Waiting for lawsuits to present themselves is the worst growth strategy a litigator can have. 

In this episode, I get to speak with John Reed, founder and chief relationship builder at Rain BDM and host of Sticky Lawyers, to rethink business development from the ground up. His most popular episodes was about Bob Mionske, an Olympic road racing cyclist turned "bicycle lawyer." Give it a listen.  

With a background spanning law, marketing, and sales, John helps attorneys translate the language of business development into practical strategies that work even within law firm cultures. Can you imagine? Known for blending creativity, emotional intelligence, and big-picture thinking, he brings a unique perspective on how lawyers can stand out authentically and effectively in a crowded market.

John shares how traditional litigator traits—decisive, fast, commanding—can win in court but backfire with clients who value collaboration and reflection. He outlines a practical model for defining your professional brand through role, skill, context, and style—and explains why style may be your strongest differentiator.

We also dig into how introverted lawyers can grow client relationships through substance, not small talk, and how remote mentoring can actually strengthen early-career development with the right habits and feedback.

Whether you’re an associate building visibility or a partner looking to expand trusted relationships, this conversation will help you make your practice more resilient, referral-ready, and strategically aligned with how clients actually buy legal services.

Thanks to John for sharing his insight, humor, and practical wisdom on how to turn authentic connection into lasting business growth.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

What happens when the traditional understanding of workplace discrimination is turned on its head? Will the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services change how discrimination cases are evaluated when brought by members of majority groups?

Attorney Leah Stiegler of Woods Rogers joins us to examine this decision that rejected the "background circumstances rule" -- a standard that previously imposed a heightened evidentiary burden on white, heterosexual, or male plaintiffs claiming discrimination. As Leah explains, "There's no such thing as reverse discrimination. It's just discrimination." This simple yet insightful statement captures the essence of the Court's reasoning that Title VII protections apply equally to all employees, regardless of their demographic status.

Leah shares results from mock trials conducted with identical facts in different Virginia jurisdictions. A conservative Lynchburg jury awarded a white male plaintiff $600,000, while a more liberal Richmond jury found no discrimination whatsoever with the exact same evidence. This highlights how geography and community values dramatically influence discrimination case outcomes, sometimes more than the legal standards themselves.

We also explore the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework that remains the analytical backbone of discrimination cases, the emerging concept of intersectional discrimination, and recent executive orders concerning religious expression in the workplace. Throughout our discussion, Leah offers practical insights for employers navigating these evolving issues, emphasizing that while the political discourse around DEI initiatives may be contentious, the fundamental prohibition against discrimination remains unchanged.

Whether you're an employer developing workplace policies, an HR professional conducting training, or an employee trying to understand your rights, this episode provides essential context for understanding how discrimination law is evolving in unexpected ways. Subscribe to the Emerging Litigation Podcast for more in-depth analysis of the legal issues shaping our workplaces and society.

This is Leah's second appearance on the podcast and I appreciate it! 

Tom Hagy
Host | The Emerging Litigation Podcast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

What if business insiders could accelerate antitrust enforcement as they have done with other corporate misconduct, like fraud? That’s exactly what the Department of Justice is hoping for.

In this special episode* of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, I’m joined by Julie Keeton Bracker of Bracker & Marcus and Dan Mogin of Mogin Law to dig into a new program designed to motivate antitrust whistleblowers.

They trace the roots of qui tam cases—laws that let private citizens, called relators, bring suits on behalf of the government—and why they remain one of the most powerful tools for uncovering corporate fraud and misconduct. Julie explains historical and modern False Claims Act litigation, and Dan walks us through the machinations of private and public enforcement of antitrust laws, the Sherman Act being the big dog in this fight. Together they describe the Department of Justice's aspirations to bring individuals into the antitrust enforcement game.

Along the way, Julie and Dan share lessons from their practices and insights on where whistleblower and antitrust enforcement may be headed next.

If you’ve ever wondered how whistleblowers drive billion-dollar recoveries, or what the rise of antitrust whistleblowing means for businesses and enforcers alike, this episode is worth a listen.

Thanks to Julie and Dan for sharing their insights based on decades of practice in two challenging and important areas of law. 

Tom Hagy
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

P.S. You can also watch this podcast and slide presentation on the HB Litigation News YouTube Channel. 

*We produced this simultaneously as a CLE webinar, because we're just that clever. Look for it on the CeriFi LegalEdge CLE platform. 

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

When it comes to business disputes -- despite the urge by some litigants to want to defeat the other side (even destroy them) -- the relationship between parties can be more valuable and lucrative than "winning" the conflict. 

Drawing on his decade on Florida's 11th Circuit bench and nearly 30 years in commercial litigation, Judge Alan Fine (ret.) of Private Resolutions offers a refreshing perspective on resolving disputes strategically and wisely, rather than destructively and emotionally.

The distinction between dispute resolution mechanisms forms the backbone of our discussion. Judge Fine discusses options available to businesses in conflict, from traditional litigation to mediation, arbitration, and the increasingly popular "private judging" programs now available in at least 30 states. He calls that last option "concierge justice." It is where parties select their own judge, secure expedited hearings, and avoid the unpredictability and inefficiency of overcrowded court calendars.

He outlines key differences between these approaches, particularly in confidentiality, efficiency, and the appeals process. Judge Fine stresses that the choice should align with the parties' objectives—especially if preserving the business relationship is a priority.

Judge Fine shared a real-world example of two business partners who faced a multimillion-dollar disagreement but recognized their partnership's value meant more than who won in court. By choosing a streamlined arbitration process, they resolved their conflict in just eight hours spread over two days, received a prompt ruling, and continued their successful business relationship without missing a beat.

Listen now to discover how strategic conflict resolution can protect your most valuable business partnerships while still addressing legitimate disagreements effectively.

Tom Hagy
Host
Emerging Litigation Podcast
Contact: Editor@LitigationConferences.com
Visit LitigationConferences.com

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Insurance. It’s something we all pay for and hope we never need. But behind the scenes, it’s a world of evolving risks, high-stakes litigation, and technology that’s changing faster than the laws that govern it.

In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, I interview Jeremy Moseley, partner at Spencer Fane in Denver, Colorado. Jeremy defends mass and class actions involving insurance regulations, healthcare, consumer products, and more. He’s seen firsthand how automation, AI, and climate change are presenting new risks — and he’s here to share what’s coming next.

We talk about how technology that makes claims handling faster and easier is now fueling lawsuits. How customized policies, while great for consumers, can leave dangerous gaps. And how juries today are awarding damages that would’ve seemed outrageous just a few years ago.

Jeremy explains “social inflation” and the rise of thermonuclear verdicts—why $20 million doesn’t sound like much anymore, and how insurers can push back with reality-based defense strategies. He also dives into climate change, shifting storm patterns, and how unprepared infrastructure are creating new underwriting challenges.

And yes, we talk about Dr. Evil, and Ecclesiastes, and my horse Jefferson from a dude ranch vacation in Colorado.

This episode is a warning, a guide, and a conversation about the future of insurance litigation. Jeremy’s insights are sharp, timely, and grounded in real-world experience. If you work in insurance, law, or just want to understand how emerging risks are reshaping the world around us, this one’s for you.

Thanks to Jeremy Moseley for joining us.

Tom Hagy
Host, The Emerging Litigation Podcast

💬 Have thoughts or want to contribute to future episodes? Email: Editor@LitigationConferences.com

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

What are the implications of recent court decisions for artificial intelligence systems trained on copyrighted materials?

In this episode I get to speak with two repeat veteran guests of the podcast about two important cases dealing with fair use analysis in the context of large language model training. 

Here are a couple of highlights: 

• Courts found AI training to be "transformative use" because the process changes the works significantly through tokenization and processing.
• Judges distinguished between legally obtained training data (dismissed claims) and pirated training data (allowed claims to proceed).
• Both judges signaled that if plaintiffs had focused on AI outputs reproducing substantial portions of their works, outcomes might have been different.
• The transformative nature of AI training was deemed significant enough to qualify as fair use even for commercial enterprises
• One judge noted that if copyrighted works are essential for training models worth "billions, if not trillions," developers must find ways to compensate copyright holders.

About Our Guests

Ryan Phelan and Tiffany Gehrke are recognized thought leaders in emerging technology law and artificial intelligence. Both are partners at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP and returning guests on the Emerging Litigation Podcast.

Ryan has written extensively on digital innovation, including intellectual property issues related to cutting-edge AI systems. He is the moderator of PatentNext, a blog focused on patent and IP law for next-generation technologies. We based our discussion on his excellent article about copyright law meeting AI, titled U.S. District Court Issues First Decisions on AI Model Development and Copyright Fair Use. Ryan holds a J.D. from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and an MBA from Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management.

Tiffany is known for her expertise in intellectual property and technology policy, and for advocating balanced, ethical approaches to AI regulation. She chairs Marshall Gerstein’s Trademarks and Copyrights Practice. Before entering law, she worked as a software engineer. Tiffany earned her J.D. from Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

Together, they bring deep practical insight and academic rigor to the evolving legal landscape surrounding artificial intelligence. 

I appreciate them returning to the podcast and sharing what they know!

Tom Hagy
Host
Emerging Litigation Pocast

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

You say you want a deposition?

Plaintiff attorneys often request and are sometimes successful in deposing corporate CEOs and other chief executives. But there are many times when defense attorneys want to spare the C-suite from what can be high-risk and time-consuming exercises for someone whose knowledge or expertise may have little or nothing to do with the facts and issues in a case. 

In this episode, I talk with Rachel M. Lary, a litigator with a nationwide practice at Lightfoot, Franklin & White, about the Apex Doctrine—a legal principle that protects high-ranking executives from being deposed unless certain conditions are met. Rachel explains how courts weigh an executive’s actual knowledge of a case, the availability of less intrusive discovery, and how judges have ruled on the doctrine around the country. (Her firm's technologist, Sam McAllister, created an interactive map showing state-by-state treatment of the Apex Doctrine. We interviewed Sam in 2023.)

Listen in and you will see why Fortune 500 companies rely on Rachel to represent them as national litigation counsel. I appreciate her sharing her insights on the podcast. I also appreciate that Rachel agreed to give a video tour of her remarkably neat office, which is what she thought I requested. I have a degree in communication, and maybe I should brush up. Rachel is both knowledgeable and a good sport. 

As always, 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

If you have comments or want to get involved in one of our projects, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. 

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

How do you know if your witness is credible? Is your evidence compelling—or confusing? And will a jury really care about those bright orange socks?

In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, trial attorney and focus group consultant Elizabeth Larrick joins me to explain how remote focus groups are changing the way lawyers prepare for trial. Elizabeth shares what she’s learned from conducting over 1,000 Zoom focus groups—insights on testing case narratives, assessing witness credibility, refining trial strategy, and even improving jury selection.

You’ll hear how quick, targeted virtual sessions help identify blind spots, shape more persuasive stories, and prevent courtroom surprises—while also giving lawyers valuable practice engaging with real people before trial.

Plus: What happens when jurors prefer the disheveled guy over the polished one? Why you should probably rethink those flashy shoes? And why, sometimes, less (facial expression) is more.

Thanks to Elizabeth for sharing her expertise—and her sharp eye for socks.

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

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

As political forces target Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, companies reassessing their DEI strategies must tread carefully—because, while the landscape has shifted, employment discrimination law has not.

Joining me on the Emerging Litigation Podcast is employment law attorney Patice L. Holland, a Principal at WoodsRogers in Roanoke, Va. Patice shares with me what companies need to know as they reassess their DEI initiatives in light of President Trump's recent executive orders and increasing public and political pressure. 

Patice explains that while the administration has moved to eliminate disparate impact liability and deprioritize federal enforcement, core legal protections under Title VII and state laws remain fully intact. Employers—especially federal contractors—face complex new certification requirements and exposure to potential False Claims Act liability, while private businesses must weigh operational risk, employee morale, and public perception in their decisions. 

We also examine the ripple effects across corporate America—from Costco and Apple, which continue to be invested in DEI, to Target and Amazon, which scaled back initiatives and faced backlash. Patice suggests practical considerations for navigating any changes, emphasizing clear communication, leadership buy-in, and careful risk assessment. 

Listen in as she explains the real impact and power of the executive orders, how obligations differ for government contractors and private companies, the legal and strategic risks of altering DEI policies, and the real-world business consequences of staying the course—or stepping back.

💬 Have thoughts or want to contribute to future episodes? Email: Editor@LitigationConferences.com

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

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Southern California’s wildfire season has turned into a year-round crisis, and with it comes a surge in litigation. On this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, we explore the aftermath of the devastating January 2025 wildfires, including the high-profile Eaton and Palisades fires, and the complex legal battles now unfolding.

My guest, Ed Diab, is a founding partner of Diab Chambers LLP, a boutique law firm with a sharp focus on wildfire litigation. Ed and his team have worked alongside national firm Baron & Budd to represent over 100 public entities in wildfire cases dating back to 2015. His deep experience in this area, combined with an insider’s perspective on utility liability, makes him uniquely qualified to discuss the challenges and strategies involved in these high-stakes cases.

As of early 2025, more than 100 cases have been filed against utilities like Southern California Edison, with public entities, individuals, and insurance carriers seeking damages for widespread destruction. In this conversation, Ed breaks down the causes of these fires, the legal strategies in play, and the uphill battle plaintiffs face when going up against major power utilities.

Ed walks us through California’s unique inverse condemnation doctrine, negligence claims, and how utility companies defend themselves—challenging liability, infrastructure management, and fire prevention efforts. We also discuss the challenges of evidence preservation, particularly when transmission towers remain critical to the state’s power grid.

From the legal wrangling over the Eaton Fire to the complexities of the Palisades rekindle, Ed shares the latest developments and what litigators should expect moving forward. His insight into the coordination between local and national firms and how they’ve successfully pursued wildfire claims makes this a must-listen episode for anyone following disaster-related litigation.

🎧 Tune in for insights on:
✅ Common causes of wildfire litigation and liability determination
✅ How plaintiffs build cases against utilities through expert investigations
✅ Strategic use of inverse condemnation and negligence claims
✅ Key defenses raised by utilities and how plaintiffs respond
✅ The current status of major wildfire cases and emerging litigation trends

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

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Whopping jury verdicts from 2024 illustrate why trial teams sometimes include appellate counsel, because including them -- even as you prepare to defend a high stakes case at trial -- can improve your chances on appeal should a jury hand you a half-billion-dollar verdict.

But what functions do appellate attorneys perform at trial? Are they listening for errors or proactively guiding trial counsel? Do they ever address the court or sit quietly at the defense table or maybe in the back row?

To answer these questions and more is Jeffrey P. Doss, a partner in the White-Collar Criminal Defense & Corporate Investigations practice group at Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC, a civil defense litigation firm. Jeff has served as appellate counsel for an automobile manufacturer for 10 years. In this role, he has supported trial teams pre-trial, at trial, and post-verdict through appeal. Jeff has developed and implemented strategies to address a range of legal issues, from jury selection errors to expert exclusions, evidentiary objections, and post-verdict challenges to punitive damages awards.

Thanks to Jeff for taking the time to share his insights on this, and for entertaining my curiosity about the efficacy of beards in the practice of law.

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

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

The horrific wildfires unleashing carnage in Southern California underscore the need for reliable insurance protection both for businesses and homeowners.

As of Jan. 16, 2025, these wildfires have scorched more than 60 square miles, claimed at least 25 lives, and left 26 people missing. With more than 12,000 structures destroyed and tens of thousands displaced, the economic impact is estimated between $135 billion and $150 billion.  

On a new episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, we discuss the types of damages and losses typically covered under homeowner and commercial property insurance policies, policy limitations, navigating the claims process, and business interruption coverage. We also discuss a Jan. 10, 2025, ruling out of the Northern District of California in Bottega v. National Surety which held in a business interruption case that whether smoke damage caused the suspension of operations at the policyholders’ businesses is a genuine issue of fact.

My guests are all from the long-time insurance recovery law firm of Anderson Kill. Dennis Artese is a shareholder in the New York office and is chair of the firm’s Climate Change and Disaster Recovery practice group. Marshall Gilinsky is a shareholder the firm’s Boston office and practices in the firm’s Insurance Recovery and Commercial Litigation groups, as well as its Restaurant, Retail & Hospitality Group. Joshua Gold is a shareholder in the New York office. He chairs the Cyber Insurance Recovery Group and co-chairs the Marine Cargo Insurance Group. He also handles directors and officers insurance and business income/property insurance matters.

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

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

NFTs – or non-fungible tokens – have taken the digital world by storm – or perhaps just a downloadable picture of a storm – promising to revolutionize not only the way we perceive, protect, purchase, and own digital assets, but how we might even buy a house or other assets in the real world. 

These unique digital certificates, recorded on a blockchain, exploded onto the scene in post-pandemic 2021 with record-breaking sales and widespread media coverage. One of the most amazing examples is "The Merge" by the anonymous artist Pak, which sold for a staggering $91.8 million. 

The Bored Ape Yacht Club is another fascinating story. This collection of 10,000 unique, cartoonish apes, each with its own distinct features, became incredibly popular in 2021. Owning a Bored Ape would become a status symbol in the NFT community.

However, the meteoric rise of NFTs was followed by a significant downturn, leading many to question the future of NFTs. While the initial hype and astronomical prices may have subsided, the underlying technology and potential of NFTs remain promising.

For insights into this evolving landscape, listen to my conversation with Cameron Pick of Marshall Gerstein. An experienced expert in intellectual property law with a focus on emerging technologies, Cameron advises clients on a range of legal issues related to NFTs, blockchain, and cryptocurrency. He holds a J.D. from Duke University School of Law and a B.S. with honors in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

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

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

As if the rocketing evolution of technology isn't presenting enough challenges to inventors under patent law, the Supreme Court has done its part, too.

I just finished reading Graham Moore's novel "The Last Days of Night," where titans of the late 1800s and early 1990s Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, and Nikola Tesla "clashed with sparks flying over AC and DC electrical power systems," a corny description suggested by my AI editor.

Having read the book, it was fun to speak with modern day attorney Ryan N. Phelan of modern day Marshall Gerstein. Listen as this seasoned patent attorney walks me through: 

• The intricate landscape of patent eligibility in the United States. 
• Twin patent law decisions from the Supreme Court -- Mayo and Alice (the name of a singer-songwriter group if I ever heard one, or a sandwich shop).
• The proposed Patent Eligibility Restoration Act and how -- if passed -- it could unlock new opportunities for innovation amid the challenges posed by judicial exceptions. 

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
Follow us on LinkedIn
Subscribe on your favorite platform! 

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Once again we dive into one of the hottest topics in environmental law right now: PFAS.  Specifically, our guest talks about the EPA’s new PFAS Safe Drinking Water Final Rule, which mandates acceptable levels of PFAS in public water systems.

This episode is based on a CLE webinar our guest recorded for HB Litigation a couple months back. Since then,  if you’ve been following PFAS developments, you know pushback on the rule is coming from several directions, as our guest predicted. Industry groups, chemical manufacturers, and water utilities alike are challenging the rule as, among other things, arbitrary and capricious and exceeding the EPA’s authority. Water utilities are especially concerned about compliance costs. 

On the technical side, there is debate over whether current technology can even reliably detect PFAS at the levels EPA seeks. Also raised are the complexities associated with increased monitoring and lab testing. 

Our guest is John P. Gardella, whose 2024 CLE webinar on the subject explored the PFAS litigation landscape, from multidistrict and class action lawsuits to medical monitoring and greenwashing claims. He talks about federal and state regulations that are driving litigation, and offers an outlook for what may be in store in the next few years. 

A leading voice in PFAS litigation and recognized thought leader, John is a Shareholder at CMBG3 Law, known for his expertise in environmental and toxic tort litigation. A veteran of more than 75 trials, John chairs the firm’s PFAS, Environmental, Risk Management & Consulting, and ESG practice groups.

This episode comprises audio from John's excellent webinar. If you are interested in the CLE version of the episode, look for it on the West LegalEdcenter. Go to our page to learn more and to use our partner link. 

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

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

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Soon after emergency response teams scramble into action to address chemical fires, explosions, or other toxic events, attorneys begin gathering and analyzing information either to mitigate corporate risk or to seek remedies for anyone impacted by such an event.

Listen to my interview with Edgar C. "Ed" Gentle III and Katherine "Kip" Benson of Gentle, Turner & Benson LLC, about legal activity that goes on in the immediate aftermath of a toxic event, using as a backdrop the recent chemical plant disaster that forced 17,000 Conyers, Georgia, residents to evacuate and many more to  shelter in place as a toxic plume hung stubbornly over the homes of as many as 100,000 residents. Ed and Kip draw on their deep experience resolving this type of litigation -- including the settlement of a 20-year-old disaster at the same location -- to discuss the flurry of activity that unfolds at law firms and inside legal departments within hours of a disaster. They also share the impact on such cases of a recent $600 million court-approved settlement of claims that followed the highly publicized toxic train derailment that occurred in East Palestine, Ohio, in early 2023.

This is Ed Gentle's second appearance on the podcast. He spoke with me on Episode 48 titled Medical Monitoring for Modern Times. He was the featured speaker on that subject for an HB CLE webinar distributed on the West LegalEdcenter, then Kip Benson joined him for an advanced level webinar on the Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy. You can download his article on the subject for free as published in the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, i

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

People. We’re complicated creatures. We can be compassionate. We can fall in love. Sometimes we don’t care for each other, but here we are.  

Also, some people cross the lines of propriety, causing emotional or even physical harm to others on our teams, whether we work with them, for them, or whether we supervise them. And sometimes we work more than regular hours, either because we’re directed to or because we’re willing to do what it takes to help our teams succeed. The workplace can be a labyrinth of tricky situations, and employers need to know how to make sure workers are able to navigate them smoothly, appropriately, and within changing laws and regulations.  

Our guest is Leah M. Stiegler, a principal attorney at Woods Rogers, who comes to the podcast with extensive experience across a broad spectrum of employment law matters. Leah is a trusted advisor to employers, providing guidance on complex personnel issues, performance management challenges, and fostering a positive work culture. Leah earned her J.D. from University of Richmond School of Law, cum laude, Order of the Coif, and her B.A. and B.S. degrees from Virginia Tech, summa cum laude.  

Listen as Leah shares practical solutions for a variety of challenges, like love at work, pregnancy at work, discord at work, harassment at work, and working overtime. She talks about gender identity protections, implicit biases, and microaggressions, plus conducting administrative investigations, and ideas to mitigate risk, stay out of court, and maintain a positive work environment.  

Thanks to Leah for sharing her insights on issues that arise where many of us spend most of our waking hours – at work! Her enthusiasm and passion for this work will be obvious to anyone who listens. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did producing it. 

*******
 
This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
Follow us on LinkedIn
Subscribe on your fa

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

The United Nations and World Economic Forum calculates that the cost of corporate corruption globally is $5 trillion a year, or 5% of the world’s 2022 GDP. 

Corruption can hamper economic growth by discouraging investment, increasing transaction costs, and distorting market competition. It can perpetuate poverty by diverting resources away from essential services and benefiting the wealthy and powerful. It can undermine democratic institutions and erode public trust in governments. It can hinder sustainable development by diverting resources away from essential infrastructure and social services.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or the FCPA – the government’s leading weapon in this global war on corporate crime – has far-reaching implications for companies engaged in international business. For those who violate it the consequences can be severe. And with the recent addition of the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA), the federal government has even more to work with. 

I had the pleasure of learning more about this fascinating and complex area of the law by speaking with two attorneys with Reed Smith who practice in the firm’s Global Regulatory Enforcement Group. 

Mark E. Bini is a former federal and state prosecutor in New York, has led multiple multi-year cross-border investigations of corporations and individuals and has particular experience in investigations involving potential Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations. As a prosecutor, he worked closely and in parallel with many domestic and foreign law enforcement agencies and regulators, including the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority and Brazil’s Ministerio Publico Federal.

Thomas H. Suddath, Jr., is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia, has extensive experience conducting international and domestic internal investigations and frequently counsels companies on compliance and voluntary disclosure issues related to the FCPA. He has handled FCPA and other internal investigations in many countries including Russia, Poland, Turkey, Greece, Hungary, Czech Republic, Mexico and Colombia.

Thanks to Mark and Tom for sharing their insights based on decades of experience.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

The DOJ’s annual report for 2023 revealed that the agency’s Health Care Fraud Unit was its busiest criminal enforcement section, responsible for convicting more than $3.8 billion in False Claims Act and whistleblower claims. There has reportedly been an uptick in whistleblower work among law firms and a record number of whistleblower cases. Still, some healthcare providers and hospital systems tend to hide their heads in their scrubs after being served. 

Today we’re going to talk about how whistleblower cases come about, the benefits of rewarding whistleblowers, how things are done differently outside the U.S., what’s driving the acceleration of this area of law, and best practices when your company is served.  

Drawing on his background as both public servant and private practitioner, my guest, Justin M. Lugar, counsel with WoodsRogers in Roanoke, Virginia, is going to walk through these issues and others. 

Justin represents clients in all types of government investigations. He’s obviously well suited for the task. Prior to WoodsRogers he was Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Virginia, where he led the Affirmative Civil Enforcement team managing dozens of fraud investigations, many of which had parallel criminal investigations under the False Claims Act and related state statutes. 

Justin served as the Department of Justice’s Civil Health Care Fraud Coordinator, Affirmative Civil Enforcement Coordinator, and Civil Rights Coordinator for the Western District of Virginia. Justin was recently recognized by the Drug Enforcement Agency for his efforts enforcing the Controlled Substances Act, leading to the largest fine assessed against a hospital system in the United States at the time.  

When he was a  federal prosecutor, Justin led investigations involving numerous state and federal agency partners, from the FBI to the IRS to the Department of Energy to the FDA and the Defense Department.  

Justin started his career at a major global firm in London, conducting international investigations around the globe.  But my favorite part of his background is – when he was a religious studies major in college – he lived at a Tibetan Buddhist Monastery in Kathmandu, Nepal. Not to brag, but I just returned from Vermont. 

There is more to Justin’s background, like his LLM in international dispute resolution, which he earned at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, his J.D. from Liberty University School of Law, and his B.A. from the University of Virginia.  

*******
This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

How secure is our nation's critical infrastructure? One recent event serves as a cautionary tale. In this episode, we tackle this pressing question in the context of cybersecurity. We'll address President Biden's recent National Security Memorandum on Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience,  and its implications for sectors like energy, water, and transportation.

Our guest, Elizabeth Burgin Waller, from Virginia's WoodsRogers law firm, brings her extensive knowledge in privacy and cybersecurity law to the discussion.

Join us as we discuss ransomware as a service, shedding light on its franchise-like model and the significant challenges in tracking and prosecuting these cybercriminals, especially those hiding in countries like Russia. We discuss the recent takedown of the LockBit ransomware gang under Operation Kronos, and the persistent and growing complications of IoT security.

CrowdStrike's recent software glitch, while not a malicious attack, serves as a stark reminder of the importance of testing and transparency around cyber incidents, and the vulnerability of the systems that drive critical industries. Tune in for expert insights and reflections on the evolving regulatory landscape and what it means for mitigating risk in the Digital Age.

Beth is Principal and Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Practice Chair at WoodsRogers. In addition to a J.D. from William and Mary School of Law, she is certified as a Privacy Law Specialist by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), which is accredited by the American Bar Association, a Certified Information Privacy Professional with expertise in both U.S. and European law (CIPP/US & CIPP/E), and a Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM), also from the IAPP. Beth also graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in creative writing, so maybe I should have let her write the show notes.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigatio

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Listen as intellectual property attorneys Tiffany Gehrke and Kelley Gordon of Marshall Gerstein in Chicago share their insights into three matters relevant anyone watching copyright and trademark law, or anyone fond of branded t-shirts and fancy French beverages. 

I talk to Tiffany Gehrke about two cases. One is Vidal v. Elster, better known as the “TRUMP TOO SMALL” case. Just decided by the Supreme Court, this deals with whether a mark containing criticism of a government official or public figure – which is barred by the “names clause” of the Lanham Act – violates free speech. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which Tiffany outlines. 

The other case is Penn State v. Vintage Brands, which is pending in Pennsylvania federal court and is expected to have wide-reaching implications for retailers and brand owners alike. Vintage Brand uses Penn State’s registered Nittany Lions trademarks on t-shirts, hats, and other goods, and argues that use of the trademarks constitute a defensible “ornamental use.” We shall see!

Finally, I ask Kelley Gordon for her take on a dispute between a popular Instagram influencer, Lauren Holifield, and champagne brand Veuve Clicquot. Holifield temporarily and surprisingly lost her IG account after Veuve Clicquot raised trademark infringement concerns on three of Holifield's videos. This was a big deal for her. She was earning six figures. OMG. Hear what Kelley has to say.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

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

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Everyone knows that price fixing is against the law, chiefly Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Competitors may not collude, i.e., agree, to keep prices where they want them, but there are relatively new pricing platforms that some companies maintain take them out of the equation, so they do not have to share private information directly with competitors. Instead, they claim, they feed their data to a third-party which uses algorithms to come up with pricing for these competitors based on data they all contribute. The subject has been getting a lot of attention as cases mount against a company called RealPage, a firm that provides shared pricing services for landlords. The company faces dozens of suits in multidistrict litigation and has also captured the attention of federal antitrust law enforcers. But they are not the only company finding themselves in litigation. 

As our guest recently wrote: “When pricing algorithms are used by individual firms, such as airlines, e-commerce platforms, ride-share and room-share companies, stock traders, and others, there are unlikely to be anti-competitive consequences. It is when market competitors avail themselves of the same algorithmic program or service that the specter of unlawful collusion arises.” That risk increases as markets become more concentrated, he says. 

He is Jonathan Rubin, Partner and Co-Founder of MoginRubin LLP, a widely recognized competition law attorney, economist, and commentator who has presented at antitrust conferences in the United States and Europe, testified before several congressional committees, and before the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission.  

“The fact that these services employ an algorithm is not central to what's going on in this scenario,” he told me, “because what's important is the conduct of the businesspeople involved.”

Listen to my interview with Jonathan Rubin as we discuss what algorithmic or software-facilitated pricing is, what the law says about price collusion, how this new pricing mechanism violates that law, and recent developments in litigation.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of t

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Companies are grappling with how to market the eco-friendly, people friendly, and animal friendly characteristics of their products and services, while also not getting in trouble with the law. Some have learned this the hard way. Some have wisely consulted experts. (That's foreshadowing.)

ESG – or Environmental, Social and Governance – reporting and so-called greenwashing litigation have implications for a wide range of stakeholders. Companies face significant financial and reputational risks, while investors, regulators, advocacy groups, and consumers all have an interest in ensuring the accuracy and transparency of ESG information.

Last year the SEC adopted amendments to the Investment Company Act with the “Names Rule,” which addresses fund names that are likely to mislead investors about a fund’s investments and risks. 

On the consumer side, the FTC has been on the case as it stalks misleading advertising claims. Violations have real consequences. In 2022 the FTC reached multimillion dollar settlements with store chains Kohl’s and Walmart over claims that certain products were eco-friendly and made from bamboo, when they were really made from rayon. 

More recently, a class action was filed in federal court in New York over the "carbon neutral" branding on bottled water. But there are some important court decisions our guest wants to know about, involving shoemaker AllBirds and beauty products company Sephora. 

She is Ramya Ravishankar, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary of the HowGood company, an independent research firm that helps the world’s largest food brands meet their sustainability commitments. Ramya is a former environmental biologist turned attorney who is – as you will soon hear -- passionate about the intersection of food and sustainability. Previously, Ramya was Associate General Counsel at Bowery Farming – producer of pesticide free lettuce, other leafy foods and herbs. Before that she was a regulatory enforcement associate at Skadden Arps. Ramya earned her J.D. from Columbia Law School in New York and a B.S. from Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada.

Enjoy the interview!

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

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

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

In this episode we talk about litigation automation, and another case in which innovators are using artificial intelligence to transform legal operations.

We also speak with our guest about his transformation from a litigator to a tech entrepreneur, and how the company he co-founded is using modern tools to do in minutes what used to take hours. These tasks include responding to demand letters, complaints, and discovery requests, and executing matter profiling and data analytics, all of which are traditionally rote and repetitive and time-consuming undertakings.

He is James M. Lee, co-founder and CEO of LegalMation. James conceived the idea behind LegalMation -- which is to leverage the power of generative artificial intelligence to transform litigation and dispute resolution -- while managing a litigation boutique.  An experienced and recognized litigator and trial attorney, James received his J.D. from Stanford Law School. 

Also joining me, I’m pleased to say, is the ever-inquisitive and always attentive Sara Lord, legal analytics professional extraordinaire, who raised questions from the litigator's perspective. 

I hope you enjoy the conversation!

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
Follow us on LinkedIn
Subscribe on your favorite platform. 

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Biometric data is big business. It many cases it even helps make our lives better.  It also presents  significant risks for a variety of parties, in addition to those of us who surrender our data. Companies collecting,  storing, utilizing, and monetizing the data face penalties and litigation bolstered by the increasing number of states enacting biometric information privacy acts, or BIPAs, the first of which was in Illinois.

Biometric information --  fingerprints, facial and retinal scans, and DNA -- it's all used in many ways we don’t even think about, like building security, banking access and online payments, smartphone access, patient identification in healthcare, employee tracking, law enforcement, air travel security and hotel check-ins, consumer tracking and customer experience analysis, border security, validating recipients of government welfare benefits, identifying students taking exams, and more. 

I just finished hosting a webinar titled “Litigation After Biometric Privacy Law Violations” with attorneys John M. Leonard and Cort T. Malone of Anderson Kill. They spoke extensively about the state of biometric privacy litigation, the regulatory landscape,  insurance coverage considerations, and recent rulings. They're both shareholders at Anderson Kill and they are both graduates of the Fordham University School of Law.

John M. Leonard is co-chair of the firm's biometric liability group. He has recovered millions of dollars for policyholders in a full spectrum of insurance coverage matters, including disputes over business interruption, D&O and E&O, defense and indemnity, general liability losses, and environmental liability.

Cort T. Malone, chair of the firm's Biometric Liability Insurance Recovery Group, is an experienced litigator who focuses on insurance coverage litigation and dispute resolution, with an emphasis on commercial general liability insurance, cyber insurance, employment practices insurance, advertising injury, D&O, E&O, and property insurance. He's also a member of the firm's practice groups relating to restaurant, retail and hospitality; environmental law; cyber insurance recovery; and COVID litigation. 

Following the webinar (coming soon to the West LegalEdcenter), Cort and John stuck around to answer some of my questions about a couple of recent cases I thought illustrated the types of underlying and coverage matters we’re seeing out there.

I hope you enjoy it.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, La

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site