OpenText Discovery (formerly Recommind) has published a report titled “Corporate Legal Ops Service Results 2017,” which is available for complimentary downloading.

Starting in 2015, OpenText Discovery has commissioned Ari Kaplan Advisors to interview premier corporate legal ops professionals to identify new trends and eDiscovery issues. This report details the latest 2017 findings, such as:

• AI and Analytics: Is cost still an issue to adopting discovery analytics?
• ECM & Discovery processes: Are legal ops professionals consolidating their approach?
• Cloud readiness: Has the cloud reached a tipping point?
• InfoSec: Have data security concerns increased?

Download the report.

NAVEX Global has produced a new ethics and compliance benchmark report that provides key statistics to measure and prove the value of educating employees on the right topics.

The report can be downloaded from the company’s website.

Most companies are using compliance training to teach employees about respect, ethical behavior and legal requirements. Yet companies continue to make headlines for bad employee behavior, NAVEX Global says on its website.

In the 2017 Ethics & Compliance Training Benchmark, NAVEX Global collaborated with an independent research firm to deliver data that answers questions like:

• What are the typical employment law training courses provided?
• What issues threaten training effectiveness?
• How are organizations aligning training with risk?
• How often, and on what topics, are boards training on?

The report also gives guidance on rigorous methods to use such as maximizing data from hotlines, measuring changes to behavior and more.

Download the report.

The case of Donald Zarda, a skydiver who claimed his employer, Altitude, violated Title VII when it fired him after finding out he was gay, illustrates how the U.S. Department of Justice and the Equal Opportunity Commission can sometimes operate at cross purposes in litigation.

According to a Reuters report, the EEOC, an independent federal agency, is representing Zarda’s estate against the former employer. At the same time, the DOJ has filed its own amicus brief, explicitly disavowing the EEOC’s stance.

Alison Frankel writes that the brief “argued primarily that the EEOC and the 7th Circuit, which adopted the agency’s reasoning in its en banc opinion last April in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, disregarded the actual language of the statute and misread Supreme Court precedent on interpreting that language. According to the Justice Department, it’s up to Congress, not the courts, to legislate protection for gay and lesbian employees, and Congress has steadfastly refused to do so.”

Read the Reuters article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

The Bureau of Land Management has announced its recommendation that the hydraulic fracturing rule from 2015 entitled, “Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands,” be rescinded, reports Fox Rothschild in its Energy Law Today blog.

Melissa J. Lyon explains that in 2015 the BLM had issued regulations that attempted to regulate oil and gas development on federal and tribal lands by focusing on wellbore construction, chemical disclosures and water management.

But litigation kept the final rule from going into effect. Then U.S. District Court Judge Skavdahl ruled that the BLM does not have the authority to enforce the 2015 hydraulic fracturing rule.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

The use of artificial intelligence technology, though still in its infancy, is gaining traction with law firms, helping to provide better outcomes for clients, faster, writes Russell Kostelak in Proskauer Rose’s Minding Your Business blog.

His article discusses the use of AI in the many phases of contract review: contract creation, contract analysis, and contract due diligence.

“While many law firms rely on templates for initial drafts of a contract, there is no one-size-fits-all template for the intricacies of each situation. AI systems can scan a law firm’s contract library and generate spreadsheet reports sorting and categorizing the underlying data within the contract library,” writes Kostelak.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

A non-competition agreement raises state-law public policy concerns. As a result, states often restrict the scope of non-competition agreements before they will enforce them, warns Mark Koogler in Porter Wright Morris & Arthur’s Federal Securities Law Source.

“Most jurisdictions disfavor non-competition agreements as a matter of public policy because they view such agreements as a restraint of trade,” writes Koogler. “Broader language places a heavier burden on the employer to justify the restrictions whereas narrowly tailoring the language of a non-competition agreement reduces the risk that a court will construe the agreement to unnecessarily restrain trade.”

Koogler writes about the importance of balancing the interests of the employer and employee.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Image by NY Photographic

Executives and other high-level employees often negotiate a contractual provision requiring the payment of severance if terminated without “Cause” prior to the expiration of a term agreement, points out Bill Wortel in Bryan Cave’s At Work blog.

“Too often, employers limit the definition of Cause to intentional misconduct that harms the company, criminal behavior, or the executive’s death. Such a narrow definition ties the employer’s hands when an executive is not making a good-faith effort to perform well or is performing very poorly despite reasonable efforts,” Wortel writes.

He advises that the agreement should include a definition of cause that provides the company with flexibility to terminate an executive for legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Jared Butcher, writing in the Steptoe Blockchain Blog, suggest three tools to address smart contract risks: (1) cybersecurity insurance policies, (2) indemnification agreements with outside vendors, and (3) “make whole” agreements among the smart contract parties themselves.

He writes that insurers, vendors, and other contract parties can provide the best source of indemnification, assuming that the proper contractual arrangements are put in place.

Under the heading of cybersecurity insurance policies, he writes:

“One issue worthy of particular attention is the employee exclusion. These exclusions in the policy language should be scrutinized to determine the level of coverage for losses caused by employee errors, which are likely to be a significant source of risk in a smart contract system.”

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

A Bressler, Amery & Ross lawyer representing Wells Fargo, responding to a third party subpoena in a case between two financial advisors, produced documents without redaction or confidentiality designations that revealed “billions of dollars of client account information, from residents of numerous states and possibly Europe.”

Above the Law describes how the mistake got worse: “To compound the issue, [the lawyer] alleges that plaintiffs showed the documents — which, remember, weren’t protected by a confidentiality agreement — to the New York Times, which then wrote about the consumer information that was produced. All in all, an incredibly messy affair.”

Kathryn Rubino writes that a broadly worded confidentiality agreement could have mitigated the damage.

Read the Above the Law article.

A former Fiat Chrysler executive has been charged with looting a training center for blue-collar workers by giving $1.2 million through a variety of ways to a UAW leader, his wife and other senior union officials, according to an Associated Press report.

The ex-exective is Al Iacobelli, who was indicted in an alleged conspiracy involving the late United Auto Workers vice president General Holiefield and Holiefield’s widow, Monica Morgan.

“The indictment describes a multiyear scheme to reward Holiefield and Morgan with first-class travel, designer clothing and jewelry. A $262,000 mortgage on their home in suburban Detroit was paid off, according to the grand jury,” write Ed White and Tom Krisher. “Iacobelli treated himself to more than $350,000 for a Ferrari, the government alleged.”

Read the AP article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Image by OversightandReform

A defense lawyer says former pharmaceutical CEO Martin Shkreli would lose a $65 million stake in a drug company he founded if he’s convicted at his securities fraud trial, reports the Associated Press through ABC News.

The lawyer told jurors that a drug company official who testified against Shkreli was biased because the company would benefit financially if Shkreli is convicted of a felony.

“Shkreli is best known for raising the price of a life-saving drug by 5,000 percent and trolling his critics,” the AP reports.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

By Stephen F. Pinson
Scott & Scott

More and more businesses are considering accessing hosted software rather than purchasing on-premise software. They are also placing data in third-party public or private clouds instead of selecting on-premise software. This article will explain the key considerations and contractual provisions when deciding to utilize a hosted software cloud solution versus On-premise software solutions.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Strategic Considerations
Using hosted software in the cloud allows for greater flexibility such as: allowing a business to access its information from any location, and not having the initial outlay of capital to purchase servers and other infrastructure when implementing the software’s use. This is a significant departure from on-premise software, which often requires substantial infrastructure investment, and can only be accessed from the device the software installed.

2. Financial Considerations
Cost Savings
Most businesses switch to the cloud because of the belief in inherent cost savings. However, in the long run, switching to the cloud will not always result in savings. Cloud infrastructure costs money, and the business will be the one that bears the costs, usually in a monthly subscription, instead of a yearly license fee.

Return on Investment – Moving from CapEx to OpEx
On-premise software products and hardware infrastructure are generally considered capital expenditures, while subscriptions to cloud software are typically classified as operating expenses. It is important to consult with tax professionals to ensure there are no unintended consequences from making the switch from on-premise to hosed software products.

Infrastructure investments / upgrades
Generally, on-premise software requires purchase of hardware or use of infrastructure that is already in place. On the other hand, moving to the cloud may require an investment in upgraded devices or equipment to maximize the value of the hosted solutions.

Cost to implement or migrate. When moving from on-premise to the cloud, there can be significant implementation or migration costs. Companies may not adequately consider the costs related to migrating data to the hosting or storage providers. The number of man hours required to successfully migrate can be significant and costly. Accordingly, the scope and complexity of the migration is an important consideration when negotiating a contract.

3. Operational Considerations
Outsourcing activities
Using the cloud can pave the way to outsourcing non-core operations. On the other hand, on-premise software may require more sophisticated security credentials currently in place, whereas the cloud application may reduce that need.

Support
On-premise software generally requires maintenance and support along with support levels and support times. These generally are limited to business hours, and come with increased costs for after-hours support. When using the cloud, maintenance and support are included as part of the package, and are generally included as a 24/7/365 service.

4. Technical Considerations
Infrastructure
To use on-premise software, companies must procure appropriate hardware. For cloud solutions, the cloud vendor provides the hardware, infrastructure and applications for the software to work, but that does not mean that there is no investment by the end user to the software. The end users may need to upgrade devices and security plug-ins. They also may need to expand firewalls to cope with the additional internet traffic. Internet providers may need to provide more bandwidth.

Location and Ownership of the data
There is little question as to where data will be stored and who will own the data when using on-premise software – the customer owns the data. However, when using cloud solutions, the location and ownership of the data may become unclear. A business wants to own its data and not let it be used for research or statistical purposes, particularly by its competitors. Additionally, many businesses want or need the data to be stored in the nation where they are located or where they are doing business, and not some remote or foreign locations.

5. Security, Backup, & Privacy Considerations
Security
When using cloud or on-premise software security is important. On-premise software provides a level of security that is implemented through patches and updates to the software. Cloud providers can hand off their hosting and security to a third party provider, which can compound security risks. It is critical to understand and document who bears the risks of a security incident in the event of a security incident.

Backup
For on-premise software, the backup is left to the business user. For cloud, the cloud provider generally provides the backup for certain intervals of time, which is generally contracted for by agreement. It’s important to have a backup schedule with redundant backups when contracting with a cloud provider, as well as a general understanding of what information is purged from the system.

Privacy
For on-premise software, privacy is generally not a concern, because the software is part of the business infrastructure. However, in a cloud implementation, privacy issues become a major concern because business information is sent over the internet which can be intercepted by hackers. Understanding how the cloud provider protects your privacy is always important.Accordingly, below is a list of key contractual provisions that are critical when deciding to utilize hosted software in the cloud vs. on-premise software.

KEY CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS

1. Strategic Considerations
It is critical to clearly identify the requirements for companies that will host software applications or store the business’ data. For flexibility, it is also important to evaluate whether traditional on-premise license metrics will be appropriate for any hosted software solutions. Generally, it is its best practice to negotiate the number of users rather than the number of devices when negotiating a cloud deal for maximum use. A user can use several devices at once, and being charged for each device would be costly to the business.

2. Financial Considerations
To be sure fees are controlled when deciding on utilizing an on-premise solution versus a hosted software solution, the business should calculate the cost of both on-premise licenses along with maintenance and support and compare the costs to the total amount required to subscribe to the hosted version of the software solution. If the costs are relatively the same, then capping the monthly cloud subscription every year would be wise to keep costs in line. Additionally, it’s important to negotiate infrastructure upgrades and implementation and migration costs to the cloud or to any subsequent provider.

3. Operational Considerations
It is important to negotiate who will have access to the cloud and what administrative rights will be assessed to each user. Additionally, its best practice to negotiate the support levels when using cloud, and any service credits for failure to implement the service.

4. Technical Considerations
When negotiating a cloud deal, companies should understand and document ownership of the data, allowable uses of the data (even in aggregated form) by the cloud provider, and locations where the data may be stored.

5. Security, Backup, & Privacy Considerations

For security, it is a best practice to include security protocols in the contract and to successfully negotiate a reasonable limitation of liability for security incidents, back-up failures, or privacy incidents. In these scenarios, the limitation of liability may include a carve-out, or a super-cap to handle the increased risks involved. For backups, it is always important to contract with the cloud provider the specific backup procedures, protocols, and backup intervals required by the business. Additionally, it is important to include in the contract security reports or audits for the business to ensure that the cloud provider is following those contractual obligations. Lastly, for privacy, it is always important for the business to include privacy language and protocols for incident response. Specifically, when an incident occurs, the business should require the vendor to notify the business immediately of any privacy or security incidents. Lastly, it’s always best to negotiate the appropriate levels of insurance for provisions dealing with these topics.

When switching from on-premise software to a hosted software cloud solution, there are numerous business issues to consider. Having a plan when switching to a hosted software cloud provider is crucial to a business’ success. Given the risks, it is increasingly important to seek advice from experienced counsel when negotiating contracts like these to make sure the risks are adequately assessed and each party’s interests are protected.

It was a mistake and a bad one. In responding to a subpoena for information, a lawyer for Wells Fargo inadvertently sent the opposing attorney in a lawsuit a disc filled with confidential information, including Social Security numbers, for 50,000 of the bank’s wealthiest clients, according to a post on the website of Androvett Legal Media & Marketing. This embarrassing and damaging error came to light in a New York Times article.

Telling the media is not the appropriate way to handle such a transgression, says Houston trial lawyer John Zavitsanos of Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. or AZA, who has tried more than 75 cases to verdict. Normally, the recipient of the material would return it to the sender, understanding that mistakes like this happen sometimes, he said.

“Instead, this may boomerang on the people who publicized the breach, and they may get in trouble for it. Most judges are human beings and understand mistakes – and they don’t like gotchas.

“Also, many states have snapback procedures whereby if you inadvertently turn over privileged information, you can retrieve it and say it was inadvertently produced. Until that privilege is determined, the receiving party can’t hold onto it. There are a slew of states that have provisions like that. And even if this involved a state without a snapback rule, the other side can file a motion to protect their confidential information.

“Of course, if Wells Fargo is unsuccessful in retrieving the information, its law firm may be subject to claims and penalties. Usually you come up with a set of protocols to prevent this from happening. However, every lawyer with an active litigation practice has produced something in error at some point. You call the other side and ask them to return it. We’ve all been there.”

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Privacy impacts the daily lives of people like never before, including how their information is treated and protected by the companies in which they place trust for business. In recognition of the growing importance of privacy and data protection law and compliance, the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) has dedicated the summer 2017 edition of its Defense Counsel Journal (DCJ) to the exploration of privacy issues.

The summer issue is the first half of the IADC’s “Privacy Project V” publication. The second half will be published as the fall 2017 issue of the DCJ. The current issue is available for free and without a subscription via the IADC’s website.

In the current issue, IADC members write about a variety of privacy topics from a global perspective. Frequently and favorably cited by courts and other legal scholarship, the DCJ is a quarterly forum for topical and scholarly writings on the law, including its development and reform, as well as on the practice of law in general. The IADC is a 2,500-member, invitation-only, worldwide organization that serves its members and their clients, as well as the civil justice system and the legal profession.

“We are reminded in our daily lives of the importance of privacy – particularly in matters or with business impacted by social media, e-discovery, text messaging and instant messaging,” said Eve B. Masinter, co-chair of the IADC’s Privacy Project V Editorial Board and a partner with Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L.L.P., in New Orleans. “Privacy must be protected worldwide by our constitutions and laws.”

According to the Pew Research Center, 91 percent of adults agree or strongly agree that consumers have lost control of how personal information is collected and used by companies, and technology experts believe most individuals will not have the energy or resources to protect themselves from “dataveillance” in the coming years.

S. Gordon McKee, also co-chair of the IADC’s Privacy Project V Editorial Board and a partner with Blake, Cassels & Graydon, LLP, in Toronto, added, “It is critical that attorneys, who are increasingly giving advice on the balance between privacy and other rights and interests, remain engaged and informed on the latest developments and insights that impact this developing area of the law.”

The IADC’s Privacy Project is dedicated to the memory of Joan Fullam Irick, the IADC’s first female president, who made the issue of corporate and personal privacy a key theme for her administration.

The first half of the “Privacy Project V” issue of the DCJ includes the following articles:

– “The Era of the Internet of Things: Can Product Liability Laws Keep Up?” – Explores the need to reexamine traditional product liability theories amid the proliferation of wireless connected devices.

– “Follow the Audit Trail: The Impact of Metadata in Litigation” – Discusses the importance of practitioners making a conscious effort early in every case to determine whether discoverable electronic data and, particularly, metadata exist, assess whether it is relevant to the pertinent issues, and ensure its preservation.

– “Standing in the Midst of a Data Breach Class Action” – Focuses on class-action litigation following a cyber attack, and what is often corporate counsel’s first best chance to dispose of these cases by challenging plaintiffs’ standing.

– “Connected Cars and Automated Driving: Privacy Challenges on Wheels” – Explores privacy and data protection in the realm of connected cars.

– “The French Blocking Statute and Cross-Border Discovery” – Reviews the so-called “French blocking statute” and attempts to reform it, and how it – along with data protection and privacy laws – constitutes another hurdle for the transfer of certain information from the French jurisdiction to the United States.

– “Did You Really Send It? Email Evidence in Litigation and Arbitration in Argentina” – Analyzes the state of electronic evidence in Argentina and the need for additional measures.

– “Zones of Privacy: How Private?” – Discusses the constitutional and legal implications engendered by the collision between the right to individual privacy and the exercise of the state’s police power pursuant to the demands of public interest and state security under Philippine law.

– “Busting the Black Box: Big Data Employment and Privacy” – Provides examples of the impact that big data can have in the workplace and the related compliance concerns.

– “EU Data Protection and the Conflict of Laws: The Usual “Bag of Tricks” or a Fight Against the Evasion of the Law?” – Examines to what extent the principles developed by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union still apply under the General Data Protection Regulation and, if so, to what extent they can still be used as a source of inspiration in resolving data protection questions.

– “Shots Fired – A Rational Assessment of Mass Shootings, The Alleged Participation of the Mentally Ill, and an Impaired Right of Privacy” – Advocates for removal of the barriers preventing data collection and analysis, particularly with states abandoning conceal-carry permit requirements and as terrorists migrate to using cars and alternative means to carry out their plans.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Buchalter announces that Andrew “Andy” Selesnick, Damaris L. Medina, and Suzanne Cate Jones have joined as shareholders in the Health Care Practice Group in Los Angeles. Selesnick and Medina joined the firm from Nixon Peabody, and Jones joined from Theodora Oringher.

A release from the firm continues:

Selesnick and Medina have successfully litigated a number of high-profile health care cases, many in the health care reimbursement arena. Their clients range from physicians and physician groups to hospitals and urgent care centers, pharmacies, dentists, and elective surgery centers. Selesnick and Medina also defend providers in government investigations for fraud and abuse, and routinely represent health care providers in complex business disputes. Both Selesnick and Medina were recipients of a California Lawyer of the Year (“CLAY”) award earlier this year for their California Supreme Court victory in Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 994 where they successfully argued that Health Plans may be liable to providers of emergency services for negligently delegating their financial responsibility to IPAs.

Jones regularly advises and represents hospitals, medical staffs, and health systems in litigation involving a range of health care areas, including medical staff and peer review, antitrust, medical privacy/security breach, complex business and commercial contracting disputes, health regulatory issues, business torts, and the Federal False Claims Act. Jones also has successfully litigated and resolved health care related class action matters on behalf of hospital clients, including in the areas of medical privacy/security breach and unfair business practices, and is experienced in defending other types of putative class action lawsuits brought against corporate clients, including in the areas of wage/hour, consumer credit reporting, product liability and antitrust.

“Expanding our Health Care Practice is, and has been a priority for our firm. Andy, Damaris, and Suzanne are not only well-known and accomplished litigators, but also valuable assets to both our Health Care and Litigation Practices,” said Adam J. Bass, President and Chief Executive Officer of Buchalter.

Selesnick is currently a member of the California Society for Healthcare Attorneys, Health Care Law Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and the American Cancer Society Race for the Cure. He earned his J.D., at the University of San Diego School of Law, and his B.A. at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Medina serves as the Treasurer and on the Board of Directors for the Urgent Care Association of America, serves on the Board for the California Urgent Care Association, and is a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, Health Care Law Section, and the California Society for Health Care Attorneys. She earned her J.D., cum laude, at Suffolk University Law School where she earned a certificate in International Law, with distinction, and was also a member of Phi Delta Phi International Legal Honor Society. She earned her B.A. from Tufts University.

Jones has served on the board of the Health Law Committee for the California State Bar. She is also a member of the American Health Lawyers Association; American Bar Association, Health Law Group; and the Los Angeles County Bar Association, Litigation, and Health Care Law Sections. She earned her J.D. from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles where she was an editor of the International and Comparative Law Journal, her B.A. in History, Certificate in Russian Studies from the University of Southern California, and completed Russian Studies at the Pushkin Institute in Moscow, Russia.

“The addition of Andy, Damaris, and Suzanne is very complimentary to the transactional health care and life sciences work we are known for,” added Carol Lucas, Chair of Buchalter’s Health Care Practice Group. “We are thrilled to welcome the newest members of our team, and delighted to offer their impressive capabilities to our clients.”

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Matthew J. O’Hara has joined Freeborn & Peters LLP as a partner in the Litigation Practice Group.

“We are thrilled to welcome Matt to our vibrant Litigation Practice Group,” said Freeborn’s Co-Managing Partner Michael J. Kelly. “Matt brings deep experience as a trial lawyer in diverse commercial matters, particularly involving securities, shareholder and partnership litigation, and the full range of business disputes. Matt also brings substantial experience in professional liability matters for law firms, including legal malpractice, legal ethics, and disciplinary defense.”

A release from the firm continues:

O’Hara concentrates his litigation practice in complex commercial matters in federal and state courts. He has tried cases involving antitrust, the federal securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, trade secrets, trademark infringement, breach of contract, license agreements, executive employment, the Uniform Commercial Code and criminal defense. He also litigates cases involving private shareholder and partnership disputes, legal malpractice, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and other commercial matters. He has represented clients in investigative proceedings before the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. He also is experienced in briefing and arguing state and federal appeals.

O’Hara most recently was a partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, where he served as a member of the Executive Committee and as co-chair of the Lawyers Professional Liability practice group.

Active in providing pro bono legal services, O’Hara was one of the recipients of the Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago’s Bill of Rights in Action Award in 2008. He earned his J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law and his Bachelor of Arts from Northwestern University.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Michael Best announces that Steven J. Joffee has joined the firm’s Litigation Practice Group as senior counsel in the Salt Lake City – Midvale office.

“Steven is a respected trial attorney in and around the Salt Lake City region and will bring a wealth of knowledge and appellate experience to our litigation group,” said Richard Ensor, Michael Best’s Office Managing Partner in Salt Lake City. “He joins a team who is passionate about the work and their clients. I’m confident he’ll be a great fit for the firm.”

A release from the firm continues:

Joffee focuses his practice on representing clients in various matters in front of state and federal trial and appellate courts. He has substantial experience litigating matters in a variety of substantive areas, including civil and commercial disputes, product liability, contract disputes, eminent domain, employment issues, and personal injury. He has successfully represented clients in numerous jury trials and appeals, including in appeals before the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“I’m excited to have made the move to Michael Best,” said Joffee. “The firm is recognized for its stellar litigation work, and I hope I’ll be able to elevate its presence through exceptional counsel and service to our clients.”

Joffee began his career clerking for Chief Justice Matthew Durrant of the Utah Supreme Court and for Judge Scott Matheson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Following his clerkships, Joffee worked at the Washington, D.C. office of an international, full service, AmLaw “A-List” law firm, and later as a partner at a litigation and corporate law boutique in Salt Lake City.

Joffee earned his J.D. from the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, where he was executive editor of the Utah Law Review, and he received his B.S. from Brigham Young University.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Blank Rome LLP announces that Laura Reathaford has joined the firm as a partner in the Labor and Employment group in the Los Angeles office. She joins from Venable LLP.

In a news release, the firm said Reathaford focuses her practice on management-side employment litigation, with special emphasis on representative actions under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) and other wage and hour collective and class actions. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. The act represents a significant threat to California employers and is in a constant state of change, requiring the most experienced, creative defense counsel.

“We are very excited to welcome Laura to the Firm,” said Alan J. Hoffman, Blank Rome’s Chairman and Managing Partner. “Laura is well known to our labor and employment team for her leadership in the defense of wage and hour claims, especially claims brought under PAGA. She brings considerable strength to this essential labor and employment capability in California, and adds equally considerable strength more broadly across the spectrum of defense-side labor and employment law for our clients across the country.”

The release continues:

Reathaford is a distinguished litigator across the full range of employment disputes, including claims for wrongful termination, sexual harassment, unpaid wages, discrimination, and union grievances. She is also an experienced trial attorney having achieved favorable judgments in numerous PAGA actions, as well as FLSA actions and in single plaintiff retaliation matters. In addition to high-stakes litigation, Reathaford counsels clients on termination issues, employee handbooks, leave and disability rules, and California and federal wage and hour laws. She represents the management of public and private businesses in the manufacturing and grocery industries, as well as in banking, healthcare, and telecommunications, both in California and nationwide.

“Still a relatively new law, PAGA is constantly evolving and our clients in California need the most experienced counsel to respond creatively and effectively to a rapidly increasing number of claims,” said Scott F. Cooper, Partner and Co-Chair of the Firm’s Labor and Employment practice. “Just recently, the California Supreme Court approved class-action like discovery of employee contact information in representative PAGA cases. Laura has been ahead of the curve on PAGA since the beginning. And as we field a growing number of calls from clients regarding PAGA, they will quickly see the benefits of having Laura join our team.”

“The labor and employment group at Blank Rome offers clients an exceptional depth and breadth of talent that I am excited to join and help grow,” said Reathaford. “I also look forward to once again collaborating with Partner Howard M. Knee, with whom I have worked before, as well as contributing high-level client service and legal practice to the Firm as it continues to expand both locally and nationally.”

“Laura will be a tremendous resource to the Firm’s ongoing commitment to diversity and inclusion, particularly with regards to our Women’s Forum,” adds Brooke T. Iley, Partner and Co-Chair of the Firm’s Labor and Employment practice. “Her previous role and experience in leading women’s diversity initiatives at Venable will be instrumental in advancing not only Blank Rome’s affinity groups, but also our firm’s efforts in diversifying the legal profession at large. I am excited for the new insights that she will bring to the table, which will greatly benefit both our clients and Firm.”

Reathaford earned her J.D. from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and B.Comm. from the University of Alberta.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Corporate legal departments can and do pay top-dollar figures to lure lawyers away from partnerships that pay millions of dollars, reports Bloomberg Law.

Apple Inc.’s general counsel/senior vice president Bruce Sewell leads the list of top-paid corporate legal officers with total compensation of $22.8 million, according to Bloomberg’s research on the 500 largest U.S. companies, ranked by revenue.

“Often enough, the lawyers who choose to accept top positions in-house must forgo high salaries and take other forms of compensation — onetime bonuses, rich stock or option grants, generous pension plans, and other perks such as access to a company car or money for expensive real estate, according to a Big Law Business review of proxy statements,” writes Gabe Friedman.

Read the Bloomberg article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

St. Louis has been a destination of choice for attorneys going after companies that do business nationwide. But those days may be over, and drugmakers such as Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Johnson & Johnson couldn’t be more relieved, according to Bloomberg Law.

After the U.S. Supreme Court in June struck a blow against so-called litigation tourism, the fallout in St. Louis was quick. “Within days, J&J, citing the Supreme Court ruling, won a mistrial in a case in which the families of three women blamed their deaths from ovarian cancer on use of the company’s talc products. Two of the families were from out of state,” report Bloomberg’s Margaret Cronin Fisk and Jef Feeley.

The reporters predict more challenges to come in St. Louis, where many non-resident plaintiffs have been flocking for years.

Read the Bloomberg article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group