Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>Daubert </i>Tool Lets Lawyers Track History of Experts
Expert testimony can be the linchpin that makes or breaks a case. But lawyers have had a tougher time getting that testimony admitted since 1993, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals that scientific testimony must be not only relevant, but reliable. In 1999's Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, the Court extended that rule to all experts.
This means that a lawyer preparing to qualify or challenge an expert at trial must answer a number of questions. What is the state of the case law under Daubert? How has the particular court or judge applied the rule? How have courts ruled on this type of expertise? Has this expert ever come before a judge?
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.