Some members of the litigation industry believe and invest in front line technology. Consider Fennemore Craig. The firm now is using Google Glass with some clients, including persons suffering from major personal injuries. Maybe the firm really believes in its tag line (Law that Leads).
The cross-fire never ceases among members of the litigation industry. Nathan Schactman recently posted an interesting new attack on the plaintiff’s bar, tied mainly to the FDA and federal pre-emption issues.
That said, commentary from all sides should taken with several grains of salt – the full story is seldom aired, by either side.
Who knew. Fracking related litigation already has a web site – Shale Watch. It’s from Andrew Scholz and others at Goldberg Segalla.
Fans of transparency will be pleased. SCOTUS declined to hear the cert petition seeking to breathe life into the secret Delaware chancery judge arbitration process.
Those darned plaintiff’s lawyers obviously are the cause of all things bad in litigation (sarcasm intended). Note that their ranks now include Winston & Strawn, which is representing college athletes in their anti-trust suit against the NCAA.
One wonders how many tort defense lawyers and/or liability insurance companies talk to lawyers who defend securities cases arising out of breaches of Caremark duties. Questions of that sort arise on reading articles such as this one from the latest issue of Corporate Counsel. It’s a one-sided and incomplete summary of the case …
Back in the day, product recalls did not exist. Then they started, slowly. Now, analysts cover them. Here is Fitch on GM’s ignition switch recall, reputation risk, and costs. All figured out in a week or two, and flashes across the headline news. The world keeps changing.
Kevin LaCroix provides a story and comprehensive set of links to stories tracing the demise of Dewey & Lebeouf, and the recent bank fraud indictments of the law firm’s senior managers.
Nathan Schachtman published an informative and enjoyable new post – partially humorous too – on the use of the term "junk science."