A contract is a form of communication that a diverse audience will read and use, writes Julie Brook in the CEB Blog of the Continuing Education of the Bar – California.

She cautions that lawyers who focus strictly on the legal terms and not on their word usage may find that style got in the way of substance.

She discusses and offers advice on five writing tips that can apply to any type of contract: don’t use legalese, avoid ambiguity, don’t use sexist language, use consistent terminolog, and avoid redundancy.

Read the article.

Bank of America’s top lawyer isn’t the only in-house attorney expressing displeasure with associate salary raises announced recently by BigLaw firms and boutiques, reports Sara Randazzo of The Wall Street Journal. She says other general counsel are sending letters to their outside law firms, warning them of the potential for relationship problems if they join in the pay hikes.

The report quotes a letter Allstate Corp.’s general counsel, Susan Lees, sent to some law firms, challenging the logic of paying first-year associates $180,000.

“[O]ne must question the merits of a business model that compensates fresh law school graduates, who are devoid of any meaningful lawyering experience, with a salary greater than that of a seasoned in-house corporate attorney with a decade or more of experience counseling senior leaders in our organization,” states Ms. Lees’s letter, which was reviewed by Law Blog.

Read the article.

Image by Michel Curi

Hillary Clinton has bashed her probable eventual opponent Donald Trump for having led four companies into bankruptcy. But she was wrong, reports Tom Winter of NBC News: Trump actually has six bankruptcies on his record.

Those business failures include five casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and a Manhattan hotel, he writes.

“Some may be referring to the three 1992 filings as a single bankruptcy; two of them were even filed on the same day. Or they may be lumping the three 1990s casino bankruptcies together,” Winter explains.

Read the article.

USA Today is reporting that German automaker Volkswagen Group is expected to deliver a $10 billion settlement to cover government fines and compensate owners of vehicles fitted with software that cheated emissions standards.

The newspaper cited reports by Bloomberg and the Associated Press saying Volkswagen’s deal, which is due to be filed in a federal court by Tuesday, includes payments of up to $7,000 to owners of vehicles affected by the scandal.

“The settlement has a provision to remove any VW diesel vehicle with a 2-liter engine that hasn’t been brought into compliance, said Elizabeth Cabraser, the court-appointed lead counsel for the plaintiff’s steering committee. Either they will have to be modified or VW will buy them back.” USA Today reports.

Read the article.

Every word matters in a contract and this is as true in Chinese as it is in any language, writes Dan Harris on Harris & Moure‘s China Law Blog.

“Words have very particularized meanings in contracts and those meanings are sometimes different in a contract than in real life. Contracts also have terms that have become recognized and defined over time,” he writes in the article. “The only people who can truly know how to use these specialized and particular words and terms are lawyers who know both China’s contract laws and who are completely fluent in written and spoken Chinese. On top of this, it is critical that the Chinese version explicitly reflect our client’s goals. To put it another way, we pretty much never see a ‘translated’ contract that works as intended.”

He explains the importance of having a judge or arbitrator being able to understand the Chinese language contract in the context of Chinese law.

Read the article.

By Jose Tabuena, JD, CFE, CHC

In continuation of the discussion of compliance program “effectiveness” and the challenges of metrics and measurement, is the concept of benchmarking — an oft misunderstood term. Simply put, it is the process of comparing one’s own business processes and performance to industry standards and peers to determine a relative degree of success.

Occasionally one can still find reference to a board director or company executive stating, “We decided to “benchmark” our compliance program, but actually meaning, “We brought in a consultant who linked the elements of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to our program, gave us a grade, and then talked to us about what’s going well and what could be improved.”

Although we don’t need to get tied up in the semantics, it is important to keep distinct benchmarking from other processes involved in a program evaluation. Benchmarking is a discrete process from the assessment or audit of the effectiveness of a compliance program. While benchmarking can be part of a program evaluation, by itself it does not comprise an evaluation and determination of effectiveness. It does, however, enable organizations to develop plans on how to make improvements or adapt identified leading-edge practices, usually with the aim of increasing some aspect of performance.

Benchmarking already seems to be an implicit feature of a program evaluation, whether conducted by a prosecutor in deciding if a company’s compliance program is so deficient that criminal prosecution may be appropriate, or performed internally when a board direct asks how the company program compares to competitors. In the event of a compliance failure, government investigators are said to compare the organization’s compliance program to those of similar organizations (in terms of size, complexity, industry, geographic footprint, etc.). Companies whose programs are not comparable to those of their peers are more likely to be found ineffective and could be subject to harsher penalties.

Recent developments, including the Department of Justice creating a new position and hiring a compliance counsel, suggests that government authorities will be looking more closely at compliance programs not only to see if they actually exist or meet minimum standards, but whether they are closer to better practices. The charge of the new compliance counsel includes assisting prosecutors in establishing appropriate benchmarks for corporate compliance. According to the DoJ section chief, this means “benchmarking with various companies in a variety of different industries to make sure we have realistic expectations … and tough-but-fair ones in various industries.” This trend of the government to provide more guidance has continued with the DoJ stating it plans to release a set sample questions to give companies an idea what investigators and prosecutors are concerned with.

Types of program benchmarking

Compliance professionals and auditors should monitor this promised guidance from the Justice Department’s Fraud Division on how it proposes to evaluate the existence and effectiveness of individual corporate compliance plans. A recent and detailed “open letter” to the DoJ’s new compliance counsel (published in the Harvard Business Law Review) serves in part to provide recommendations on how the Department should implement this goal of establishing industry-specific benchmarks by which individual programs may be evaluated.

As described in the open letter, some of the principal categories of business benchmarking to consider include:

External benchmarking. This involves analyzing “best in class” outside organizations, providing the opportunity to learn from those perceived to be at the leading edge. This is the type that probably comes most readily to mind, and seems the most intuitively appealing—why not learn from the best? But three caveats are in order.

While benchmarking can be part of a program evaluation, by itself it does not comprise an evaluation and determination of effectiveness. It does, however, enable organizations to develop plans on how to make improvements or adapt identified leading-edge practices.

First, this type of benchmarking can involve implicit decisions about what makes certain organizations best-in-class for certain corporate compliance functions. This is an area of uncertainty, though promising empirical studies are emerging. What works (or what works best) is still not fully known.

Second, the DoJ’s own experiences with corporate investigations have revealed that companies with a general best-in-class reputation (in terms of size or profitability) can still have significant deficiencies in their compliance programs.

Third, solutions that work effectively for very large companies may not be practicable for smaller companies that cannot afford the necessary resources or technology to implement them.

Internal benchmarking. This entails benchmarking businesses or operations from within the same organization (e.g., business units in different countries). At first blush, this type of benchmarking may not seem worthwhile. If a compliance program is found deficient in one business unit within a company, examining how that program works in other business units of that company might seem pointless. However, companies have discovered that in examining a particular process across the organization, they may find significant variations between units or product lines. Such variations can help identify flaws the company should fix or enhancements the company should adopt, and determine whether ongoing monitoring is necessary.

Performance benchmarking. This looks at performance characteristics in relation to key products and services in the same sector. Although the DoJ does not set production performance standards—for example, how many units per hour should be produced—it could use performance benchmarking to identify features of compliance programs that yield quantitatively measurable results. One example would be aboveaverage detection of instances of potential misconduct or numbers of corruption-related Suspicious Activity Reports. In healthcare, this could entail the frequency and accuracy of regular audits of billing and coding processes to ensure that medical services were billed and paid correctly given the scrutiny of government reimbursement.

Strategic benchmarking. This involves examining long-term strategies, for example regarding core competencies, new product, and service development, or improving capabilities for dealing with change. Standard components of compliance programs, such as risk assessment processes and cultural assessment, may come to mind here. The methodology could include strategic approaches for companies developing or improving compliance programs.

Here again the auditor can bring his or her toolbox to assist the compliance professional in benchmarking the program. Methodologies and techniques for benchmarking comprise the evaluative approaches the audit profession has used for systematic program evaluation. The audit practitioner could apply rigorous approaches such as maturity and internal control reliability models with different levels of effectiveness when benchmarking the compliance program.

A feature ideal for benchmarking is assessment of whether the compliance officer has the appropriate autonomy and resources to oversee the compliance program. Because what constitutes appropriate autonomy and resources can vary widely for smaller and larger companies, the general standard and guidance is too general and laden with contingency. For instance, a single paragraph in the FCPA Resource Guide states multiple times that the degree of autonomy and extent of resources devoted to the program will “depend” on circumstances.

Benchmarking on autonomy and resources would be more useful if it concentrates on identifying examples of suitable practices to ensure sufficient oversight, autonomy, and resources in companies of different sizes. For example, while a number of large companies have now separated their risk and compliance functions from their legal departments, smaller companies may need to decide whether and how they can leverage their compliance or legal departments (whichever is currently in place) to be effective overseers of risk and compliance wearing dual hats. Ideally what may emerge is the ability to identify percentage data that could be useful for companies of various sizes. For example, “We found that companies with annual revenues of less than $50 million, those companies that appeared to have effective compliance programs typically devoted between A and B percent of their annual budgets, while companies with annual revenues of $500 million or more appeared to have effective compliance programs typically devoted between C and D percent of their annual budgets.”

Another component for benchmarking is the compliance hotline. Auditors can benchmark the company’s hotline data to the vendor’s other customers of a similar size and industry, or to another credible external source. If you are only getting a fraction of the industry average number of complaints, there may be problems with the training and communications program. Further analysis can show whether the variance in hotline data (volume, incident mix, use of anonymity) is local or pervasive.

Considering the old adage of the usefulness of measuring call volume, benchmarking can help auditors assess if low volume is indicative of particular issues with the hotline process, by comparing call volume to industry averages. A low call volume can instead be due to employees using other methods to report potential wrongdoing. Before benchmarking your hotline, consider aggregating data from each reporting method to allow for such differences.

Benchmarking adds another piece to the puzzle of evaluating program effectiveness. Compliance officers themselves do not always know what works in compliance. For instance, it is difficult, if not impossible, to show whether an investment in additional training will make a meaningful difference in employee behavior, or whether one form of compliance infrastructure is better than another, or what the right level of staffing or resource allocation is for a particular compliance department.

If compliance officers cannot answer these questions definitively, there is good reason to suppose that generalist prosecutors who are not embedded in the day-to-day operation of the subject organization cannot precisely answer them either. At a minimum there is value in better understanding what practices are in place and how your organization compare.

All these developments suggest that the DOJ will be scrutinizing compliance programs much more closely. Significantly it reveals recognition by the government of the need to be more transparent about how its decisions are made regarding prosecution and related matters while acknowledging that at the moment program evaluation needs benchmarks in order to better evaluate effectiveness and performance.

Originally published in Compliance Week

Hatmaker Law Group will present a free one-hour webinar covering new laws passed during 2016 impacting California employers and legislation pending on the horizon.

The event will be Wednesday, July 20, beginning at noon Pacific time.

The webinar also will cover notable employment law judgments and what the rulings mean for California businesses, the firm said in a release.

Register for the event.

Foley & Lardner LLP announced that Zaldwaynaka (Z) Scott has joined the firm’s Government Enforcement, Compliance & White Collar Practice as a partner in the Chicago office. The firm says she has decades of experience managing high-stakes white collar matters in both private and public sector roles, including the United States Department of Justice and the State of Illinois.

In a release, the firm said Scott, a former executive inspector general for the Office of the Governor of Illinois, is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in complex commercial litigation, corporate internal investigations, corporate compliance matters and white collar defense. Her federal and criminal litigation experience includes representing Fortune 1000 corporations, private companies and individuals in accounting and commercial fraud, public corruption, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act matters, civil tax appeals and criminal tax prosecutions, money-laundering, and investment and financial institution fraud. She has also led and represented companies in complex and extensive government regulatory and criminal grand jury investigations.

The release continues:

“We look forward to adding Z’s trial experience and internal investigation knowledge to our team. Her successful track record across complex litigation and strong proactive compliance counseling will enhance our white collar footprint,” said Lisa Noller, chair of Foley’s Government Enforcement, Compliance & White Collar Practice.

While serving as executive inspector general for the Office of the Governor of Illinois, Scott established and managed an internal compliance and investigative agency for the Illinois government and the state’s public universities. She oversaw more than 200 internal investigations of state vendors and state employees, as well as counseling members of the governor’s cabinet and state senior managers, including agency directors on issues related to personnel policies, internal controls, ethics and systemic personnel problems. In addition, Scott served as a federal criminal prosecutor with the United States Attorney’s Office, where she held various management positions, including chief of the General Crimes Section.

“Our clients will be well served by Z’s extensive experience working with various agencies across the government of Illinois on pressing issues and investigations, and we are thrilled to welcome her to our team,” said Myles Berman, managing partner of Foley’s Chicago office.

Prior to joining Foley, Scott was a partner at Kaye Scholer.

Brian P. Corrigan recently joined Farrell Fritz’s estate litigation department as a partner.

Prior to joining Farrell Fritz, Corrigan was a partner at Holland & Knight in New York, NY.

Corrigan is the vice chair of the New York State Bar Association’s Trusts and Estates Section’s Committee on Legislation; a member of the Nassau County Bar Association’s Surrogate’s Court Trust & Estate Committee; and a member of the New York City Bar Association.

Corrigan , a Garden City, NY resident, earned his Juris Doctorate from Hofstra University School of Law, where he was a Research Editor for the Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree, cum laude, from Providence College.

He is admitted to practice in New York State. He is also admitted in all State Courts in New York; the U.S. District Court for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York; the U.S. Tax Court; and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Corrigan has been selected to the 2011-2015 New York Metro Super Lawyers Rising Stars lists.

The Supreme Court has ruled against Cuozzo Speed Technologies Corp. in its challenge to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s procedures for canceling patents in a case involving a vehicle speedometer that tells drivers when they are speeding, reports Reuters.

The ruling is seen as a victory for technology companies like Apple and Google, which have used the procedures to invalidate patents they believed to be weak.

With the decision, the court validated a 2015 appeals court ruling upholding the USPTO’s invalidation of New Jersey-based Cuozzo’s speedometer patent. GPS device maker Garmin had challenged Cuozzo’s claims in that case, report Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung.

The legal question was whether the federal agency’s procedures have made it too easy to successfully cancel patents. In an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court backed the process.

Read the article.

Photo by Marc Nozell

A conservative watchdog group was temporarily blocked on Tuesday from interviewing former State Department officials under oath in what would have been the third lawsuit over Hillary Clinton’s emails to progress to that stage, The Hill is reporting.

The ruling delays Judicial Watch’s effort to interview officials as part of an open records lawsuit related to Clinton’s use of a private server for her personal email account when she was secretary of State. The judge told Judicial Watch to finish interviews in two other ongoing cases first.

“To avoid duplicative discovery and unnecessary expenditure of public funds, the court will stay this case pending the completion of discovery in those other cases,” Walton ordered.

“The ruling gives some relief to the State Department and Clinton, which have both been the subject of intense scrutiny over the bespoke email setup that the former secretary of State used throughout her time in the Obama administration,” wrote Julian Hattem.

Read the article.

Like many lawyers, Evan Kaine, a personal injury attorney in Atlanta, had seen the statistic about how 80 percent of all low-income Americans have unmet civil legal needs. To that end, he came up with the idea to set up shop in an area where most of those underrepresented people shop: local Wal-Mart stores, according to a report in the ABA Journal.

His firm, Kaine Law, has offices inside three Atlanta-area Wal-Marts. Kaine says that he opened his first Wal-Mart office in 2012 before expanding to two additional stores last year.

“Kaine says his offices are full-service, although he emphasizes that he has built up relationships with a number of other local firms that specialize in different areas of the law and often refers work to them,” says the report by Victor Li. “In fact, he estimates that he only keeps about 20 percent of the cases that come into the Wal-Mart offices. Kaine says the Wal-Mart offices operate on a fixed-fee basis and even offer a number of free services, including a basic last will and testament and notary public services.”

The article also describes another firm’s efforts in Missouri.

Read the article.

A New Hampshire court has issued a decision on the duty to defend arising from an indemnity obligation in a design contract, distinguishing between the duty to defend often invoked for insurance coverage, from a duty to defend expressed in a contractual indemnity, writes Stan Martin of Commonsense Construction Law LLC.

The court found that an engineering firm owed a duty to defend the New Hampshire town that had hired the firm to design a wastewater treatment plant, from claims arising from the design against the town made by the contractor.

Martin describes the case and the arguments made by the parties. He concludes: “An explicit contractual duty to defend against allegations of negligence or breach by the indemnitor may well be construed to require such a defense from the outset, even when parties are still arguing over ultimate liability. And an indemnitor who has not been in breach of its contract up to that point may yet breach its contract by refusing to defend when required.:

Read the article.

Kevin Perry and Joanne Elieli of of Cooley offer some insight for American general counsel on the drafting of international arbitration clauses, covering preliminary considerations and specific drafting issues.

The article is posted in the Cooley blog Cooley M&A.

The topics they discuss in the article include: consider likely nature of the dispute, should the clause cover all disputes that could arise?, should you include a dispute escalation clause? could any dispute include more than two parties? will there be any enforcement issues? choice of law issues (the contract and the arbitration), institutional or ad hoc arbitration, confidentiality, the rules to be used, the number of arbitrators, the seat/place of arbitration, and the language of the arbitration.

Read the article.

National law firm Wilson Elser announced that a national insurance coverage team of 11 attorneys has joined Wilson Elser in three offices – Chicago, Los Angeles and New Jersey.

“Like Wilson Elser, this team’s insurance coverage practice is truly national in scope and reputation,” said Daniel J. McMahon, Wilson Elser chairman. “Their addition to the practice further deepens our already strong bench of attorneys in one of the firm’s core practice areas and will provide our clients with a wealth of experience in all facets of insurance coverage and bad faith matters.”

The team – led by partners Michael Duffy, Chicago; Paul White and David Simantob, Los Angeles; and Mark Vespole, New Jersey – primarily represents insurers in coverage matters, extra-contractual liability, bad faith and reinsurance matters. They previously were with Chicago-based law firm Tressler LLP.

They work on insurance coverage issues, draft insurance policy language, and litigate coverage and bad faith cases for general and specialty lines insurance and reinsurance companies.

The 11 are:

Chicago
Michael Duffy, Partner
Ashley Conaghan, Associate
Abigail Rocap, Associate

Los Angeles
Paul White, Partner
David Simantob, Partner
Linda Tai Hoshide, Partner

New Jersey
Mark Vespole, Partner
Joanna Crosby, Partner
Kathleen Williams, Partner
Katherine Tammaro, Partner
Matthew Major, Associate

Practical Law and Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP partners Ron Whitney, Todd Sable, and Lawrence Murphy will present a free 75-minute webinar on managing risk in supply agreements.

The event will be Thursday, June 23, beginning at 1 p.m. EDT.

During this session, the presenters will discuss: risks associated with supply agreements; tools counsel can use to assist clients in managing such risks; and tips for addressing, limiting, and resolving disputes. The discussion will also highlight some of the key differences between the U.S. and Canada when it comes to supply agreements. A brief Q&A session will follow.

Presenters:
Ron Whitney, Partner, Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP
Todd Sable, Partner, Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP
Lawrence Murphy, Partner, Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP
Robert Ford, Associate Legal Editor, Practical Law Commercial Transactions (Moderator)
John Mackie, Senior Lawyer/Editor, Commercial Practice, Practical Law Canada

CLE credit is available for: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington. CLE credit is being sought for: Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia CLE credit can be self-applied for in: Florida.

The webinar also will be available on-demand.

Register for the webinar.

The Foundation of the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) has announced publication of its first “Survey of International Litigation Procedures: A Reference Guide” that offers an extensive overview of civil justice systems relevant to defendants throughout the world.

Developed through input from IADC members from around the globe, the reference guide provides overviews on the civil justice systems of 49 countries, including information about key aspects of litigation in each jurisdiction, including:

–Local methods of adjudication‎
–Alternative dispute resolution
–Discovery
–Trial procedure
–Experts
–Privilege
–Limitations
–Costs rules
–Jurisdiction
–Other topics of interest to potential litigants

“The IADC Foundation Survey of International Litigation Procedures Reference Guide is a useful tool for general counsel who want to know the key differences between U.S. and other civil justice systems and what to expect when managing litigation in a foreign jurisdiction,” said Gordon McKee, IADC Board member and a former member of the IADC Foundation Board, who was instrumental in creating the reference guide.

McKee, who also is a partner with Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, added that the reference guide is particularly noteworthy for its high-level overview and brevity in summarizing each country’s litigation procedures, processes and rules.

Publication of the Survey of International Litigation Procedures Reference Guide is an outcome of the IADC Foundation’s mission to educate the public and global legal community on issues impacting the civil justice system, provide a forum for discussion of topics critical to corporate and defense counsel, promote projects for the advancement of the legal system, and support scholarship for the continued education of defense attorneys and corporate counsel.

Download the reference guide.

About the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC)
In a news release, the association said, “The International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) is the preeminent invitation-only global legal organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance interests. Founded in 1920, the IADC’s members hail from five continents, 45 countries, and all 50 U.S. states. The core purposes of the IADC are to enhance the development of skills, promote professionalism, and facilitate camaraderie among its members, their clients, as well as the broader civil justice community.”

Partner Michelle Schulz has been named co-chair of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP’s international practice, effective immediately. She will lead the group alongside co-chair and partner Charles E. Meacham in Houston.

Since joining Gardere in December 2013, Schulz has served as co-chair of the Firm’s international trade group and has been instrumental in its success. She will continue in that role in addition to serving as co-chair of the international practice. In her new role, Schulz will work with Mr. Meacham to further integrate Gardere’s diverse international practice areas and design end-to-end solutions for international business expansion. In addition, Schulz will facilitate collaboration among the Firm’s international groups in the U.S. and Mexico on matters, including energy, infrastructure, international dispute resolution, corporate, tax, transportation and trade. She also will cultivate the Firm’s broad international network of trusted attorneys and advisors across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East.

“Having served as co-chair of Gardere’s international trade group, Michelle is well-known throughout the Firm and in the industry for both her leadership and legal expertise,” says Meacham. “Her depth of experience will be a great benefit to the international team and to its clients, and I look forward to partnering with her.”

“Charlie has been highly influential in the international practice’s ongoing success, and it is an honor to join him as a leader of this prestigious group,” says Schulz. “Gardere’s international attorneys are among the most respected in their field, and I am privileged to collaborate with this group on opportunities to further enhance our presence in the global marketplace.”

With more than 15 years of experience representing clients in international trade, including over 10 years as a founding partner of a trade boutique, Schulz provides an entrepreneurial spirit and innovative ideas for international growth. She represents Fortune 500 companies, large defense and aerospace contractors, manufacturers, and oil and gas companies in international trade compliance and enforcement matters, including U.S. government investigations, internal audits, disclosures, licensing, and counseling on international trade regulations governing exports and imports.

Reuters is reporting that former Countrywide Financial Corp CEO Angelo Mozilo and other executives will not face a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit for defrauding investors in mortgage-backed securities issued before the 2008 financial crisis, people familiar with the matter said on Friday.

The sources said the Justice Department told Mozilo and the others that they would not be the subject of a civil fraud case related to their roles at the mortgage lender in the run-up to the crisis, the sources said.

“Countrywide, at one time the nation’s top mortgage company, collapsed under the weight of soured loans and was acquired for about $4 billion by Bank of America Corp in July 2008,” wrote Reuters reporter Nate Raymond.

Read the article.

eSignLive by Vasco will present a complimentary webinar on the role authentication plays in digital transactions on Thursday, June 23, at 2 p.m. Eastern time.

Remote e-signature transactions are becoming the norm as mobile customers continue to demand service on their terms – anytime, anywhere, eSignLive says on its website. But how do you know exactly who you are transacting with? Authentication.

Authentication associates an e-signature to the person signing and ensures enforceability – so choosing the right user authentication method is important, the company says.

The session will include

• Authentication best practice and must-know tips
• Selecting the right authentication method
• Making it easy for customers
• 3rd party ID verification
• Mitigating risk

Register for the webinar.