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

Paul Majkowski, a Partner in the Firm’s Litigation & Appeals Practice Group, participated in a mini-roundtable article entitled, “Managing Product Liability in the Chemicals Sector.”

Please click the link below to view the Article. Adobe Reader is required to view the bulletin. If Adobe Reader is not installed on your PC, click here to download

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION – SECTION OF LITIGATION – MASS TORTS  

The Carnaby v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. action involving purported toxic workplace exposures in France presents something of a new strategic paradigm for the U.S. jurisdictional restrictions evolving out of the Daimler/Kiobel/Goodyear Dunlop line of cases. Carnaby v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., No.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires two forms of class notice. Rule 23(c)(2) requires notice to a potential class member that a class has been certified and substance of the class claims. Rule 23(e) requires notice that a settlement has been negotiated, which will require court approval, and the steps that each potential class

Paul Majkowski and Lawrence Han authored an article entitled, “International Litigation of Product Liability Claims: Korea,” which was published in the November 2014 issue of DRI For the Defense.

Please click the link below to read “International Litigation of Product Liability Claims.” Adobe Reader is required to view the bulletin. If Adobe Reader is not installed on your PC,

Nearly 15 years ago, Congress passed the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”).[1] The ACPA amended the federal trademark law known as the Lanham Act by adding two new causes of action aimed at cybersquatting.[2] Under the ACPA, a person may be civilly liable “if … that person has a bad faith intent to profit from

Online technology, as this column frequently has noted, presents numerous challenges to attorneys during litigation,[1] while managing their firms and marketing their services,[2] and in trying to keep up with the newest legal developments and rulings.[3]  A recent decision in a case of first impression by Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the U.S. District Court

On a nearly daily basis, each of us is asked or asks others to agree to be bound by “terms of use” or “terms of service” (TOS) as a condition of using an Internet website or obtaining goods or services offered through a website. Whether or not TOS are enforceable continues to be a question

In an ironic twist, China’s largest search engine, Baidu, has successfully argued that it was entitled to First Amendment protection in regard to its search engine results in the United States, which excluded statements by the plaintiffs, a group of New York residents who “advocated” for “the Democracy movement in China.”   In a question of

The assertion of a breach of contract claim against an attorney for excessive billing does not result in the waiver of the attorney-client privilege as to successor counsel

Waiver of the attorney-client privilege often arises in attorney-client disputes, where “the defendant asserts a claim that in fairness requires examination of protected communications… [t]he key to