Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Creating the Office of Technology Counsel
It appears that the law and technology are conspiring to make life difficult for corporate counsel and IT departments. Invariably, the stresses of electronic discovery have been exacerbated by the increased demands placed on counsel through the promulgated amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Specifically, the amended rules require exponentially more information about the technical framework of a corporation at the earliest stages of litigation. The more focused or litigious corporations are quickly recognizing the need to bridge the gap between law and technology to ensure compliance with these ever-changing legal requirements and advancing technologies. This pinpoint nexus between law and technology is creating the need for an Office of Technology Counsel (OTC).
In a legal sense, this new role will become accountable for managing the flow of documents beginning at the point of the litigation hold through production, recognizing the common efficiencies between different cases. On the technology side, the OTC will guide policies around document creation, preservation and destruction to ensure protocols are defensible and documented. The person or persons leading the OTC must be grounded in the law and clearly understand the technological make-up of their company. This department will help build the legal compliance roadmap and advance the efforts of both the general counsel and IT departments in identifying and building repeatable, defensible processes for managing the electronic discovery process.
In order to set up an OTC, it's important to understand the role of a Technology Counsel and its place inside the company.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.