Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Technology and Data Risks Related to Conflicts Clearance
Effective conflicts clearance is critical to law firm risk management. The cost of missing a conflict of interest can be significant ' from loss of business to serious reputational damage. That is why enhancing conflict of interest management consistently rates as a top concern in law firm surveys. As referenced by a recent ABA Journal article, law firms are also becoming more wary of hiring laterals due to potential conflicts of interest. See, David Hudson, “Malpractice Concerns Spark Heightened Scrutiny of Lawyers Switching Firms,” ABA Journal, May 1, 2015. This wariness will only increase if law firms cannot be sure that the technology supporting their conflicts of interest process can be responsive and accurate.
Some systems used by firms for searching conflicts of interest are aging rapidly, putting law firms at risk. Also, many firms are unaware of inaccurate data, data anomalies, and inefficiencies that have built up over time. Even if this does not result in a missed conflict of interest, it could be having an impact on a firm's ability to open matters quickly. An inefficient intake process can mean that more attorneys are working on matters prior to receiving conflicts search results, a reluctance to open new matters, and a delay in recording billable hours.
The law firm industry went years without seeing many new entries to the technology space surrounding conflicts of interest searching. This technology must be capable of quickly returning results from very large and rapidly changing databases. A partner looking to meet with a potential client may require relevant results based on just a few keywords (i.e., potential client is ABC Industries, potentially adverse to the State of Pennsylvania). A search across tens of thousands of clients, hundreds of thousands of matters, and possibly millions of historical party records needs to be capable of returning (with the help of a good search analyst) results as different as: ABC Industries; ABC LLC; American Book Collectors; State of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania, State of; and PA. Not only must these results be accurate, but they must be reported in the context of the prior legal engagements with which they were originally recorded.
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?