The Appellate Division, Second Department, recently issued a decision, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP v. Law Firm of Howard Mann, addressing the concept of equitable recoupment in the context of attorneys’ actions for legal fees against former clients.

Pursuant to a written retainer agreement, Howard Mann of the Law Firm of Howard Mann retained

Only days after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish privacy guidelines applicable to Internet service providers (ISPs),1 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took two actions on the privacy front that will affect a smaller, but fast growing, industry: developers of mobile health applications. Given the pervasive use of

“Broadband Internet access service” (BIAS) is the essential conduit for the conduct of our daily personal and private lives, without which all Internet activity comes to a stop. Indeed, the Federal Communications Commission recently referred to BIAS as “the most significant communications technology of today.”1 Nevertheless, because BIAS is the road on which Internet traffic

Avigael Fyman, a member of the Directors & Officers and Professional Liability Practice Groups, was a contributor to Recent Developments Affecting Professionals’, Directors’, and Officers’ Liability, which has been published in the Winter 2016 issue of the American Bar Association Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal.

Click here to read the Article.

Early in February, the European Commission and the U.S. government agreed on a new framework for transatlantic data flows, which they are referring to as the “EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.” Lawyers advising clients with an online presence (i.e., almost all lawyers and almost all clients) typically have had little reason to be concerned about the agreement,

Many believe that we are on the precipice of a deluge of litigation—both individual and multiparty/class action—concerning how an individual’s data is handled and the remedy, if any, if that data is misused or wrongfully disclosed. A case recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court involves the intersection of the Internet and privacy laws and

An acrimonious marital breakup has been known to bring out the worst in some people. Those battles increasingly are fought on the technology field, thereby leaving courts to determine complex personal rights issues in the context of grown-ups behaving badly.1

In another such case, Crocker C. v. Anne R.,2 the Supreme Court, Kings County, addressed

Computer hacking historically has been seen as the province of lowlife criminals existing in the darkened recesses of some faraway place looking to make a dishonest buck. However, as individuals increase their online presence and, thereby, their digital vulnerability, unauthorized access to a person’s computers and to email and social media accounts is increasingly being

Russo v. Rozenholc, 2015 N.Y. App. DIV LEXIS 5885, 2015 NY Slip Op 06029 (N.Y. App. Div. July 9, 2015)

While New York law generally requires privity between a client and attorney in order to assert a claim for legal malpractice, in Schneider v. Finmann, 15 N.Y.3d 306, 907 N.Y.S.2d 119 (2010), the New York

The U.S. Supreme Court has ventured into the world of violent online speech. On June 1, in Elonis v. United States,1 the court overturned a defendant’s criminal conviction for communicating threats on Facebook. The court ruled that a mens rea standard of negligence was insufficient to allow the conviction to stand, but it did not