feb. 15, 2022, Remington Arms, manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR15-style rifle agreed to pay $73 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the families of nine of the victims of the Dec. 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The $73 million will be paid by four of Remington’s insurers (and likely their reinsurers).[i]

    Why is this a big deal? Insurers and reinsurers providing liability coverage for gun manufacturers did so believing that federal law protected gun manufacturers from liability arising from shootings under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It seems likely that policy terms and conditions as well as pricing of the risk reflected that perceived liability protection.

    Things have changed. The Connecticut plaintiffs filed their suit under the Connecticut Fair Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the Bushmaster was a combat weapon and that Remington improperly marketed it to civilians – particularly trying to reach young men. In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the federal PLCAA did have some carve-outs for state laws and subsequently declined Remington’s request to dismiss the lawsuit. It seems a safe bet that the families of other Connecticut gun violence victims will file similar suits over past and/or future incidents.

    Okay, so this is Connecticut. But it seems likely that this lawsuit will be used as a template by plaintiffs in other states that have similar statutes – and many do. This lawsuit and settlement could result in burgeoning litigation against gun manufacturers.

    Presumably, even a single victim shot with a Bushmaster, or any gun that could be argued is a combat weapon, could file a similar suit under a state’s Fair Trade Practices Act.

    Which other guns could be deemed “combat weapons” and therefore unfit for civilian populations? Only time and future litigation will tell. One possible example is the WEE1 Tactical, the manufacturer of the AR-15, which is similar to the Bushmaster, may find itself facing litigation. A look at AR-15-style guns on Wikipedia results in a list of 27 guns by 26 manufacturers – and I doubt this is a comprehensive list.[ii] Would a machine pistol be considered a “combat weapon”? How many other types of firearms might be deemed “combat weapons”?

    WEE1 Tactical has recently begun advertising the JR-15 – a smaller, lighter version of the AR-15 that fires smaller .22 caliber rounds for use by children. WEE1’s website states: “The JR-15 is the first in a line of shooting platforms that will safely help adults introduce children to the shooting sports.”[iii] Given that the plaintiffs in the Sandy hook case stressed the firm was specifically marketing the Bushmaster to young men it will be interesting to see how this marketing strategy will play out in any future similar litigation.

    There’s been another crack in the perceived liability protection afforded to gun manufacturers in the U.S.  Last year the State of New York enacted a law that “would classify the illegal or improper marketing or sale of guns as a nuisance…that supporters said would bolster litigation against gun companies.”[iv]

    Will other states follow? If even a few enact similar statutes, the defense and indemnity costs could be significant to the gun manufacturers and their insurers and reinsurers.

    Bushmaster has settled once before with the families of victims shot by one of its guns. In 2004, the company agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle with the families of victims shot by the D.C. sniper.[v] Not much changed after that settlement. It may be different this time.

    What about other entities in the gun liability chain? If the gun manufacturer can be held libel for marketing a combat weapon to civilians, can wholesalers and retailers also be found liable?  Could courts find that these companies also played a role in putting “combat weapons” into the hands of civilians?  If so, the costs to the Property/Casualty insurance industry will be greater.

    Unfortunately, mass shootings and gun violence are on the rise in the United States. The number of mass shootings (defined as 4 or more people shot – killed or wounded) have increased every year except one from 2014 to 2021. In 2014 there were 269 mass shootings in the U.S.  By 2021, this increased to 691 mass shootings. There have been 2,402 mass shootings in the U.S. in the past five years. And we’ve only mentioned mass shootings incidents.[vi]

    Gun violence generally continues to rise. “Guns were involved in 75% of all homicides and 91% of homicides involving youths between 2018 and 2019 … those new numbers represent a significant and troubling uptick from a decade before.”[vii]

    I suspect insurers and reinsurers providing liability for companies that manufacture and sell guns find themselves as defendants in an increasing number of lawsuits.

    [i] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/15/remington-sandy-hook-settlement/

    [ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle

    [iii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle

    [iv] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-families-settlement.html?referringSource=articleShare

    [v] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/15/remington-sandy-hook-settlement/

    [vi]   https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

    [vii]   “Gun Deaths Continue to Rise In American Cities,” U.S. News, 1/10/22

  • Robojudges: If Machines Could Make Judicial Decisions, Should They?

    Robojudges: If Machines Could Make Judicial Decisions, Should They?

    The Author

    Joshua P. Davis

    Joshua P. DavisProfessor & Practicing Attorney

    A leading academic and practitioner, Joshua P. Davis (davisj@usfca.edu) is a nationally recognized expert on legal ethics and class actions, as well as on artificial intelligence in the law, antitrust, civil procedure, free speech, and jurisprudence. He has published more than 30 scholarly articles and book chapters on these subjects and is currently writing a book on AI titled Unnatural Law, which will be published by Cambridge University Press. He is Research Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law, and a Shareholder of the Berger Montague PC law firm and Manager of its new San Francisco Bay Area Office. Before taking these posts, for more than 20 years Davis was a tenured Professor of Law at University of San Francisco Law School, where he also served as the Director of the Center for Law and Ethics.

    Davis is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, published by Fastcase Full Court Press. Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief.

    You can also listen to Josh on the Emerging Litigation Podcast!

    Robojudges: If Machines Could Make Judicial Decisions, Should They?

    By Joshua P. Davis

    Abstract: As artificial intelligence makes its way into every aspect of our daily lives—including the practice of law—humans have some decisions to make. Do we wish for AI to replace human judges? What are the risks and how might they be mitigated? What breakthroughs need to occur? How might robotic judges, or “robojudges,” perform better than human jurists? What surprises might be in store? Read on for the author’s perspectives on these important questions. After all, as he points out, AI is already being used by the judiciary, albeit to a limited extent. 

    Some of the most exciting, vexing, and terrifying issues at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and law involve robojudges. Can we build a robojudiciary that replaces human judiciaries? Should we? These are no small questions given such a shift would massively disrupt how our legal systems operate and transform democratic self-government. 

    Part of the challenge in thinking about robojudges is technical. There are all sorts of practical technological advances that would be necessary to build an effective robojudge. We are not there yet and we likely won’t be for a while. Some of the steps would likely require increasing the power of computers, designing programs for natural language, and possibly mastering quantum computing. 

    More general and accessible, however, are a series of conceptual issues. We might frame them as questions. 

    1. What breakthroughs are necessary for AI to think the way we do? 
    2. Will AI be able to simulate human instrumental reasoning; that is, reasoning about how best to achieve prescribed objectives? 
    3. Will AI be able to simulate human purposive reasoning; that is, reasoning about which objectives to pursue? 
    4. What role does consciousness play in answering these questions? 
    5. Could we program AI to have conscious experiences similar enough to ours for it to make reliable instrumental and purposive judgments? 
    6. Do human judges engage in instrumental or purposive reasoning?

    Answering these questions can serve a few major purposes.

    First, it can help us deal with the present and immediate future. Reliance on AI in judging may soon be commonplace. To some extent, it already occurs. AI has become a judicial tool in setting bail and deciding which children should be removed from their families to protect their well-being.

    Second, the answers can help us prepare for far greater disruptions in the future. We should think carefully now about the outer limits of AI, lest we are caught off guard and allow changes that we regret and cannot undo. In times of great and rapid change, foresight is necessary to steer societies toward improvements and away from pitfalls.

    Third, AI offers a grand experiment that may tell us a great deal about ourselves. It may shed light on how our brains and minds work, how the two relate, how the law works, and what role consciousness plays in it all. With these purposes in mind, below is an analysis that offers some preliminary and admittedly speculative answers to the above questions. 

    See what else the author has to say about robojudges and get the complete article. 

    Get the article now!

  • Going Viral or Going Nuclear: Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts …

    Going Viral or Going Nuclear: Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts …

    The Authors

    All three authors are with the law firm of Hall Booth Smith, P.C., and concentrate on various aspects of healthcare defense.  Lindsay A. Nishan (lnishan@hallboothsmith.com) is an Associate in the HBS Charleston office. Samantha Bowen Myers (smyers@hallboothsmith.com) is an Associate in their West Palm Beach, Florida, office. Sandra Mekita Cianflone (scianflone@hallboothsmith.com) is a Partner in the firm’s Atlanta office. She is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, and a frequent contributor to the Emerging Litigation Podcast.

    Going Viral or Going Nuclear:

    Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts and How to Safeguard Against It

    By Lindsay A. Nishan, Samantha B. Myers
    and Sandra M. Cianflone

    A juror’s perception of companies and healthcare providers is increasingly colored by TV and social media. The same is true for their understanding of the practice law or medicine, which may be as wrong as it is immovable. “Social inflation” refers to rising litigation costs and the resulting higher insurance payouts which drive up the cost of insurance. In this article the authors, each of whom represents parties in the healthcare industry, discuss the evolving social trends that lead jurors to render “nuclear verdicts,” and what attorneys should consider in mitigating the effects of this phenomenon.

    Social media feeds today are crammed with flashy advertisements from lawyers promising big-dollar settlements against “rich insurance companies.” The number of these commercials has spiked since the 1970s as the phenomenon known as “social inflation” has taken root in the legal system.

    Social inflation is a term of art that refers to rising litigation costs, the impact those costs have on insurance claim payouts, and how much the average policyholder is expected to pay for basic coverage. Recently, the term social inflation has taken on a new meaning as it has become more widely used in the general press. The phrase has come to be associated with tort reform rollbacks, litigation funding, and is most seen in references to so-called “nuclear” jury verdicts, i.e., a jury award that exceeds $10 million.

    But the question remains: What factors contribute to these exorbitantly high jury verdicts?  These outsize awards are often driven by myriad factors including sympathetic jurors, societal conceptions about income and wealth of corporations, the use of emotion-driven “Reptile Theory” tactics by plaintiff attorneys, the media spotlight on “bad apple” physicians, and numerous other social factors. A new factor that influences elevated jury verdicts is the increasing volume of information—whether true or false—that is exchanged on social media platforms.

    One of the lines most affected by this form of social inflation is the healthcare industry and the soaring costs of medical malpractice litigation. This includes lawsuits involving hospital systems, pharmaceutical companies, and their insurers.

    See what the authors have to say about mitigating the impact of social inflation. 

    Get the article now!