Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Protecting the Data
In an era when identity theft causes millions of dollars in losses, many clients are properly expressing fears about disclosing their credit card numbers, checking account information, Social Security Numbers and other sensitive financial data during required financial disclosure proceedings. While some clients balk about disclosing personal financial data, other clients actually refuse to cooperate with even standard divorce disclosure proceedings. As practitioners, we have grown so accustomed to revealing sensitive financial information that we may inadvertently engage in disclosure without providing clients with appropriate safeguards. The enactment of federal legislation such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which strenuously regulates disclosure of medical records, provides an opportunity for matrimonial attorneys to reassess the security that we provide our own clients when it comes to disclosing sensitive financial information.
Tightening Internal Policies
To alleviate clients' fears, it is appropriate to develop internal policies about access to sensitive information and document maintenance and retention. Locking the cabinets containing client information and shredding financial documents that are not returned to clients at the end of a case are two minimal safeguards all practitioners should follow. Greater security is needed when we must protect the financial information transferred to our safekeeping by professionals like doctors, lawyers, accountants, financial planners or therapists and by business owners with confidential client lists and trade secrets.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?