The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower-court decision declining to broaden additional insured coverage afforded under a commercial general liability policy to energy operator Apache Corporation to contractual liabilities assumed by energy service provider Linear Controls, Inc., writes David J. Saltaformaggio of Phelps Dunbar.

The 5th Circuit “found that Apache was specifically named as an additional insured, not a named insured, and only named insureds are entitled to contractual liability coverage under a commercial general liability policy,” according to the article. “In so doing, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Apache’s arguments that the scope of its additional insured coverage should be expanded to include its named insured’s contractual obligations.”

Read the article.

Most companies take more than a month to go from the initial “handshake” with a customer to a signed contract because they rely on manual tools, according to a survey conducted by SpringCM, a contract management solution for Salesforce customers. The second annual State of Contract Management report is the result of a survey of more than 800 professionals on their contract management processes and challenges.

The report, conducted last month, found:

• 74 percent of respondents’ contract processes are not automated;
• 85 percent attach contracts to emails, where they can be lost or the wrong versions used;
• More than four in 10 keep contracts on shared drives, increasing security risks, and;
• 68 percent said human error affects their contract processes “very often.”

The report findings also highlight the need for visibility to speed up the contract process and increase revenue. In fact, 49 percent of respondents said that a transparent contract process would assist in reporting and predicting revenue.

“Our research found the contract process typically lasts weeks – and for large enterprises, it can be months – and involves multiple departments, increasing the chances for mistakes that can cause even more delays,” said Greg Buchholz, CEO of SpringCM. “But if companies can shorten the time it takes for contracts to get signed, then the closing cycle decreases, revenue increases, cash flow accelerates and risks are reduced. In one case, a customer took their contracts process from two weeks to two days.”

Contract management software automates the contract process while providing visibility to each stage of the contract lifecycle to improve coordination between sales and legal teams. In the State of Contract Management report, 40 percent of respondents said implementing a contract management tool has saved their companies money.

“The real key is the advantage of eliminating sales reps from heavy involvement in the process.  Sales leadership wants their revenue generators finding and closing the next deal, not spending their time involved in the back and forth between inside counsel, customer counsel, and procurement departments,” Buchholz said. “If a company can cut the time sales teams waste getting contracts signed, then they can do more prospecting and selling, and the company has a better chance of hitting its revenue goals.”

More information and a free download of the State of Contract Management Report are available here.

Photo by Brian Solis

Facebook announced that it plans to issue a third class of shares, Class C, that will not include voting power for its shareholders.

The purpose is to allow co-founder, chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, to pursue their dream of giving 99 percent of their shares to charity, without losing any of his voting control, according to a report in The Los Angeles Times.

“Shareholders will have to vote on the arrangement, but because non-Zuckerberg voting power already is a joke, we can assume it will pass,” The Times says.

Read the article.

The renaming of George Mason University’s law school after Justice Antonin Scalia has erupted into a tense confrontation within its faculty: between professors embracing the move and scholars outside the law school offended by the association with the high court’s most influential conservative, reports The Wall Street Journal.

“Officials at the suburban Virginia public university say they have no intention of reconsidering the rebranding, which comes attached to not just controversy but a heap of money. The school is set to receive its largest combined gift, $10 million from a charity founded by billionaire conservative activist Charles Koch and a $20-million pledge from an anonymous donor who made the gift contingent on the name change,” according to the report.

More than 100 professors at George Mason have signed a petition condemning both the Scalia name and the legal ideas he espoused.

Read the article.

Los Angeles-based Quinn Emanuel law firm and two of its partners sued the estate of high-profile attorney Hillel Chodos, claiming the famous litigator crossed the line in one of the final cases of his career, reports Courthouse News.

Chodos, one of the highest-paid attorneys in Los Angeles, represented celebrities and politicians in a career in which he handled more than 1,000 cases before he died at 81 in 2015.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and its attorneys Steven Madison and Michael Lifrak sued Chodos’ estate and its executor, Rafael Chodos, on April 22 in Superior Court.

The complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court stems from a case that began in 2009, when Chodos was representing Karen Christiansen in a lawsuit against the Beverly Hills Unified School District, represented by Quinn Emanuel, the report says. Chodos filed a suit against the firm and the school district, alleging malicious prosecution, fraud and corruption. The sole purpose of the suit was to prevent Quinn Emanuel from continuing to represent the school district, giving him an advantage, the complaint says.

Read the article.

One in three U.S. board members and executives are “very concerned” that the climate of uncertainty and volatility may pose a significant threat to their corporate strategy, and more than three in four worry that management tends to use outdated assumptions in setting strategy, according to a survey by the Board Leadership Center of KPMG LLP, the audit, tax and advisory firm.

KPMG’s latest Roundtable Series gathered over 1,200 corporate directors and senior executives across 17 cities to share their views on the board’s role in calibrating strategy. Thirty-two percent of those surveyed said they are “very concerned” that management tends to use “more of the same” assumptions regarding key factors and uncertainties in setting strategy, and another 46 percent said they are “somewhat concerned.”

Survey respondents ranked economic uncertainty (61 percent), technology and innovation (58 percent), and government regulation (57 percent) as having the most significant impact on the company’s strategy or the assumptions underlying it.

Read the article.

eSignLive will underwrite a complimentary one-hour web seminar by AIIM on Wednesday, May 11 at 2 p.m. EDT to examine the money- and time-saving benefits of e-signature software solutions, as well as software selection best practices to help choose a solution that best fits an organization’s requirements.

Presenters will be Ted Rohm, Senior ERP Analyst, Technology Evaluation Centers, and Rahim Kaba, Director of Product Marketing, eSignLive.

The event will cover:

• 6 key e-signature software selection criteria and their importance
• Best practices for software selection for finding the best e-signature solution for your organization
• Real-life stories of companies successfully leveraging e-signature solutions
• Justification through ROI

Register for the webinar.

ExamWorks Group, Inc., a leading provider of independent medical examinations, peer reviews, bill reviews, Medicare compliance services, case management services, record retrieval services, document management services and other related services, has announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by an affiliate of Leonard Green & Partners, L.P., for $35.05 per share in cash, representing a total transaction value of approximately $2.2 billion, as detailed in a company press release.

The merger is subject to approval from ExamWorks shareholders and other customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the third quarter of 2016.

Latham & Watkins LLP represented Leonard Green in the transaction with a corporate deal team led by New York partners Howard Sobel, John Giouroukakis and Paul Kukish with associates Michael Young in Orange County and Eyal Orgad and Andrew Ritter in New York. Advice was also provided on finance matters by New York partner Joshua Tinkelman with associates Sonja Pollack and Jake Burne; on regulatory matters by Washington, D.C. partner Stuart Kurlander and counsel Nicole Liffrig Molife with associates Michael Dreyfus and Robert Canning; on benefits and compensation matters by New York partner Bradd Williamson, London partner Catherine Drinnan and New York counsel Rifka Singer with associates Anisha Mehta in New York and Lucy Boyle in London; on intellectual property matters by New York partner Jeffrey Tochner with associate Tiana Hertel; on tax matters by Chicago partner Joseph Kronsnoble with associate Sarah Smoler; and on environmental matters by New York counsel David Langer.

ExamWorks’ Board of Directors, on the recommendation of a special committee composed entirely of independent directors (the “Special Committee”), approved the merger agreement and recommend that the Company’s shareholders vote in favor of the transaction.  In accordance with the merger agreement’s “go shop” provision, the Company will conduct a market test for 25 business days concluding June 1, 2016.

Richard Perlman, ExamWorks’ Executive Chairman and James Price, Chief Executive Officer, said: “ExamWorks started a little over eight years ago from a concept and with the hard work and commitment of each and every one of our 3,600 employees, has grown to be the industry leader servicing over 6,000 clients on a global basis generating almost $1 billion of annual revenues.  We are immensely proud of this accomplishment, which delivers significant value to our shareholders.  We also want to thank our clients for their strong support and assure them of our continued commitment to providing unparalleled services.”

John Baumer, Senior Partner of Leonard Green & Partners, L.P., said: “We are excited to partner with ExamWorks’ management team and organization.  We fully support the Company’s commitment to its clients and look forward to the next phase of the Company’s growth.”

Peter Graham, Chairman of the Special Committee, said: “The Company received an acquisition proposal from Leonard Green & Partners, L.P., and after extensive negotiations and careful consideration in conjunction with our advisors, the Special Committee of ExamWorks’ board has unanimously concluded that this transaction is in the best interest of our shareholders.”

The Company expects to release its Q1 2016 earnings press release on or before May 10, 2016.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Evercore Group L.L.C. are serving as financial advisors to ExamWorks.   Paul Hastings LLP is serving as legal advisor to ExamWorks.  Latham & Watkins LLP is serving as legal advisor to Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.  Fully committed debt financing is being provided by affiliates of BofA Merrill Lynch, Barclays and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., each of which is also serving as a financial advisor to Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.

Akerman LLP, a top 100 U.S. law firm, has announced the continued expansion of its Tax Practice Group with the addition of veteran trusts and estates partner Paul Collins in New York. He joins the firm from Schiff Hardin.

“Paul brings many years of experience in trusts and estates planning, probate and fiduciary disputes,” said Jonathan Gopman, chair of Akerman’s Trusts & Estates Practice. “He will be a trusted resource for clients who need help navigating the delicate situations that often arise in family-related disputes and wealth preservation strategies.”

Collins has more than 30 years of experience in the planning and administration of trusts and estates, both domestic and international.

“His particular strength is in fiduciary litigation, such as contested probate and accounting matters, guardianships, disputes over inherited property, and the construction of wills and trusts,” the firm said in a release. “He has represented clients in the Surrogate’s Courts and other courts in New York, as well as Connecticut courts, and often seeks to resolve disputes through mediation or arbitration.”

Collins has represented various charitable organizations in establishing and then advising on their ongoing operations. He has also administered the estates of a number of authors and artists.

Collins joins one of the country’s leading tax teams, according to Law360, which recently named Akerman “Tax Practice Group of the Year” for achieving some of the greatest client successes in the industry. Akerman’s Tax Practice Group continues to see rapid growth in the New York market. Collins is the sixth partner to join the office since January, including labor and employment litigators Bran Noonan and Sarir Silver from Gordon & Rees; corporate lawyers Lorenzo Borgogni from Proskauer Rose and Jack Habert from Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and real estate transactions lawyer Dianne Greenberg Penchina from DGP Partners.

Dallas appellate lawyer and strategist Deborah Hankinson of Hankinson LLP has earned recognition on D Magazine’s 2016 listing of the Best Lawyers in Dallas. This is the 11th time the former Texas Supreme Court justice has been recognized in the annual list based on her expertise in appellate law, arbitration, mediation and trial consulting.

Earlier this year, Hankinson was one of just 48 attorneys nationwide selected to The National Law Journal’s inaugural ADR Champions listing, which honored the leaders and trailblazers in alternative dispute resolution. Last year, Ms. Hankinson was named a Texas Trial Legend by the Dallas Bar Association. She also has earned honors for her work from The Best Lawyers in America, Chambers USA, Texas Super Lawyers, Benchmark Appellate, Texas Lawyer, Dallas Business Journal, Martindale-Hubbell and Lawdragon.

She has been honored by such organizations as the Women’s Advocacy Project, Legal Aid of NorthWest Texas, Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation, American Board of Trial Advocates, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law and the State Bar of Texas.

Hankinson is Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and is a fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. She serves on the Board of Directors for the American Arbitration Association.

D Magazine’s 2016 listing of the city’s top attorneys was determined through peer nominations submitted by thousands of attorneys throughout North Texas. An independent panel of distinguished lawyers helped the magazine’s editors select the honorees. The complete listing is featured in the May 2016 edition of D Magazine and online at www.dmagazine.com.

According to Grant Gross from IDG News Service, the banking document record leak now are known as the Panama Papers included 11.5 million confidential documents dating from the 1970s through to late 2015 — 4.8 million emails, 3 million database format files, 2.2. Million PDFs, 1.1 million images and 320,000 text documents. All of these documents were from Panama Law Firm Mossack Fonseca.

Allegedly these leaked documents reveal how dozens of high-profile professionals including public officials in countries including the U.K., France, and China have hidden their wealth abroad to avoid paying taxes, ContractRoom reports on its website.

What is clear is that if indeed these files were hacked from emails or off the server of Mossack Fonseca, this firm was not using a Cloud platform with proper security and encryption to store their documents. It appears they were using an on-site server.

Read the article.

By Mehjabeen Rahman
The Expert Institute

Being familiar with objections to expert testimony is the best way to protect the credibility of your expert’s testimony and also challenge that of the opposing expert’s. From discovery to trial, there are several occasions where objections as to an expert’s opinion are proper. Below is a list of possible objections to look over before your next case involving an expert witness.

Deposition Objections

An expert’s deposition is an important part of their overall testimony. In addition to its scientific and technical nature, it is sworn testimony that can be used to later impeach an expert witness at trial. It is important to note, however, that a deposition is still different than trial and there are a number of objections that can be properly raised with respect to an expert’s deposition testimony. For example, counsel can object when a question asks the expert for:

1. Legal analysis over factual information

Questions that ask expert witness opinions about the legal analysis of the case rather than purely factual information are objectionable on the grounds that the testimony qualifies as attorney work product protected under FRCP 26(b)(4)(C). The Advisory Committee notes “[t]he refocus of disclosure on “facts or data” [changed from “data and other information” in 1993] is meant to limit disclosure to material of a factual nature by excluding theories or mental impressions of counsel.”

2. Privileged information

It is important to note that any objection based on privilege must be made or it is waived for the party that failed to raise it on the record.

3. Testimony outside the scope of expert’s assigned task

As a general matter, questions that attempt to elicit information outside the scope of the witness’ expertise are improper. Bailey v. Meister Brau, Inc., 57 F.R.D. 11, 14 (N.D. Ill. 1972). For example, in a medical malpractice case involving a faulty device, an expert may be familiar with other similar devices and face questions about his or her opinion about devices from other manufacturers. When appropriate, counsel can make the objection that the question is outside the scope of the expert’s assigned task.

4. Confidential information protected from persons at the deposition

Under FRCP 26(c)(1), a party can move for a protective order of parts of an expert’s testimony that may require disclosure of sensitive and protected information. For example, Rule 26(c)(1)(G) says “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including…requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” This is an important rule to remember when dealing with terms of a business contract or client medical history. The expert witness may answer when the certain persons designated in the protective order leave the deposition room.

5. Answers already provided by the expert earlier in the deposition

“Asked and answered” is a standard objection during depositions when the deponent is repeatedly asked a question they have answered. This is especially important if the question is asked for any other purpose except clarification of earlier testimony, for example if the question is repeated to harass or otherwise embarrass the witness.

6. Mischaracterization of earlier testimony

In some instances during an expert’s deposition, opposing counsel may phrase a question by misstating the expert’s earlier testimony. Especially where scientific or otherwise technical data and conclusions are concerned, it is important to clear these mischaracterizations up on the record when they occur.

7. Leading or coaching of the expert witness by opposing counsel

Another standard objection when an expert is under direct examination by opposing question. The expert is there to testify to factual matters and questions presented should not presuppose or suggest the answer. This sometimes occurs when the expert asks the interviewer for clarification about a question.

8. Improper form of a question

“Objection to form” is a vague and broad objection, commonly raised during depositions. Improper form objections can fall into many categories, where some jurisdictions require the objecting party to note a specific ground and others allow a general “objection to form.” A common example is when an expert is asked a compound question, meaning a series of multiple questions without giving the witness an opportunity to answer each individually. Whenever an objection to form is raised, the witness is still required to answer but the objection notes for the record that the form of the question was improper for being:

• Compound
• Prejudicial/Misleading
• Ambiguous
• Argumentative
• Calling for speculation
• Confusing

9. Opposing party’s failure to compensate the expert

The federal rules require that experts be properly compensated for providing deposition testimony under FRCP 26(b)(4)(E)(i)-(ii). When the deposition is at the request of opposing counsel, an objection is proper where an expert has not been fairly compensated for the separate time and work to prepare specifically for the deposition.

Pretrial and Trial Objections

1. Motions in limine

Typically, motions to exclude or otherwise challenge expert testimony will be raised during pretrial proceedings via motions in limine. The federal rules govern expert witness testimony under Rule 26 and provide the grounds for which an expert’s testimony can be excluded, including:

• For failure to properly designate an expert witness
• Failure to submit the expert’s report in a timely manner
• Failure to submit required documents like the expert’s CV or publications
• Failure to provide any notes or related material used by expert to form the expert opinion

2. Expert witness will not assist the trier of fact

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence 703, an expert’s opinion is admissible only if the witness’ expertise and testimony will assist the trier of fact in understanding the case.

3. Expert lacks the proper qualifications

Scope: A scientific background is not required for an expert to qualify as an expert witness. However, it is important to know the scope of expert’s knowledge as it applies to the case. For example, an individual that was a teacher for deaf children for over 30 years does not automatically render the witness an expert in deaf people’s heightened sense of sight as a general fact.

Credentials: If an expert’s particular background or expertise is not appropriate for the issues on which he or she is expected to testify, then a motion in limine is proper. Similarly, if there are issues with the representations on the expert’s CV, these are often raised pretrial as well.

4. Reliability of principle and methods (Daubert challenges)

Expert report methodology: A Daubert motion is the most direct way to challenge the reliability of an expert’s opinion. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny set the standards for the admissibility of expert reports and testimony. The Daubert Court set out factors to be considered in determining whether an expert’s report is reliable:

1. whether the expert’s theory can and has been tested;
2. whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication;
3. the known or potential rate of error of the particular scientific technique;
4. whether the technique is generally accepted in the scientific community

Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) expanded Daubert to include non-scientific expert testimony.

In 2000, the FRE 702 was changed to essentially codify the Daubert factors. For tips on successfully handling Daubert challenges, look here.

If the objections above are not raised in a pre-trial motions, they may still be raised when the expert witness is tendered at trial. Admissibility of expert witness testimony is governed by FRE Rules 702-705.

In addition to challenging the witness’ qualifications, scope of expertise and and reliability of principles and methods used to form the opinion, counsel can object when a question asked at trial:

1. Assumes facts not in evidence
2. Lacks the proper foundation
3. Seeks an answer already admitted by stipulation. See FRE 403.

Expert witnesses are retained to explain technical or scientific subject matter and help the trier of fact to understand certain aspects of the case. FRCP 26 protects attorney-expert communications and governs the disclosure of expert witness testimony. FRE Rules 702-705 govern the admissibility of expert opinions.

Litigator and firm alumnus Leonard (Len) D. Venger will rejoin Buchalter Nemer as a senior advisor and chair of the Litigation Practice and Entertainment Industry Groups in Los Angeles, the firm has announced.

A former managing partner at Buchalter Nemer, Venger was lead trial attorney and handled numerous complex business and commercial litigation matters. For the past 13 years, he was executive vice president and head of Global Litigation at Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., where he was responsible for litigation matters relating to the company and its operating divisions around the world.

“Len was a very important part of the firm’s past and we’re thrilled to welcome him back,” said Adam J. Bass, president and chief executive officer of Buchalter Nemer. “As companies continue to face high-stakes litigation, Len’s experience and expert counsel will prove invaluable.”

As chair of the Litigation Practice Group, Venger will lead and oversee critical aspects of heavily litigated and high-stakes cases. In addition to managing case evaluation, strategy, staffing and overall handling of litigated matters, he will develop educational curriculum and master classes to ensure that firm expertise matriculates through counsel of all ages and experience. Venger will also take a leadership role in the firm’s Cybersecurity Practice Group and will serve on the Ethics and Risk Management Committee.

Venger earned his J.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and his B.A. in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

Recommind, a leader in advanced analytics software, today announced that its alliance partner, Hire Counsel, has offered a unique fixed-price document review model to solve price uncertainty issues in eDiscovery. The new pricing model strengthens Recommind’s Alliance Partner Program, which is a global ecosystem of specialized services providers powered by Recommind’s award-winning Axcelerate eDiscovery and investigations platform.

By combining continuous machine learning, pervasive project management and relevancy predictions generated by Axcelerate, Hire Counsel has been able to deliver first pass review at a fixed price, ensuring superior results on budget, on time, Recommind said in a release. Given the successful implementation in its Detroit office, Hire Counsel will make the offering available in its review centers across the country, eliminating the risk of price overruns.

The release continues:

“Hire Counsel’s expert project management and review resources have enabled them to complete fixed-price Axcelerate document review projects with great success,” said Ellery Dyer, Vice President of Channel Development, Recommind. “Budget clarity and locked-in savings are compelling benefits of Hire Counsel‘s approach.”

“We are excited to offer this innovative pricing model to meet the needs of our clients in today’s new legal economy” said Kevin Clark, Executive Managing Director of Discovery Services, Hire Counsel. “In partnership with Recommind, we can empower corporate clients to dependably budget for eDiscovery costs.”

To learn more about this unique model, join Hire Counsel’s Kilian Connolly and Kevin Clark and Recommind’s Hal Marcus for a webinar titled People, TAR, & Predictability: Achieving Cost Certainty in Review. The webinar will take place Thursday, April 28, at 10 a.m. PT. A case study is also available for download here.

About Hire Counsel

Hire Counsel is a leading innovative services provider to law firms, corporations, and government agencies for today’s new legal economy. As your trusted provider we tailor a legal solution that delivers superior and profitable results. Hire Counsel’s portfolio of services includes temporary legal support to right-size discovery teams, secondment services, specialists in compliance, contract administration, corporate transactions, research analysis and government, or permanent hires. Founded in 1993, Hire Counsel operates in more than 20 U.S. markets from 12 legal center offices, 10 domestic interview hubs, and five discovery centers. Learn more at HireCounsel.com or follow on Twitter @HireCounsel .

About Recommind, Inc.

Recommind builds breakthrough software solutions that harness the power of information to solve concrete business problems. Our patented innovations at the nexus of law, big data, and predictive analytics help extract critical insights from massive volumes of unstructured data—for eDiscovery, contract analysis, and enterprise knowledge management. With a world-class professional services team across the globe, Recommind is trusted by renowned corporations (BMW, Cisco, Swiss Re), premier law firms (Clifford Chance, Morgan Lewis, White & Case), and key regulatory agencies (SEC, DOE, FINRA). Recommind is headquartered in San Francisco and has offices in New York, Boston, London, and Bonn, Germany. For more information go to www.recommind.com.

Live Conference:
Tuesday, May 3, 2:30 p.m.,
New York, NY

Bloomberg BNA will present a live conference titled Big Law Business Diversity & Inclusion Conference: A Call to Action, the third in the series of Diversity & Inclusion events, where Big Law Business will begin to take the next steps toward driving results and holding our profession accountable for progress.

The event will be on Tuesday, May 3, 2016 in New York, NY, beginning at 2:30 p.m. EDT and ending with an hour-long reception at 5:30 p.m. It will be at  the Harold Pratt House at 58 East 68th Street. General Counsel News readers may attend at no charge. (Registration form)

General counsel and their legal teams play a unique and important role in the conversation regarding Diversity & Inclusion in the legal profession – as the buyside of legal services, they are well-positioned to drive and influence the quality of legal services they receive. They are also currently moving more legal work in-house and the department’s ability to ensure diversity of ideas and thought leadership within their own teams is critical.

During this exclusive event, Big Law Business will convene chief legal counsel and their corporate senior diversity officers as well as law firm managing partners to focus on actionable results, accountability, and drive movement forward toward diversity in the legal profession.

The event is an opportunity to explore the success Big Law practices are having meeting their own workforce diversification goals, plus:

• Interviews and presentations on best practice
• Methods law schools, law firms, and the judiciary can utilize to collaborate to feed the in-house pipeline
• Ideas to take back to legal departments for immediate and long-term action

The conference agenda is available online.

Register for the conference.

BigLaw firms Reed Smith and Pepper Hamilton have ended talks about a possible merger, both firms announced in separate statements.

“Early last week, both firms confirmed they were holding discussions to create a mega-firm that would have nearly 2,500 lawyers worldwide and annual revenue of $1.5 billion,” according to a report by The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Reed Smith has 1,900 attorneys in 27 offices in the U.S., Europe, Asia and the Middle East, but has lost staff in recent months through departures and layoffs, and its financials dipped in 2015 compared with the prior year, the report says.

Read the article.

The former chief digital officer of the Epix cable television network was arrested on Tuesday on charges that he defrauded the company of more than $8 million, reports Reuters.

FBI agents arrested Emil Rensing, 42, at his Manhattan home and charged him with wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, authorities said.

“He was released on a $500,000 bond following a court hearing later in the day. His lawyer, Henry Mazurek, in a statement said Rensing disputed the allegations and ‘did not steal any money or identities from anyone.'” the report says.

Rensing worked at Epix from April 2010 to August 2015, and is alleged to having contracted with vendor companies he owned to perform digital media services. The complaint says he hid the scheme by using false and stolen identities.

Read the article.

A disbarred lawyer who swindled clients on Staten Island and in Brooklyn is on the hook for nearly $1 million in restitution and will spend up to a dozen years in prison, according to a report on silive.com.

“According to authorities, Robert Fontanelli helped himself to more than $1 million owed a client from a real-estate sale and to more than $155,000 from another client in an unrelated property deal,” the site reports.

A judge in state Supreme Court sentenced Fontanelli to one to three years in prison and ordered him to pay $55,760 to a Staten Island client whose personal-injury settlement the ex-barrister pocketed. The report says the sentence will run concurrently to a separate sentence of four to 12 years in prison and $933,245 in restitution imposed on Fontanelli last week in Brooklyn state Supreme Court for grand larceny and fraud-related convictions.

Read the article.

From two different courts in two different states on two very different claims come the same concept: an agreement to arbitrate may be binding even without a signed contract, according to a report by Stan Martin on the Commonsense Construction Law website.

“One comes via an unsigned law firm partnership agreement, and the other via an agreement placed on the wrapping of a bundle of roofing shingles, held to be binding on the property owner who hired the contractor who engaged, in turn, the subcontractor purchasing the shingles,” he writes.

“These cases serve as a reminder that (1) a person or company can be bound by a contract without signing that contract, based on other actions, and (2) if that (unsigned) contract calls for arbitration, the person/company is bound to arbitrate disputes that arise under the contract.”

Read the article.

A fundamental principle of contract law is that a written contract is an agreement in writing that serves as proof of the parties’ obligations, writes Virginia Whitehill Guldi of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. What happens, however, when the parties forget some of the niceties of formalizing a written contract?

For one answer, she offers the recent decision in the case of Shank v. Fiserv, Inc., in which the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed Fiserv’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration at the outset of the case.

In that case, employee Shank had been dismissed after returning from a medical leave. The company cited a reorganization, but the plaintiff claimed proffered reason was pretextual and that she had been fired in violation of various federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and Title VII.

“Fiserv sought to dismiss the case and force arbitration, citing a ‘Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims’ that Ms. Shank had signed when she was hired and that would have contractually obligated her to arbitrate her claims. However, Fiserv’s argument had a flaw, said Ms. Shank, because it did not sign the agreement,” Guldi wrote.

The court agreed with the plaintiff.

Read the article.