Tag: business

Episode 6: Shifting Mindsets: How Client-Focused Approaches Can Improve Law Firm Success with Matt Spiegel, CEO of Lawmatics

Welcome to Season 2, Episode 6 of Legal News Reach!

National Law Review Web Publication Specialist Crissonna Tennison and Matt Spiegel, Co-Founder and CEO of Lawmatics, discuss the mindsets that are necessary for law firm success. Practicing law isn’t just about winning cases—it’s about creating a supportive client experience in and out of the courtroom. How can firms integrate legal technology to center their clients, boosting their business success in the process?

We’ve included a transcript of the conversation below, transcribed by artificial intelligence. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

Crissonna Tennison

Thank you for tuning into the Legal News Reach podcast. My name is Crissonna Tennison, Web Publication Specialist for the National Law Review. In this episode, I will be speaking with Matt Spiegel, founder of Lawmatics. Matt, can you tell us a little bit about your background and what led you to start Lawmatics?

Matt Spiegel

Yeah, sure. So first of all, I’m very excited to be here, so thank you guys for having me. But yes, I’m Matt Spiegel, I am the founder and CEO of Lawmatics. I was a practicing lawyer, I don’t actually practice anymore, I haven’t practiced in like 11 years or so, but I still have my bar card. Long story short, I had a problem at my law firm that I wanted to solve with technology, and ended up starting a company called MyCase. So I founded MyCase, back in, like 2010. For those of you that don’t know, MyCase is now one of the biggest practice management software platforms on the market. So I was the original founder of that company, I also ran the company for five years. And then I left, and after a couple years doing some things unrelated to law and legal tech, I decided to come back into the legal tech space. I’m a glutton for punishment, and Lawmatics was what I decided to build. And it was really a product of what we saw when I was at MyCase. We saw the shift in the market, we saw lawyers starting to think about their law firm like a business and not just like a law firm. And when they start to do that, then they need business tools, right? They need the same kind of tools that other companies throughout industries, different genres of companies, tools that they’ve had forever, right? And so there was a little kernel of this idea of lawyers shifting to this mentality, you know, back in 2014. And so fast forward to 2017, we really saw this starting to become an opportunity that we thought was going to be a big one. And so we built Lawmatics to really address the business needs of a law firm and not as much of the practice management needs, right? The practice of law, we felt like that was pretty well taken care of. Our goal was to focus on the business side of it, you know, the lead management, the marketing, the automation, that sort of thing.

Crissonna Tennison

That’s awesome, and it sounds like a major change for you. When you were first starting your switch from being a lawyer to starting MyCase, what skill sets did you have already? And what skills did you have to develop along the way?

Matt Spiegel

Yeah, so it’s a good question. I mean, obviously, starting a software company is pretty different than being a lawyer. But I would say that I was probably a bad lawyer. And I just was always, I always had the skill set to be a decent entrepreneur, I guess. But I was probably just a really bad lawyer. It was very different. Well, I should strike that. Because the way I approached law–I was a criminal defense lawyer. And so I was in court all the time, I was doing a lot of trials, you know, it’s a very unique practice area. But I treated my law firm like a business right from the get-go. So I worked at a big law firm for like, four years, and then I started my own practice. And when I started my own practice, I was like, “I need to treat this like a business.” And I think that was the way I thought about it, even more so than being a good lawyer. And I think that was just because I was probably very entrepreneurial, even then. And so I was thinking about my law firm as like a business that I could build, not necessarily, “I’m a lawyer, I’m going to practice law.” So I think I always had that mentality, it was just manifesting itself within the confines of the legal space with starting my law firm. But as soon as I saw this need in the market for a product, which became MyCase, I kind of ran with it. It was like, “Wow, I’m building this business, a law firm, which can be big, but it’s going to have a ceiling, or I can start this, like, software company, which the ceiling is unlimited.” That just felt so much more exciting to me.

Crissonna Tennison

I do think it is very interesting that you brought up the entrepreneurial mindset, because from what I’ve observed there does seem to be a difference between that mindset and a lawyer mindset. It’s really interesting to hear you break that down a little bit.

What are some challenges that you’re most proud of overcoming in starting both MyCase and Lawmatics?

Matt Spiegel

What I’m most proud of, I think, is the legal tech space is not an easy space to enter. You know, there are a lot of companies that get started and not a lot of companies make it through. The fact that I’ve been able to build two companies in legal tech that have both been able to support these teams–like what I’m the most proud of in MyCase and Lawmatics are the teams that we built. They’re the people who made the company go and at MyCase, we just had an incredible team. It was such a great culture and at Lawmatics I think it’s even better, like, you know, we’ve built such an incredible team with with such an incredible culture, and it’s such a fun place to be and to work at. And so that’s a hurdle, right? It’s hard to build good cultures. You know, it’s hard enough to build one company, one startup that becomes successful, let alone two in the same space, especially when the space isn’t the biggest space in the world. So I think for me, you know, that hurdle of coming back into the legal tech space and trying to innovate in it, I’m think I’m most proud of that. And then the fact that we’ve been able to build such great teams. And that has nothing to do with the legal tech space, that’s just, you know, company mindset in general, company building in general. I think if I had to say what I’m most proud of it would be the teams that we’ve built.

Crissonna Tennison

That makes a big difference. And I feel like the teams you’re able to build and the workplace culture you’re able to foster really is everything when it comes to building a company.

You say that you saw some problems that you thought could be solved while you were a practicing defense attorney. So what exactly were you looking for that wasn’t available?

Matt Spiegel

MyCase came as a result of client communication problems. So my first company was a result of actually a State Bar complaint that I got. When I started my first law firm, I got a State Bar complaint pretty much right away. And it had nothing to do with the way I practiced, it was nothing to do with the outcome of the case, it was simply, “Hey, you didn’t call me back quick enough.” Right. And this is a tale as old as time. This is like, the most common complaint at every state bar still, even 12 years later, is attorney-client communication. And so I thought there has to be a better way to communicate than like, just calling me on the phone when I’m in court all day, every day. That cannot be the answer. And so I sought to develop a client communication portal. And that is what MyCase started as. Now it evolved into something so much more powerful and such a more robust piece of software. But the initial version, the initial idea was just simply a client communication portal. And so that’s how MyCase came about. Lawmatics really came about from what I observed talking to thousands and thousands of law firms in my time in MyCase, and what we saw was this shift, this idea that lawyers were starting to think about their law firms as a business, and not just the practice of law. And when I saw that, it’s like these people, if they have that mindset shift, they are going to experience some challenges with how to do that. Right? If they’re going to start doing marketing, if they don’t have a way to measure those marketing efforts, they’re going to be met with challenges, if they don’t have the ability to automate touchpoints, nurture campaigns, newsletters, like all the different things that are kind of marketing 101, if they don’t have that infrastructure in place, they’re going to be met with a lot of challenges. We anticipated that happening. And that’s sort of the problem that we look to solve with Lawmatics. And again, we weren’t reinventing the wheel. Products to solve the problems that Lawmatics solves have been around for decades, products like Salesforce, or HubSpot, they’ve been around for a really, really, really long time, they are not new concepts. What is new is a platform that is specifically built for law firms. And that’s where lawyers are a bit unique. They do and I’m not gonna say they require, but they do significantly better and they adopt more often tools that are designed for them, because they do have some unique requirements. And so that’s ultimately the problem that we look to solve with Lawmatics.

Crissonna Tennison

So as a lawyer, and as a person who’s running a law firm, you want to provide a great client experience, but you actually need to find clients in the first place. So what can law firms do from a marketing and client intake perspective to help this process?

Matt Spiegel

It’s about the client journey, right? A law firm needs to think about, “What is the journey that a client goes through with your law firm?” and we break that journey down into three phases.

Phase one is the intake phase, which is from the moment that they reach out to your law firm, by whatever means, all the way through to the point where they sign a fee agreement, and they pay you your retainer. Then you have phase two, which is an active case, you’re actually handling a case for them that has a definitive start and end time. And then phase three is after the case is over. Now, they are a former client. That is a very important part of the relationship.

So what Lawmatics is designed to do is help you with everything in phase one and everything in phase three, the practice management software like MyCase, they are designed to handle everything in phase two. So that journey starts from the very moment that a client reaches out to your law firm. And you have to understand that from that very moment, you have opportunities to delight your customers, and you need to think about it in terms of customer service: what kinds of service, what level of service are you providing to your client? And this is right from the get-go. So if someone reaches out to you, and they fill out a form on your website because they’re interested in talking to you, and maybe they don’t hear anything from you until the next day, that’s not good customer service. The first impression that they’re going to get is that you don’t respond to things very quickly. And so that initial moment of contact, there’s an opportunity to delight your customer, right, you can immediately engage them and show them that you’re on top of it. And that’s not something that a lot of law firms can do without the help of technology, right? You need technology to help you with those automated touch points. And so that’s just one example. But every step of the journey is an opportunity to delight your customer with customer service, not law. Forget about law. Right now we’re just talking about providing good bedside manner, good customer service. I have a saying that I’d love to repeat, which is that you could be the best lawyer in the world, but if you provide bad customer service, you are going to have a failing law firm. And the vice versa is true. You could be a mediocre or even a bad lawyer, but you could provide really, really excellent customer service, and you could be wildly successful. The outcome of the legal matter is not always the most important part of that relationship.

Crissonna Tennison

That’s something that I never would have thought about. But that makes sense that as a lawyer, of course, obviously, you want to win your case for your client, but you really want them to feel cared for and respected and like they can get in contact with you. And yeah, that is a lot of work to keep that going, especially because being a lawyer and running a law firm is so much work.

Matt Spiegel

Some of it is totally impossible! So here’s another example, let’s say after the case is over, something that would be a pretty nice thing to do would be to just send your former clients a note on their birthday every year, pretty simple. But you’ve got 2000 old clients, how are you going to keep track of all their birthdays and make sure you’re sending an email? It would take you, it would take an army to do that. So if you have a tool that can automate that whole process, all you do is click one button when you first set up the software, and then in perpetuity, every one of your former clients is going to get an email on their birthday every single year. So there’s so much that you can do that you can’t do manual, you have to have technology to help you do it. I think that that’s really important for law firms to understand when they’re looking at, “Well, what does this mean? How do I provide good customer service? Like what role can technology play?” I think it’s just really important to think about things that way.

Crissonna Tennison

The last few years have been a really chaotic time, especially for growing law firms. So what kind of feedback have you gotten from users of Lawmatics during this time?

Matt Spiegel

So the feedback that we get from our customers is pretty profound. So it’s two things, it’s what Lawmatics has enabled them to do. And then, you know, maybe not as sexy of a response is the amount of time that Lawmatics has saved them. So obviously, a product like Lawmatics that does so much around automation is going to save you time that really can’t even be put into words, the true impact can’t just be measured. And you know, some law firms are saving 20 hours a week. And that’s just a crazy amount of time. And the impact that has on a firm as a whole is pretty remarkable. But it’s really what Lawmatics has enabled them to do. Right? I mean, Lawmatics has really enabled growth for its customers. I think that’s the way to look at it. I think law firms before you know, our customers, before they used Lawmatics, it was really difficult to facilitate big growth for them. I’m not saying that law firms couldn’t grow before, that’s not true. But our customers were really struggling with certain aspects of it. They were getting into marketing, they were getting into intake management and thinking about things beyond just practicing law and how to attract more leads, and how to convert more of those leads into customers. But they had no way to manage it all. Maybe some of them knew what best practices were. But they couldn’t actually deploy those practices because they didn’t have the ability. Lawmatics has really enabled them to do the things that they’ve wanted to do on the lead management, the conversion side, the generating leads, it’s really pretty cool to hear the stories from these law firms that were struggling before to execute on growth plans, and now are exceeding what they thought they would be able to achieve.

Crissonna Tennison

I’m curious to hear more about why it’s so essential for those people who are running growing law practices to invest in quality practice management and CRM software. At this point in the game, how much do firms risk falling behind their competitors if they don’t use one?

Matt Spiegel

Personally, I feel like practice management software, right, like the MyCases, the Clios, the Practice Panthers of the world right now, I feel like that’s kind of table stakes, there are definitely still a lot of law firms out there that don’t use a platform like that. And for those firms, there must be some valid views. And but the vast majority of firms out there will have some sort of platform in place to help them with their time and their billing and their case management. I think that that’s table stakes in the industry now for the most part. But if you don’t have that, if you’re like doing your billing manually, that just is a colossal waste of time. And you would be falling behind the rest of the industry significantly, just because of the time that you’re wasting to input billing hours and send out invoices and things like that. But as far as CRM, this actually has the potential to make you fall behind even more. So first of all, we are at the inflection point for like CRM software and law firms. It is starting to become the focus of law firms, their understanding just how valuable it is and what they can do with it. And there’s a massive shift going towards this type of thing. That’s one reason why, you know, if you’re not on that boat, then you just fall behind technologically, but more importantly, it’s the byproduct of using a product like this. It’s the shift in thinking that is happening where you’re really going to fall behind because what it means is that law firms are out there thinking about marketing. They’re thinking about lead generation, they’re thinking about how to get more business and build their law firm. That means they’re going to be going out and taking leads from you if you’re not also thinking about that. So it’s so much more than just a piece of software that you’re talking about adopting, you’re talking about adopting a strategy for your business and your growth. So if you’re not on board with that, you are going to fall behind in ways that you probably haven’t necessarily thought of just yet.

Crissonna Tennison

That definitely makes a lot of sense. When we look at recent years, how have expectations of legal clients evolved, kind of along the lines of what you’re saying, if more and more firms are starting to really reorient their thoughts toward how they run their businesses and interact with their clients? How have their expectations evolved? And what changes have you seen in law firms and their operations since you started practicing?

Matt Spiegel

What we’ve really seen, I think, again, to me, it’s just been the wide adoption of some type of software platform and that software platform being in the cloud. So in starting MyCase, I was one of the people who was at the forefront of this shift to cloud computing in legal. I’ve gotten to observe this whole thing over the last, more than a decade at this point. And it’s really profound. It’s really cool. Right? It’s a mainstay in law firms now, cloud software. And what that’s enabled, operations are just easier. And there’s less operative people at a law firm, I think now, right? It’s just, it requires less, because so much is in software, it’s automated, it’s easy to access, it’s just makes things more streamlined. And so we see less of a need to have operators in a law firm and the ability for lawyers to focus more on actually handling their cases. A lot of this depends on the size firm that you are at. There’s a massive segmentation inside of the law firm industry, right? Like if you have solo and small law firms, they operate very differently than midsize or large law firms.

Crissonna Tennison

That kind of goes along with things that we’ve heard about in the past and prior conversations about CRM systems in general. Do you think that law students will have to start having practical knowledge of CRM systems as they enter the industry?

Matt Spiegel

No. I mean, it can’t hurt. But no, we saw this with practice management, too. I remember at MyCase, I would go down to the law schools, and I would help teach classes on managing a law practice and practice management software and what that meant and what it was. So the concepts we were teaching, but we weren’t giving them familiarity with the actual software themselves. I don’t think it’s difficult to pick up, I don’t think it’s really that critical. What I think is important is understanding the importance of these concepts to the business. But I don’t think it’s critical for people coming into law firms to like, have knowledge of the systems. I mean, that would be a bonus, it would be cool. I don’t think it’s something that is required.

Crissonna Tennison

So along those lines, would you say there’s been a change in law school education, in terms of a focus on how to run a law business? Like is that something that’s showing up a little bit more in legal academia than it was in the past, or maybe when you were in law school?

Matt Spiegel

So when I was in law school, it was really not a focus. Within five or six years after I left law school, it started to become a focus again, I started getting invited into law schools that actually had practice management classes, right, like how to run a law firm. To be honest with you, in the last few years, I haven’t seen it as much. So I don’t know if there was a small shift towards it, like 10 years ago, and now it’s shifted away from it. Maybe people thought that it wasn’t a practical class. I don’t really know. But I don’t think that we’ve seen a massive shift towards it in the last five or six years. I think it’s valuable to be honest with you. I think everyone always says, you go to law school, and the stuff you learn doesn’t necessarily help you as a subject matter. It doesn’t necessarily help you, when you get out of law school. What law school does is teach you how to think like a lawyer. Right? And that’s like the old cliche, but I think it’s relatively true. If law school is focused on the practicalities of running a business and running a law firm. I think that would be incredibly helpful. But unfortunately, I don’t have that much influence over this.

Crissonna Tennison

For our listeners who are interested in checking out Lawmatics, can you kind of take them through the process of getting started using your platform? Where can they find you?

Matt Spiegel

Finding us is very easy, anybody can go to our website, www.lawmatics.com. And from there, what we always have people do is we have them sign up for a demo. And when I say signing up for a “demo,” I use that term a little bit loosely, because what you’re really doing is you’re going to be talking to one of our specialists, who’s really going to spend some time learning about your law firm trying to, first of all make sure that as a law firm, you’re ready for a tool like Lawmatics, like Lawmatics is going to make sense for you as a law firm, and then starting to understand “What do you do currently? What are your processes like?” and then starting to show you how Lawmatics might be able to help. So when we get on this demo, it’s almost like a consultation. We have a lot of best practices that we share with people during this consultation, this demo, to hopefully get these law firms thinking about things a little differently. We really like this process. And that’s the most important thing for people to do is to just come to our website, sign up for that demo, you’re going to learn a little bit about Lawmatics, you might learn a little bit more about your law firm and certain steps you might need to take in order to execute on some of the initiatives that you’re looking to execute on at your law firm. And then we will show you how Lawmatics hopefully can help you do that.

Crissonna Tennison

That’s awesome. It sounds like the Lawmatics experience can be tailored to a variety of different law firm types.

Matt Spiegel

Lawmatics is really for everyone and anyone. We see it all across the spectrum. Sometimes brand new firms that are just trying to set up their tech stack and Lawmatics is the foundation of it or law firms with several hundred lawyers who have been around for a long time, but they need to update their tech stack and they see a lot of value in it.

Crissonna Tennison

Our time is coming to a close, so are there some points you would like to showcase that align with your organization’s experience?

Matt Spiegel

Lawmatics is Lawmatics, it’s great if people want to check it out, I encourage them to do that. But what I encourage all lawyers to do, regardless of the software platform, is to just start thinking about your law firm a bit differently and start thinking about your law firm as, you’ve got to be good at customer service. You have to think about satisfying your customers outside of their case, you cannot think, “if I get them a great outcome, if I’m a criminal defense lawyer, and I just defended my client out of prison,” you can’t just assume that that’s going to be enough, that that’s going to make them really happy. What you need to do–and this is a point that I was thinking about earlier that I want to bring up now–is this is what you need to remember. And if you remember this, I think it gives you a different lens to look through almost all practice areas, right? Almost all of them fit into this mold, where it is the most important thing happening in their life. If it’s a criminal offense case, if it’s a personal injury case, if it’s a bankruptcy case, if it’s a family law case, immigration, all these practice areas, like the vast majority of practice areas out there, the case that you are handling for your client, it is the most important thing that they have going on in their life. For you it’s just another client, right? And so sometimes it’s hard to have that perspective. But if you think about it like that, if you think “Hey, wait a second, this is the most important thing happening in their life. If I had the most important thing happening in my life right now, how would I want to be treated?” If you shift to that line of thinking I guarantee you will provide incredible customer service, and that’s going to benefit your firm.

Crissonna Tennison

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, especially because if they’re dealing with something that is the most important thing in their life, and you’re the person guiding them through that, then that relationship is pretty important. So thank you for kind of expanding on that a little bit more.

Thank you to Matt Spiegel for taking the time to join us on the podcast to talk about Lawmatics and the different mindsets that can help a law firm be more successful. We really appreciate you joining us today.

Matt Spiegel

Yeah, thank you guys so much for having me. I really appreciate it.

Conclusion

Thank you for listening to the National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast. Be sure to follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for more episodes. For the latest legal news, or if you’re interested in publishing and advertising with us, visit www.natlawreview.com. We’ll be back soon with our next episode.

Article By The National Law Review Editorial Team

For more law office management legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

PFAS Medical Monitoring Goes To State Supreme Court

A year-and-a-half ago, we predicted that in the PFAS litigation world, medical monitoring claims would quickly become a claim that finds its way into numerous PFAS cases with ever-increasing risks and cost to companies embroiled in the lawsuits. On November 15, 2022, the viability of medical monitoring claims with respect to PFAS found its way to the New Hampshire Supreme Court for oral argument. While courts are currently divided as to whether medical monitoring claims should be permitted to proceed without proof of actual injury to the plaintiffs, the result of the New Hampshire Supreme Court case will likely have ripple effects in other states where medical monitoring claims continue to proliferate.

PFAS Medical Monitoring Costs – The Current Landscape

PFAS medical monitoring costs is not a new topic for the litigation – it is something that plaintiffs’ counsel push for either as a damages component to a cause of action or as a term for settlement negotiations in PFAS cases. Yet, to date, only a few states allow for medical monitoring costs to be pled as a cause of action unto itself. Instead, states either require an underlying harm to be proven before the courts will consider awarding medical monitoring costs or states have outright rejected the medical monitoring theory of damages altogether.

The American Law Institute (ALI) is a prestigious legal organization that develops “Restatements” of various laws in the United States, including tort law. The ALI’s work and the Restatements, while not binding on courts, are widely regarded by attorneys, judges and legal scholars as a comprehensive understanding of many of the nuanced parts of legal theories. Through decades of work and revisions, the Restatement (Third) of Torts is now nearing the final stages of completion.

Significantly, the Restatement (Third) is contemplating including recommendations that courts allow plaintiffs to recover monetary damages for medical monitoring expenses, even though the plaintiffs do not have any present bodily harm. With respect to PFAS litigation, medical monitoring costs have been awarded in some states or through settlements to plaintiffs alleging some degree of injury from PFAS. The Restatement (Third) approach, though, opens the door to citizens in the country with no bodily injury from PFAS to participate in free (to the plaintiffs) medical monitoring to ensure that health issues do not arise related to PFAS.

The ALI’s approach to medical monitoring is a topic that is hotly contested in many legal circles, as awarding medical monitoring costs absent any injury is a highly controversial recommendation that seems to upend decades of tort law. Opponents argue that one of the very tenants of tort law is that there is an injury to the plaintiff – without an injury, there is no tort. Courts are currently split on whether they permit medical monitoring costs to be awarded to plaintiffs without any injury.

PFAS Medical Monitoring In New Hampshire

In Kevin Brown v. Saint Gobain, the plaintiffs’ drinking water was allegedly contaminated with PFOA as a result of a Saint-Gobain facility that discharged PFOA into local waterways, which fed drinking water sources. The case made its way through the USDC-NH, but the defendant certified the question to the New Hampshire Supreme Court of whether New Hampshire law permits the plaintiffs, who are asymptomatic, to bring a claim for the costs of their being periodically medically monitored for symptoms of disease caused by exposure to PFOA.

At oral argument on the issue, the parties and the Court held a spirited debate as to whether the seventeen states that allow medical monitoring as a form of relief are similar legally to New Hampshire, such that the state should adopt a broad interpretation and allow medical monitoring claims without proof of present injury. Defendant and parties who filed amicus briefs in support of defendants argued that the Court should defer to the legislature on the issue, as the legislature has primary responsibility for declaring public policy.

Impact On Companies

The issue of permitting PFAS medical monitoring claims without any present injury is one that has enormous impacts not only on PFAS manufacturers, but any downstream commerce company that finds itself in litigation (often class action lawsuits) alleging medical monitoring damages. The litigation is already shifting in such a way that downstream commerce companies (i.e. – companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but utilized PFAS in manufacturing or products) are being named in lawsuits for personal injury and environmental pollution at increasing rates. Allowing a medical monitoring component to the recoverable costs that can pled would significantly raise the risks and potential liability costs to downstream companies.

It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole supply chain in various industries evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate PFAS at an ever-increasing pace. Similarly, state level EPA enforcement action is increasing at a several-fold rate every year. Companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but merely utilized PFAS in their manufacturing processes, are therefore becoming targets of costly enforcement actions at rates that continue to multiply year over year. Lawsuits are also filed monthly by citizens or municipalities against companies that are increasingly not PFAS chemical manufacturers.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

ANOTHER TRILLION DOLLAR CASE:? TikTok Hit in MASSIVE CIPA Suit Over Its Business Model of Profiting from Advertising by Collecting and Monetizing User Data

Data privacy lawsuits are EXPLODING and one of our country’s most popular mobile app — TikTok’s privacy issues keep piling up.

Following its recent $92 million class-action data privacy settlement for its alleged violation of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), TikTok is now facing a CIPA and Federal Wire Tap class action for collecting users’ data via its in-app browser without Plaintiff and class member’s consent.

The complaint alleges “[n]owhere in [Tik Tok’s] Terms of Service or the privacy policies is it disclosed that Defendants compel their users to use an in-app browser that installs JavaScipt code into the external websites that users visit from the TikTok app which then provides TikTok with a complete record of every keystroke, every tap on any button, link, image or other component on any website, and details about the elements the users clicked. “

Despite being a free app, TikTok makes billions in revenue by collecting users’ data without their consent.

“The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data.”

While we’ve discussed before, many companies do collect data for legitimate purposes with consent. However this new complaint alleges a very specific type of data collection practice without the TikTok user’s OR the third party website operator’s consent.

TikTok allegedly relies on selling digital advertising spots for income and the algorithm used to determine what advertisements to display on a user’s home page, utilizes tracking software to understand a users’ interest and habits. In order to drive this business, TikTok presents users with links to third-party websites in TikTok’s in-app browser without a user  (or the third party website operator) knowing this is occurring via TikTok’s in-app browser. The user’s keystrokes is simultaneously being intercepted and recorded.

“Specifically, when a user attempts to access a website, by clicking a link while using the TikTok app, the website does not open via the default browser.  Instead, unbeknownst to the user, the link is opened inside the TikTok app, in [Tik Tok’s] in-app browser.  Thus, the user views the third-party website without leaving the TikTok app. “

The Tik-Tok in-app browser does not just track purchase information, it allegedly tracks detailed private and sensitive information – including information about  a person’s physical and mental health.

For example, health providers and pharmacies, such as Planned Parenthood, have a digital presence on TikTok, with videos that appear on users’ feeds.

Once a user clicks on this link, they are directed to Planned Parenthood’s main webpage via TikTok’s in-app browser. While the user is assured that his or her information is “privacy and anonymous,” TikTok is allegedly intercepting it and monetizing it to send targeted advertisements to the user – without the user’s or Planned Parenthood’s consent.

The complaint not only details out the global privacy concerns regarding TikTok’s privacy practices (including FTC investigations, outright ban preventing U.S. military from using it, TikTok’s BIPA lawsuit, and an uptick in privacy advocate concerns) it also specifically calls out the concerns around collecting reproductive health information after the demise of Roe v. Wade this year:

“TikTok’s acquisition of this sensitive information is especially concerning given the Supreme Court’s recent reversal of Roe v. Wade and the subsequent criminalization of abortion in several states.  Almost immediately after the precedent-overturning decision was issued, anxieties arose regarding data privacy in the context of commonly used period and ovulation tracking apps.  The potential of governments to acquire digital data to support prosecution cases for abortions was quickly flagged as a well-founded concern.”

Esh. The allegations are alarming and the 76 page complaint can be read here: TikTok.

In any event, the class is alleged as:

“Nationwide Class: All natural persons in the United State whose used the TikTok app to visit websites external to the app, via the in-app browser.

California Subclass: All natural persons residing in California whose used the TikTok app to visit websites external to the app, via the in-app browser.”

The complaint alleges California law applies to all class members – like the Meta CIPA complaint we will have to wait and see how a nationwide class can be brought related to a CA statute.

On the CIPA claim, the Plaintiff – Austin Recht – seeks an unspecific amount of damages for the class but the demand is $5,000 per violation or 3x the amount of damages sustained by Plaintiff and the class in an amount to be proven at trial.

We’ll obviously continue to keep an eye out on this.

Article By Puja J. Amin of Troutman Firm

For more communications and media legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Troutman Firm

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses Review of Case Involving Technical Issue With Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge

Refusing to weigh in on the impact of a plaintiff’s failure to verify her discrimination charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Supreme Court lets stand the lower court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s failure to verify her charge barred her from filing a lawsuit. Mosby v. City of Byron, No. 21-10377, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10436 (11th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022), cert. denied, No. 22-283 (U.S. Nov. 7, 2022).

Background

Rachel Mosby served as the fire chief of Byron, Georgia, for 11 years. One month after she came out as transgender, the city fired her.

Mosby filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title VII states that charges filed “shall be in writing under oath or affirmation and shall contain such information and be in such form as the Commission requires.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. This process is called “verification.” The parties did not dispute that Mosby did not properly verify her charge.

The City of Byron submitted a position statement with the EEOC on the merits of Mosby’s claim, but it did not raise the fact that Mosby failed to verify her charge. Mosby never amended her charge to meet the verification requirement.

After receiving a “right to sue” letter from the EEOC, Mosby sued the City of Byron. Before answering Mosby’s complaint, the City of Byron moved to dismiss because Mosby failed to verify her charge, requiring dismissal as a matter of law. After converting the City’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, the district court held the failure to verify the charge barred Mosby’s Title VII and ADA claims.

Jurisdictional or Procedural?

Whether EEOC’s charge filing requirements are prerequisite to filing a lawsuit is jurisdictional or procedural remains in dispute. While procedural requirements can be waived or cured, jurisdictional requirements cannot. In 2019, the Supreme Court provided guidance in Fort Bend City v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, in which it held that a charge’s lack of verification does not strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to consider in a subsequent federal lawsuit. Unlike a jurisdictional issue, the Court reasoned, the lack of verification can be waived or forfeited by the parties. Accordingly, the Court held that an employer forfeited the issue of verification when it failed to raise it promptly at the outset of litigation.

Eleventh Circuit’s Reasoning

In appealing the dismissal of her claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (which has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia), Mosby argued that Fort Bend required a finding that the City of Byron waived its verification defense because it did not raise the defense in its position statement submitted with the EEOC. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. In the Supreme Court decision, the Eleventh Circuit said, Fort Bend City did not raise the verification defense until four years and “an entire round of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court” had passed. By contrast, the City of Byron raised the defense in a pre-answer motion to dismiss before causing “a waste of adjudicatory resources.”

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court, holding that “a charge neither filed under oath or affirmation nor subsequently cured by amendment fails to satisfy the statutory requirement that an employee submit [her] charge to the Commission.” The Fifth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in 2021, making these the only two circuits that have addressed the issue. See Ernst v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 1 F.4th 333.

Takeaway for Employers

An employer responding to a charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC should evaluate whether the claimant properly verified the charge. If not, preserve the defense by raising it as soon as practicable at the EEOC charge stage and in any ensuing litigation.

Article By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris and Stephanie E. Satterfield of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more litigation and Supreme Court legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Following the Recent Regulatory Trends, NLRB General Counsel Seeks to Limit Employers’ Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

On October 31, 2022, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released Memorandum GC 23-02 urging the Board to interpret existing Board law to adopt a new legal framework to find electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices illegal if such monitoring or management practices interfere with protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).  The Board’s General Counsel stated in the Memorandum that “[c]lose, constant surveillance and management through electronic means threaten employees’ basic ability to exercise their rights,” and urged the Board to find that an employer violates the Act where the employer’s electronic monitoring and management practices, when viewed as a whole, would tend to “interfere with or prevent a reasonable employee from engaging in activity protected by the Act.”  Given that position, it appears that the General Counsel believes that nearly all electronic monitoring and automated or algorithmic management practices violate the Act.

Under the General Counsel’s proposed framework, an employer can avoid a violation of the Act if it can demonstrate that its business needs require the electronic monitoring and management practices and the practices “outweigh” employees’ Section 7 rights.  Not only must the employer be able to make this showing, it must also demonstrate that it provided the employees advance notice of the technology used, the reason for its use, and how it uses the information obtained.  An employer is relieved of this obligation, according to the General Counsel, only if it can show “special circumstances” justifying “covert use” of the technology.

In GC 23-02, the General Counsel signaled to NLRB Regions that they should scrutinize a broad range of “automated management” and “algorithmic management” technologies, defined as “a diverse set of technological tools and techniques to remotely manage workforces, relying on data collection and surveillance of workers to enable automated or semi-automated decision-making.”  Technologies subject to this scrutiny include those used during working time, such as wearable devices, security cameras, and radio-frequency identification badges that record workers’ conversations and track the movements of employees, GPS tracking devices and cameras that keep track of the productivity and location of employees who are out on the road, and computer software that takes screenshots, webcam photos, or audio recordings.  Also subject to scrutiny are technologies employers may use to track employees while they are off duty, such as employer-issued phones and wearable devices, and applications installed on employees’ personal devices.  Finally, the General Counsel noted that an employer that uses such technologies to hire employees, such as online cognitive assessments and reviews of social media, “pry into job applicants’ private lives.”  Thus, these pre-hire practices may also violate of the Act.  Technologies such as resume readers and other automated selection tools used during hiring and promotion may also be subject to GC 23-02.

GC 23-02 follows the wave of recent federal guidance from the White House, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and local laws that attempt to define, regulate, and monitor the use of artificial intelligence in decision-making capacities.  Like these regulations and guidance, GC 23-02 raises more questions than it answers.  For example, GC 23-02 does not identify the standards for determining whether business needs “outweigh” employees’ Section 7 rights, or what constitutes “special circumstances” that an employer must show to avoid scrutiny under the Act.

While GC 23-02 sets forth the General Counsel’s proposal and thus is not legally binding, it does signal that there will likely be disputes in the future over artificial intelligence in the employment context.

Article By Steven M. Swirsky, Adam S. Forman, Nathaniel M. Glasser, Neresa A. De Biasi, and Ridhi D. Madia of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more labor law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Latest I-9 Virtual Flexibility Guidance

On Oct. 11, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced an extension to compliance flexibilities governing Form I-9. The extension permits continued remote verification and additional Form I-9 flexibilities until July 31, 2023.

ICE initially implemented the policy in March 2020, presumably responding to increased remote employment due to COVID-19. These flexibilities were narrowly and exclusively applied to employers and workplaces that were 100 percent remote, reflecting the agency’s long-standing resistance to remote I-9 verification. ICE granted some discretion in the physical presence requirements associated with Form I-9, allowing employers to inspect documentation remotely. Employers were instructed to state “COVID-19” in Section 2 on Form I-9.

Many employers have since implemented telework arrangements to adapt to changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. ICE’s guidance since March 2020 has been revised to suggest that positions that are remote, even if other positions at the same employer are not remote, are eligible for remote I-9 verification. Further reflecting the changing nature of the workplace, on Aug. 18, 2022, DHS announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) intended to explore alternative regulatory options, including making some of the current pandemic-related flexibilities permanent.

The proposal includes a pilot program and framework allowing the DHS secretary to authorize optional alternative documentation examination procedures in the event of heightened security needs or a public health emergency. Moreover, DHS proposed adding boxes to Form I-9 that allow employers to report alternative procedures used to complete Section 2 or Section 3, as well as updates to form instructions to clarify the purposes of these boxes.

Importantly, this NPRM doesn’t itself adopt a specific remote I-9 procedure – it is intended to formalize DHS’ authority to make some form of remote I-9 verification permanent. Subsequent adoption of I-9 remote verification procedures would require separate rulemaking.

Article By Tejas Shah and Mandira Sethi of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

For more immigration law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Global Dispute Resolution: The Future of Virtual Legal Proceedings Is Shaped by Soaring Travel Costs

While we may have passed through the worst of the global pandemic, it has unquestionably left a deep and lasting impact on our personal and professional lives. Restrictions that left everyone housebound for months on end resulted in adaptations to daily behaviors and how we do business—some of which are here to stay.

Progress in the Form of Virtual Proceedings

During the pandemic, keeping businesses afloat was challenging across the board in all industries. Videoconferencing was often the only option to connect with colleagues or to participate in a meeting of any kind, and the use of platforms like Zoom skyrocketed. Like most other businesses and professional organizations, legal forums around the world were closed for a time. When they began to reopen, they discovered a new (virtual) operational environment that arose out of necessity.

International arbitration centers and courts across the globe followed suit, reopening with a mandate to conduct business remotely. While they had already developed protocols for using technology to increase accessibility and efficiency before 2020, the use of videoconferencing in international arbitration centers and courtrooms took off rapidly and pervasively once the pandemic hit. The ramped-up schedule of online proceedings continues in international arbitration centers and courts now that they are increasingly comfortable with the virtual format, and protocols have been developed and vetted.

 

 

 

Many believe that these recent technological developments were long overdue. The pandemic essentially propelled the justice system to modernize its administrative and operational policies. Remote Courts Worldwide (a website created during the pandemic to encourage the global community of justice workers to exchange ideas related to remote alternatives to traditional court proceedings) documents that virtual hearings, arbitrations, and court proceedings are embraced by stakeholders in many countries.1 The consensus is that smart, efficient, industry-disrupting change has brought the international justice system into the twenty-first century. Virtual proceedings are a welcome change for many reasons, not the least of which is the prohibitively high cost of in-person attendance.

International Travel Costs & Virtual Legal Proceedings

The cost of air travel has increased markedly in 2022. Demand issues, inflation, and high fuel costs have driven up per-person airfares. According to the 2022 Global Business Travel Association’s Business Travel Index Outlook – Annual Global Report and Forecast, total international business travel spending is downby 50% from pre-pandemic levels, but individual airfares are on track to rise nearly 50% this year over 2021 and are predicted to continue to rise in 2023.2

An intercontinental long-haul business class ticket from the United States will usually average between $3,000 and $5,000 roundtrip onboard major national carriers. Fares are often the highest on flights longer than twelve hours (i.e., to the Middle East, Australia, or Southeast Asia) and may range from $5,000 to $12,000.3

COMPARING COSTS FOR IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE

The following is an example of a business travel cost profile for an international arbitration hearing taking place in London and involving three US attorneys, two Paris attorneys, two local witnesses, and three litigation support personnel. The average business trip to London is 5.8 days4, during which these travelers will require accommodations for five nights, food for six days, and ground transportation for six days.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRAVEL EXPENSES & TRAVEL TIME TO LONDON FOR ONE LEGAL PROCEEDING

 

 

Person Traveling Number Originating City Airfare Travel Time Hotel Food Ground Total
US Lawyers 3 Chicago $3,079 $5,850 $2,200 $750 $400 $36,837
Paris Lawyers 2 Paris $325 $1,950 $2,200 $750 $400 $11,250
Witnesses 2 London $0 $0 $1,500 $350 $250 $4,200
Trial Consultant 1 New York $2,325 $2,400 $2,200 $750 $400 $8,075
Trial Presenter 1 Los Angeles $3,944 $3,300 $2,200 $750 $400 $10,594
Graphic Designer 1 Dallas $3,079 $3,000 $2,200 $750 $400 $9,429
Total In-Person Attendance               $80,385

 

Notes: Airfares based on Delta business class in November 2022. Travel time based on Chicago to London 9hr. x 2(RT) @$325/hr.; Paris to London 3hr. x 2(RT) @$325/hr.; NY to London 8hr. x 2(RT) @$150/hr.; LA to London 11hr. x 2(RT) @$150/hr.; Dallas to London 10hr. x 2(RT) @$150/hr. 

As demonstrated in the chart above, the cost of travel time can be as much or more than the cost of flights to attend an international arbitration or other legal hearing. Spending many hours traveling to and returning from the various steps of an international proceeding is not only an expense for a client, but productivity is also lost for the legal professionals involved.

If time is money, there could not be a more direct equivalency than the legal industry’s billable hour, and often lawyers apply the same hourly rate for travel hours as for work hours. When complex matters demand a legal team, these costs are multiplied. Then there is the issue of witnesses who would need to travel and perhaps wait around to testify, not to mention the time commitment and expenses related to other on-site billers and support staff. Add in the unpredictability of airline delays, and costs will continue to mount.

VIRTUAL HEARINGS SAVE MONEY (AND THEY’RE HERE TO STAY)

 

 

 

With the cost of international air travel rising sharply, remote hearings are a practical alternative to in-person proceedings. International travel is expensive, and the virtual option means that it is no longer necessary to count travel as a “cost of doing business” when pursuing an international dispute. The widespread use of technology in global dispute resolution proceedings gives attorneys and their clients the option to participate remotely, which is a compelling cost saver for all parties.

Industry news reports tell the story:

Technology has become ubiquitous in international arbitration.5 Japan expedites court proceedings with Microsoft Teams.6 Beijing’s “Internet Court” enables people to file lawsuits online.7 In India, 19.2 million cases have been heard virtually in the High Court and district courts.8

Such reports are convincing evidence of the commitment to the continuation of virtual proceedings in legal forums around the globe. Remote and hybrid proceedings in the international legal setting appear to have a very secure future.

Put Your Best Foot Forward in Virtual Legal Proceedings

Technology in the courtroom is not particularly a new concept, and international arbitration centers were working in the direction of modernizing when they had to fast-track guidelines to convert to primarily virtual hearings.9 The wholesale adoption of online proceedings may have caught some firms unprepared from a technical production standpoint.

References:

  1. See www.remotecourts.org.
  2. See gbta.org.
  3. Keyes, Scott. The Complete Guide to Business Class Flights. Scott’s Cheap Flights. April 28, 2022.
  4. Johnson, Georgia-Rose. Business Travel Statistics. Finder.com. February 18, 2021.
  5. Vishnyakov, Mikhail. CIArb Guidelines on the Use of Technology, The Law Society Gazette. March 18, 2021.
  6. Yates-Roberts, Elly. Japan expedites court proceedings with Microsoft Teams. Technology Record. February 4, 2020.
  7. China: Beijing’s ‘Internet Court’ enables people to file lawsuits online. Remote Courts Worldwide. September 20, 2022.
  8. Harris, Joanne. Access to justice: India leads post-Covid shift in courts’ use of technology. International Bar Association. October 12, 2022.
  9. Caroni, Barnardo. Fast Track Arbitration and Virtual Protocols in the COVID-19 ERA: Some Suggestions from Asia. October 20, 2022.

Article By IMS Consulting & Expert Services

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2002-2022 IMS Consulting & Expert Services, All Rights Reserved.

Top Legal Industry Highlights for November 2022: Law Office Hiring and Expansion, Industry Awards and Recognition, and the Latest Updates in Diversity and Inclusion

Happy Holidays from the National Law Review! We hope you are remaining safe and healthy as Thanksgiving rolls around. Read more below for the latest in law firm hiring and expansion, noteworthy industry awards and recognitions, and the latest news in law firm diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

Additionally, please be sure to check out the latest Legal News Reach podcast episode from the NLR: “What’s New In Law Firm Thought Leadership? with Alistair Bone, Vice President for Passle.”

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP has added attorney Mark Nagumo as Of Counsel in the firm’s Chemical Patent Practice Group. Mr. Nagumo, who is a former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office administrative patent judge, has a great deal of experience in chemical research, particularly with regard to biomolecules, materials, and a wide range of other analytical techniques.

“We are thrilled to welcome Mark to our firm,” said Oblon Managing Partner Philippe Signore. “Mark is an extremely knowledgeable and respected chemical patent attorney whose many years of experience at the USPTO offers tremendous value and benefits to our clients. He is a great addition to our team.”

Polsinelli PC has appointed two new co-chairs of the firm’s Business Department: Jane Arnold and Kolin Holladay. Ms. Arnold, an experienced attorney in mergers and acquisitions, is based in the St. Louis office, where she currently serves as Office Managing Partner. Mr. Holladay, who also focuses his practice on mergers and acquisitions, is a Shareholder in the firm’s Nashville office.

“The selection of Arnold and Holladay as Business Department Co-Chairs reflects the firm’s long-standing commitment to inclusion, representation, and geographic diversity at every level,” said Chase Simmons, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Polsinelli. “Both are leaders who are highly respected within our firm and the industries in which they practice. Under their leadership, the Business Department will continue to create meaningful opportunities for our lawyers and clients, all consistent with our strategic priorities.”

James M. Tartaglia has rejoined Steptoe & Johnson PLLC as Of Counsel in the firm’s Charleston office. With a background in mineral title opinions and due diligence, Mr. Tartaglia joins the firm’s Energy Group , where he will focus his practice on energy contract law.

“We’re looking forward to having Jim back at the firm,” said Steptoe & Johnson CEO Christopher L. Slaughter. “His skill set and knowledge of the oil and gas industry strengthens our energy contracts practice and will be an asset to our clients.”

As of November 1st, 2022, Proskauer Rose LLP has promoted 33 of its attorneys – 25 to partner, and 8 to senior counsel. This class of promotions is the firm’s largest to date, and it includes attorneys from nine different offices around the world.

“We are delighted to promote this talented group of lawyers, whose values, entrepreneurial spirit and drive represent the best of the Firm,’” said Steven M. Ellis, Chairman of Proskauer. “We congratulate each of these new partners and senior counsel on this milestone and wish them continued success as they support our clients, secure historic victories, set precedents and serve as strategic partners.”

The following attorneys have been promoted to partner: Michelle Annese, Kimberly Braun, Ryan Carpenter, Aliza Cinamon, Grant Darwin, Christopher Elson, Nolan Goldberg, Laura Goldsmith, Oliver Howley, John Ingrassia, Philip Kaminski, Christine Lazatin, Shawn Ledingham, Matthew Levy, Stéphanie Martinier, Richard Miller, Bharat Moudgil, Adam Nelson, Caroline Robbins, Cameron Roper, Bradley Schecter, Adam Scoll, Sean Spence, Scott Patrick Thurman, and Harriet West.

The following attorneys have been promoted to senior counsel: Stephen Chuk, Pinchos Goldberg, Allison Lynn Martin, Jennifer Rigterink, Jurate Schwartz, Jennifer Yang, Edward Young, and Oleg Zakatov.

Frost Brown Todd has combined with California-based law firm Alvarado Smith, effective January 1, 2023. The combined firm will have more than 575 attorneys in 17 offices across nine states and Washington, D.C, with AlvaradoSmith’s addition providing strategic expansion into the Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Francisco markets.

“AlvaradoSmith is known for successfully taking on matters and clients often associated with big firms, while FBT has the resources of a large firm with the culture of a boutique shop,” said AlvaradoSmith Managing Shareholder Ruben Smith. “That’s why we’re confident this combination will be an excellent fit, allowing us to grow our capacity and resources while still retaining our deep connection to clients and community. We look forward to a very productive future with Frost Brown Todd.”

“This merger is a natural next step and tremendous growth opportunity for both Frost Brown Todd and AlvaradoSmith,” said FBT Chief Executive Officer Adam Hall. “As one of the largest and most influential economies in the world, California intersects with every one of Frost Brown Todd’s practice groups and many of our offices. We know our clients will benefit greatly from the extensive knowledge and relationships that AlvaradoSmith attorneys have cultivated throughout the state for decades. We look forward to working with them as we significantly expand our presence in California and strengthen Frost Brown Todd’s preeminent industry teams.”

Legal Industry Awards and Recognition

Ballard Spahr has received 26 National Tier 1 rankings in the 2023 Best Law Firms and a total of 160 rankings across all Best Law Firms categories. Best Law Firms rankings are gathered based on surveys from clients and professional references. To qualify, a law firm must have one attorney who is recognized in the current edition of Best Lawyers in a Best Law Firms-ranked practice area or metro area.

Ballard Spahr received National Tier 1 rankings in the following categories:

  • Banking and Finance Law
  • Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Copyright Law
  • Corporate Law
  • Criminal Defense: White-Collar
  • Employment Law – Management
  • Environmental Law
  • Labor Law – Management
  • Land Use & Zoning Law
  • Litigation – Banking & Finance
  • Litigation – Bankruptcy
  • Litigation – First Amendment
  • Litigation – Intellectual Property
  • Litigation – Labor & Employment
  • Litigation – Patent
  • Litigation – Real Estate
  • Media Law
  • Mergers & Acquisitions Law
  • Patent Law
  • Public Finance Law
  • Real Estate Law
  • Securities / Capital Markets Law
  • Securities Regulation
  • Trademark Law
  • Trusts & Estates Law

Lauren Wachtler, partner at Barclay Damon’s New York office, will be honored with the prestigious Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin Award for Excellence in the Courtroom by the New York State Bar Association’s Commercial & Federal Litigation Section. Ms. Watchler’s practice focuses on commercial and business litigation matters, and she advocates for women’s equality in the legal profession as well as mentoring and educating young attorneys.

The Scheindlin Award is presented annually on or around November 6, the date women were granted the right to vote in 1917 in New York state. “It is a true honor to receive the Scheindlin Award,” said Ms. Wachtler. “Judge Scheindlin was a gifted jurist and continues to be a role model for women in our profession.”

The award honors its namesake Shira A. Scheindlin, the Commercial & Federal Litigation Section’s former chair and former district judge for the Southern District of New York. Scheindlin said, “I extend my sincerest congratulations to Lauren for being selected to receive the Scheindlin Award. Her commitment to the legal profession and mentoring young women attorneys is truly inspiring and continues to grow year after year. Women litigators still face adversity in the courtroom; however, Lauren’s work will hopefully pave the way for future generations of women litigators.”

Foley & Lardner LLP has received the Corporate Citizen Award from the Three Harbors Boys Scouts of America Council, which seeks to honor a particular organization that exemplifies the Scout Law through community service and upstanding business practices. The award will be presented at the Distinguished Citizen Award Dinner in Milwaukee on November 17, 2022.

Foley was selected for its long-standing support of Scouting, as well as the firm’s significant pro bono support through Partner Peter Fetzer to Three Harbors Council. Mr. Fetzer is a partner in the firm’s Milwaukee office, where he focuses his practice on securities regulation, mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance and general corporate counseling to mutual funds, exchange traded funds, publicly traded investment advisers and public companies.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Legal Profession

Womble Bond Dickinson attorneys Britt Biles and Stephanie Yarbrough have been selected for inclusion on Women We Admire’s 2022 Top 50 Women Leaders in the Law list, which celebrates influential and successful women in the legal field.

Ms. Biles is a Litigation Group Partner who played a key role in the federal government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. After her time as Associate White House Counsel and SEC senior enforcer, Biles became Senior Counsel of the Small Business Administration, where she was principal legal advisor to the CARES Act Administrator and an active participant in drafting guidance for the Paycheck Protection Program. At Womble Bond Dickinson, she focuses her practice on business litigation and government investigations.

Ms. Yarbrough is a Womble Bond Dickinson Global Board Member and Economic Development Team Co-Chair who has spent her two-decade legal career aiding economic development in the southeastern United States by helping domestic and international companies expand their operations to Charleston and surrounding regions. Yarbrough’s role in creating thousands of new jobs and billions in investments has led her to become an industry thought leader, speaking at local and national events and appearing in a 2017 New York Times article about Charleston’s economy.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Partner Gary L. Howard has been selected to serve a one-year term as Vice Chair of the Defense Research Institute’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee. The Birmingham, Alabama attorney has been active with DRI for many years, previously serving as Diversity Expo Chair, Diversity for Success Seminar & Corporate Expo Program Chair, and Annual Meeting Steering Committee Member. Howard’s appointment comes on the heels of his 2021 Albert H. Parnell Outstanding Program Chair Award, which he received for creating engaging educational programming for DRI.

Mr. Howard’s 25-year legal career has seen him managing commercial litigation related to class actions, mass torts, contract disputes, insurance cases, and related matters. He has argued in state and federal courtrooms and is admitted to practice in more than ten states.

Moore & Van Allen have announced the creation of a new Civil Rights & Racial Equity Assessments Practice within their White Collar, Regulatory Defense & Investigation Practice. Fifteen of MVA’s most experienced investigative attorneys will harness the firm’s ESG, internal and cross-border probe, and human trafficking prevention expertise to conduct public-facing racial equity and civil rights audits. These reviews will assist businesses interested in improving their internal and external diversity practices.

Valecia M. McDowell, who will be leading the new practice, commented, “Our Civil Rights & Racial Equity Assessments Practice brings together our deep experience and bench strength in key areas to help our clients strategically assess their internal and external practices, programs, and policies to more thoroughly and thoughtfully address diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).”

Article By Chandler Ford, Shelby Garrett, and Crissonna Tennison of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

SEC Ramps Up Enforcement against Public Companies and Subsidiaries in FY 2022

The SEC imposed $2.8 billion in monetary settlements, the largest total in any fiscal year recorded in the Securities Enforcement Empirical Database.

New York—The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed 68 enforcement actions against public companies and subsidiaries in the first full fiscal year of Chair Gary Gensler’s tenure. Monetary settlements imposed in public company or subsidiary actions reached $2.8 billion, according to a report released today by the NYU Pollack Center for Law & Business and Cornerstone Research.

The report, SEC Enforcement Activity: Public Companies and Subsidiaries—Fiscal Year 2022 Update, analyzes information from the Securities Enforcement Empirical Database (SEED). The 68 enforcement actions in FY 2022, which ended September 30, reflected a 28% increase from the previous fiscal year.

The SEC imposed monetary settlements on 97% of the 75 public company and subsidiary defendants that settled in FY 2022. Both the dollar amount and the percentage were the largest of any fiscal year recorded in SEED, which covers actions beginning in FY 2010.

“The number of defendants that settled in FY 2022 with admissions of guilt increased substantially from the previous fiscal year. This was driven by actions involving Broker Dealer allegations brought by the SEC in September,” said Stephen Choi, the Bernard Petrie Professor of Law and Business at New York University School of Law and director of the Pollack Center for Law & Business. “The 16 defendants admitting guilt was double the largest number in any previous fiscal year in SEED.”

The $2.8 billion in monetary settlements imposed in public company or subsidiary enforcement actions in FY 2022 was $921 million more than in FY 2021 and $321 million more than in any other fiscal year in SEED. The median monetary settlement in FY 2022 was $9 million, the largest in SEED. The average settlement was $42 million.

“The increase in monetary settlements is consistent with the SEC’s public statements that ‘robust remedies’ are an enforcement priority,” said report coauthor Sara Gilley, a Cornerstone Research vice president. “The $1.2 billion in monetary settlements with 16 public broker-dealer subsidiaries for recordkeeping failures represents 44% of total monetary settlements in the fiscal year.”

Issuer Reporting and Disclosure continued to be the most common allegation type in FY 2022, accounting for 38% of actions. Allegations in the SEC’s Broker Dealer classification were the second most common for the first time since FY 2018. Nearly 70% of the 16 Broker Dealer actions were filed against financial institutions for recordkeeping failures.

Click here to read the full report from Cornerstone Research.

Article By Sara E. Gilley, Lindsay Schick, and Heather B. Lazur of Cornerstone Research

For more securities and SEC legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 Cornerstone Research

Colorado Legalizes Therapeutic Psychedelics – Now What?

Ten years after Coloradans voted for their state to be one of the first to legalize recreational cannabis, Colorado is again making history as the second state in the country to legalize therapeutic psychedelics for adults.

Colorado voters narrowly approved Proposition 122 with nearly 53% of the votes (as of the morning of November 14th 97% of the votes have been counted). Their vote thus enacted the Natural Medicine Health Act of 2022 (NMHA) which legalizes supervised or facilitated therapeutic sessions for adults twenty-one years and older using certain psychedelic plants and fungi. Click here for our initial takeaways and a high-level summary of key provisions of the NMHA.

Now that therapeutic psychedelics are legal in Colorado, what should be expected next? Below are key dates and next steps as Colorado navigates implementation of the NMHA.

  • The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) must establish the Natural Medicine Advisory Board (Board) and appoint initial members to the Board by January 31, 2023. The Board must have 15 members who will be appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Colorado Senate. The primary role of the Board is to advise DORA as to implementation of the NMHA program.
  • By September 30, 2023, and annually thereafter, the Board must make recommendations to DORA on certain areas related to natural medicine, such as recommendations related to product safety, herm reduction, and cultural responsibility, training programs, educational and experiential qualifications for facilitators, regulatory considerations for each type of natural medicine and the rules to be promulgated by DORA.
  •  DORA has until January 1, 2024 to adopt rules and establish the qualifications, education and training requirements that facilitators must meet prior to providing natural medicine services to participants.
  • By September 30, 2024, DORA must adopt rules to implement the NMHA program and begin accepting applications for licensure of facilitators, healing centers, entities to test natural medicines, and any categories of licensure as determined by DORA.
  • Once applications are accepted, DORA must make decisions on licensure applications within 60 days of receiving an application.
  • From the launch of the NMHA program until June 1, 2026, “natural medicines” are limited to psilocybin and psilocyn. After June 1, 2026, upon recommendation by the Board, DORA may add one of more of the following to types of natural medicines that can be provided under the NMHA program: dimethyltryptamine, Ibogaine, and Mescaline (excluding peyote).

A notable takeaway and something to watch for in the forthcoming rules is a focus on social equity. Seemingly applying lessons learned from the rollout of the state’s cannabis program, the NMHA expressly requires DORA to prioritize equity and inclusivity as it establishes rules to implement the NMHA program. Specifically, DORA is required to adopt rules which: (i) establish procedures, policies and programs to ensure the NMHA program is equitable and inclusive; (ii) promote the licensing of and provision of natural medicine services to (a) persons from communities that have been disproportionally harmed by high rates of controlled substances (including cannabis); (b) persons who face barriers to access to health care; (c) persons who have traditional or indigenous history with natural medicines; and (d) persons who are veterans by, offering, at a minimum reduced fees for licensure and training, incentivizing the provision of natural medicine services at a reduced cost to low income individuals, and incentivizing geographic and cultural diversity in licensing and the provision of and availability of natural medicine services.

In addition, DORA is prohibited from imposing unreasonable financial or logistical barriers that would prevent individuals with lower income from applying for a license and individuals are limited to having a financial interest in five healing centers. Currently, the definition of “individuals” does not include corporations. However, DORA could establish a rule which includes corporations in this limitation and would arguably level the playing field in this budding market.

We will continue to monitor developments and closely follow the rulemaking process as Colorado designs and implements this historical new program.

Article By Lauren P. Carboni of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more biotech, food, and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP