Effective Legal Holds Policy Requires IT-Legal Interaction
September 28, 2006
The explosive growth in electronic communications has resulted in a corollary growth of e-mail as a primary source of legal discovery when organizations are faced with litigation. As recent high profile cases demonstrate, traditional litigation hold processes are being successfully challenged as inadequate in the context of electronic communications. The lesson, therefore, is that if a company uses technology to run its daily business operations, it will be expected to utilize similar technologies to search, collect and produce requested or subpoenaed business records. Symantec Corporation, a developer of security and availability software tools, is leveraging its own products and the expertise of both its legal and IT departments to develop and implement a litigation hold program designed to significantly reduce the time and money spent to collect and preserve e-mail records. This article summarizes some of the 'lessons learned' by Symantec as we worked with our own technology to develop our legal hold program.
Managing Electronic Evidence
September 28, 2006
Discovery demands on in-house legal staff have changed drastically in recent years. Historically, complying with subpoenas and document production requests were quotidian chores for in-house legal staff. After receiving a complaint, counsel's office issued a standard 'document hold' to affected employees and directed that those involved in the case preserve their files and not destroy anything. Questions might arise, but they were manageable. What must be disclosed? What documents are privileged? How long will it take to retrieve documents from storage? How many staff hours will complying require? How much will it cost? Who bears the cost? Which discovery requests should be challenged?
Outsourcing Disputes
September 28, 2006
A spectacular smash-up always draws a crowd. In the outsourcing world, where the wreckage is nearly always kept under wraps, that's even more true. When a problem deal does break into view, it's always worth watching for lessons in how to manage ' or how not to manage ' these complex transactions. Counsel with responsibility for managing outsourcing relationships or contemplating new ones have two new cases to chew over that offer intriguing glimpses into troubled deals: A suit filed by Sprint Nextel against IBM in May, and an English case decided in June involving Vertex Data Sciences and its client Powergen.
Meet & Confer Checklist
September 28, 2006
Preparing for the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) will require careful planning and preparation. Following are steps designed to help general counsel more effectively negotiate the scope of electronic discovery at an FRCP Rule 26(f) Meet & Confer conference.
Media & Communications Corner: Meet Hank Shafran ' Director of Communications at Bingham McCutchen LLP
September 01, 2006
With more than 30 years in PR, Hank Shafran has experience in all aspects of agency, governmental and corporate communications. But he has seen law firm PR, in particular, from a unique perspective with more than 10 years at Bingham McCutchen LLP, where he has worked on the PR end of six different mergers and seen the firm grow from a 175-lawyer Boston firm to a 950-attorney global firm.
Background Checks: The New Burden of Proof
August 31, 2006
Negligent hiring cases typically turn on whether a background check that was forgone would have helped to reveal an employee's propensity to erupt in violence or commit fraud. But a new burden of proof may be on the horizon.
Beware the 'Cat's Paw'
August 31, 2006
Corporate officials, including CEOs, general counsel and human resource personnel, are often asked to determine whether to terminate the employment of an individual who is working for a company. In making that determination, the official frequently relies on information and/or recommendations provided by subordinates without conducting an independent investigation regarding the merits of the decision. A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit highlights the risks that may accompany such a course of conduct.
The Immigration Maze
August 31, 2006
The headlines are difficult to miss. The immigration debate is an issue to be contemplated and addressed by businesses, as politicians gear up for elections and Americans take sides in the deliberation. While immigration agents are arresting executives and employees for not complying with immigration law, and as the President of the United States is declaring that employers must be held accountable for their employees, even more restrictive and complex immigration regulations loom in the future. Under this flurry of activity, employers are left to decipher overly complicated, and often vague, laws and regulations in their efforts to find workers, fill open positions and keep operations running.
Retaliation Under Title VII
August 31, 2006
What types of employer conduct can constitute retaliation under Title VII? The answer to that question has changed significantly with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. On June 22, 2006, the Court issued its decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co v. White, expanding protections for employees who allege that they have suffered retaliation after making a complaint of discrimination or harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Stock Option Grant Issue
August 31, 2006
Just as everyone involved with executive compensation matters was settling in to address the impact of the new accounting rules under FAS 123R, the requirements of the stock exchanges, the deferred compensation rules under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 409A, the new Securities Exchange Commission's (SEC) proxy rules and the proper balance between adequate executive compensation and good governance, a new jolt came into play in the executive compensation arena.
