In the wake of recent corporate governance scandals, independent directors of public companies face increased levels of scrutiny and heightened prospects for the risk of personal liability. Recent court decisions have criticized directors of public and private companies for insufficient attention to their duties. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (S-O) and the proposed corporate governance reforms of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Nasdaq Stock Market (Nasdaq) call for decisions about critical matters such as accounting policies and executive compensation to be made solely by directors who meet rigorous independence standards. In response to the ongoing tide of corporate governance reforms as well as the rising numbers of shareholder lawsuits and escalating settlement costs, insurance companies have sharply increased premiums for traditional directors' and officers' liability insurance (D&O insurance), which typically insures officers and directors as well as the company itself. At the same time, insurers have narrowed the scope of coverage of D&O insurance policies in terms of both dollar limits and the types of insured events.
Carl Kaplan and Manny RiveraIntroduction
In the wake of recent corporate governance scandals, independent directors of public companies face increased levels of scrutiny and heightened prospects for the risk of personal liability. Recent court decisions have criticized directors of public and private companies for insufficient attention to their duties.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Most firms are aiming their newest tools at the work they already do — pouring their most powerful technology into running the same tasks a little faster. But when everyone automates the same tasks at once, no one pulls ahead. That reaches the future a little faster while leaving a firm’s largest opportunity untouched — and that opportunity isn’t doing more of the existing work, but transforming how the high-value work gets done.
AI is becoming both an accelerant and a distraction for cybersecurity. In many respects, AI is acting as a stress test for existing security operations by exposing how difficult many organizations still find it to enforce basic controls consistently at scale.
Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.
AI-savvy lawyering is already something that clients are starting to demand. The technology is capable; the challenge now is cultural and organizational change.
