Listen as intellectual property attorneys Tiffany Gehrke and Kelley Gordon of Marshall Gerstein in Chicago share their insights into three matters relevant anyone watching copyright and trademark law, or anyone fond of branded t-shirts and fancy French beverages. 

I talk to Tiffany Gehrke about two cases. One is Vidal v. Elster, better known as the “TRUMP TOO SMALL” case. Just decided by the Supreme Court, this deals with whether a mark containing criticism of a government official or public figure – which is barred by the “names clause” of the Lanham Act – violates free speech. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which Tiffany outlines. 

The other case is Penn State v. Vintage Brands, which is pending in Pennsylvania federal court and is expected to have wide-reaching implications for retailers and brand owners alike. Vintage Brand uses Penn State’s registered Nittany Lions trademarks on t-shirts, hats, and other goods, and argues that use of the trademarks constitute a defensible “ornamental use.” We shall see!

Finally, I ask Kelley Gordon for her take on a dispute between a popular Instagram influencer, Lauren Holifield, and champagne brand Veuve Clicquot. Holifield temporarily and surprisingly lost her IG account after Veuve Clicquot raised trademark infringement concerns on three of Holifield's videos. This was a big deal for her. She was earning six figures. OMG. Hear what Kelley has to say.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at [email protected].

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Everyone knows that price fixing is against the law, chiefly Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Competitors may not collude, i.e., agree, to keep prices where they want them, but there are relatively new pricing platforms that some companies maintain take them out of the equation, so they do not have to share private information directly with competitors. Instead, they claim, they feed their data to a third-party which uses algorithms to come up with pricing for these competitors based on data they all contribute. The subject has been getting a lot of attention as cases mount against a company called RealPage, a firm that provides shared pricing services for landlords. The company faces dozens of suits in multidistrict litigation and has also captured the attention of federal antitrust law enforcers. But they are not the only company finding themselves in litigation. 

As our guest recently wrote: “When pricing algorithms are used by individual firms, such as airlines, e-commerce platforms, ride-share and room-share companies, stock traders, and others, there are unlikely to be anti-competitive consequences. It is when market competitors avail themselves of the same algorithmic program or service that the specter of unlawful collusion arises.” That risk increases as markets become more concentrated, he says. 

He is Jonathan Rubin, Partner and Co-Founder of MoginRubin LLP, a widely recognized competition law attorney, economist, and commentator who has presented at antitrust conferences in the United States and Europe, testified before several congressional committees, and before the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission.  

“The fact that these services employ an algorithm is not central to what's going on in this scenario,” he told me, “because what's important is the conduct of the businesspeople involved.”

Listen to my interview with Jonathan Rubin as we discuss what algorithmic or software-facilitated pricing is, what the law says about price collusion, how this new pricing mechanism violates that law, and recent developments in litigation.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at [email protected].

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of t

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Companies are grappling with how to market the eco-friendly, people friendly, and animal friendly characteristics of their products and services, while also not getting in trouble with the law. Some have learned this the hard way. Some have wisely consulted experts. (That's foreshadowing.)

ESG – or Environmental, Social and Governance – reporting and so-called greenwashing litigation have implications for a wide range of stakeholders. Companies face significant financial and reputational risks, while investors, regulators, advocacy groups, and consumers all have an interest in ensuring the accuracy and transparency of ESG information.

Last year the SEC adopted amendments to the Investment Company Act with the “Names Rule,” which addresses fund names that are likely to mislead investors about a fund’s investments and risks. 

On the consumer side, the FTC has been on the case as it stalks misleading advertising claims. Violations have real consequences. In 2022 the FTC reached multimillion dollar settlements with store chains Kohl’s and Walmart over claims that certain products were eco-friendly and made from bamboo, when they were really made from rayon. 

More recently, a class action was filed in federal court in New York over the "carbon neutral" branding on bottled water. But there are some important court decisions our guest wants to know about, involving shoemaker AllBirds and beauty products company Sephora. 

She is Ramya Ravishankar, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary of the HowGood company, an independent research firm that helps the world’s largest food brands meet their sustainability commitments. Ramya is a former environmental biologist turned attorney who is – as you will soon hear -- passionate about the intersection of food and sustainability. Previously, Ramya was Associate General Counsel at Bowery Farming – producer of pesticide free lettuce, other leafy foods and herbs. Before that she was a regulatory enforcement associate at Skadden Arps. Ramya earned her J.D. from Columbia Law School in New York and a B.S. from Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada.

Enjoy the interview!

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at [email protected].

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

In this episode we talk about litigation automation, and another case in which innovators are using artificial intelligence to transform legal operations.

We also speak with our guest about his transformation from a litigator to a tech entrepreneur, and how the company he co-founded is using modern tools to do in minutes what used to take hours. These tasks include responding to demand letters, complaints, and discovery requests, and executing matter profiling and data analytics, all of which are traditionally rote and repetitive and time-consuming undertakings.

He is James M. Lee, co-founder and CEO of LegalMation. James conceived the idea behind LegalMation -- which is to leverage the power of generative artificial intelligence to transform litigation and dispute resolution -- while managing a litigation boutique.  An experienced and recognized litigator and trial attorney, James received his J.D. from Stanford Law School. 

Also joining me, I’m pleased to say, is the ever-inquisitive and always attentive Sara Lord, legal analytics professional extraordinaire, who raised questions from the litigator's perspective. 

I hope you enjoy the conversation!

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at [email protected].

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
Follow us on LinkedIn
Subscribe on your favorite platform. 

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Biometric data is big business. It many cases it even helps make our lives better.  It also presents  significant risks for a variety of parties, in addition to those of us who surrender our data. Companies collecting,  storing, utilizing, and monetizing the data face penalties and litigation bolstered by the increasing number of states enacting biometric information privacy acts, or BIPAs, the first of which was in Illinois.

Biometric information --  fingerprints, facial and retinal scans, and DNA -- it's all used in many ways we don’t even think about, like building security, banking access and online payments, smartphone access, patient identification in healthcare, employee tracking, law enforcement, air travel security and hotel check-ins, consumer tracking and customer experience analysis, border security, validating recipients of government welfare benefits, identifying students taking exams, and more. 

I just finished hosting a webinar titled “Litigation After Biometric Privacy Law Violations” with attorneys John M. Leonard and Cort T. Malone of Anderson Kill. They spoke extensively about the state of biometric privacy litigation, the regulatory landscape,  insurance coverage considerations, and recent rulings. They're both shareholders at Anderson Kill and they are both graduates of the Fordham University School of Law.

John M. Leonard is co-chair of the firm's biometric liability group. He has recovered millions of dollars for policyholders in a full spectrum of insurance coverage matters, including disputes over business interruption, D&O and E&O, defense and indemnity, general liability losses, and environmental liability.

Cort T. Malone, chair of the firm's Biometric Liability Insurance Recovery Group, is an experienced litigator who focuses on insurance coverage litigation and dispute resolution, with an emphasis on commercial general liability insurance, cyber insurance, employment practices insurance, advertising injury, D&O, E&O, and property insurance. He's also a member of the firm's practice groups relating to restaurant, retail and hospitality; environmental law; cyber insurance recovery; and COVID litigation. 

Following the webinar (coming soon to the West LegalEdcenter), Cort and John stuck around to answer some of my questions about a couple of recent cases I thought illustrated the types of underlying and coverage matters we’re seeing out there.

I hope you enjoy it.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, La

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

This episode is dedicated to Mental Health Awareness Month -- May 2024 -- in which we explore some of the keys to achieving wellbeing as a human litigator.

Lawyers contemplate suicide at "an exceedingly high rate." Whereas 4.2% of adults have reported contemplating suicide, that figure is 10-12% among lawyers. According to a study published by MDPI, lawyers are prone to mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. "[O]ur findings suggest the profile of a lawyer with the highest risk for suicide is a lonely or socially isolated male with a high level of unmanageable stress, who is overly committed to their work, and may have a history of mental health problems."  Released in 2023, the authors of the study -- Stressed, Lonely, and Overcommitted: Predictors of Lawyer Suicide Risk (Krill, Thomas, Kramer, Degeneffe, and Anker) -- say there is a need for interventions to address these risks,  including  "education, resources, and support for lawyers to better manage their workload, modifying work demands and expectations, and promoting a culture of openness and support within law firms."

With that as a backdrop, guest host and legal analytics professional Sara Lord interviews success coach and former litigator Gary Miles about the professional dissatisfaction litigators experience  when the pursuit of fulfillment clashes with high-stress demands -- from burnout to depression to imposter syndrome. Explore practical strategies for managing anxiety and embracing mindfulness, like reframing your thoughts, celebrating even small achievements, identifying trusted colleagues and mentors, the importance of rest, and reaching out for help. Learn some of the wisdom Gary imparts via his counseling services.

Feeling emotionally crisp?  “There is always a solution. Always,” Gary says.

*******
Need Immediate Help? If you are in the U.S. and experiencing thoughts of suicide, call or text the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline at 988 or IMAlive at 1-800-784-2433. In the UK and Ireland – Call Samaritans UK at 116 123; in Australia – Call Lifeline Australia at 13 11 14; in other countries – Visit IASP or Suicide.org to find a helpline in your country.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full C

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

The art and science of forecasting litigation outcomes just got a lot more sciencey.

Years of immersion in complex business disputes is bound to shine a light on problems begging for solutions. In this case, our guest observed the laborious and ineffective slog that is trying to forecast how long a case will take, how much it might cost, which jurisdiction will treat it with kindness, or how a judge might rule on a motion for summary judgment.

These are some of the critical questions our guest set out to address through the use of technology and assessment of massive data sets. He is Dan Rabinowitz, Co-Founder and CEO of  Pre/Dicta, a six-year-old company that provides litigation prediction and forecasting services.  Before Pre/Dicta, Dan was an attorney in Sidley Austin LLP’s Supreme Court and Appellate Group and the firm’s Mass Tort Litigation Group. Later, he served as trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice, general counsel to a data science company, and associate general counsel, chief privacy officer, and  director of fraud analytics for WellPoint Military Care.

Listen to what Dan has to say about how the power of technology is going to make predicting litigation as commonplace as predicting the weather. He also shares insights into a study Pre/Dicta conducted that tested assumptions about judges based on their political affiliations. 

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at [email protected].

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Our Legal Tech Host Sara Lord speaks with data scientist and eDiscovery expert Lenora Gray of Redgrave Data. 

Discovery is a staple in any litigation practice, and it has been transformed by technology assisted review tools – or TAR. eDiscovery has developed into its own specialty – with eDiscovery experts on staff who know all there is to know about the technology, standards, processes, and practices.

But every litigator needs to understand how eDiscovery tools work. They should be able to answer questions around the approach being used, why that approach was chosen, reliability of the assisted review, human oversight implemented, and more.

This, like many areas of law, is filled with acronyms, specialized terminology, and a changing landscape – from technology developments to evolving legal standards to ethics competency issues. But because so much of the work is done by a technology vendor that has specialized tools, it can feel like your review is based on blind faith and that finding the pieces to support your case requires you to rely on dumb luck.

Can we do more than pray to the document gods? Listen as Sara Lord interviews Lenora Gray, Data Scientist at Redgrave Data.

Lenora Gray is an eDiscovery expert and data scientist who is skilled in auditing and evaluating eDiscovery systems. In her role as data scientist at Redgrave Data, she designs and analyzes structured and unstructured data sets, builds predictive models for use in TAR workflows, implements automation solutions, and develops custom software. Prior to joining Redgrave, she spent 12 years as a paralegal, a role in which she managed discovery teams. Lenora is currently pursuing her M.S. in data science from John Hopkins University and earned a B.S. in computer science from Florida Atlantic University.

I welcome back Sara Lord as legal tech guest host for the Emerging Litigation Podcast. A former practicing attorney with a decade of experience in data analytics, Sara applies her time at law firms and companies to explore and address the cultural and practical barriers to diversity in law, supporting value-creation through legal operations and client-first business-oriented practices. In her recent work as Managing Director of Legal Metrics, she led a team of experts focused on providing the tools to support data-driven decision making in legal operations and closer collaboration between law firms and their clients through automation and standardization of industry metrics. Sara earned her J.D. from New York University School of Law.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, o

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

Tom Hagy interviews jury and trial expert Tara Trask about picking juries in an age of misinformation, general distrust, tribalism, unleashed social media warriors, flamers, and propagandists, and unorthodox legal strategies that seem to unfold on a daily basis. All of these conditions began to accelerate in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election in which Donald Trump prevailed over Hillary Clinton, continued to heat up in Trump's race against then-candidate Joe Biden, culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capital, and continues to blot out the sun amid civil and criminal actions against the former president and some of his supporters and colleagues as the 2024 election roars at us like a freight train.  In this episode we ask: How does what some have called a Cold Civil War affect our ability to listen and decide objectively when presented with arguments and evidence in court? How much increased bias, skepticism, and hostility for institutions -- from courts to corporations to witnesses -- do people carry into the jury box? 

Tara Trask is a nationally recognized author and lecturer on juror psychology and other trial science topics. As President of Trask Consulting, a boutique litigation strategy, jury research and trial consulting firm with offices in San Francisco, Houston and New York, Tara focuses on civil litigation with an emphasis on complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property, antitrust, securities, breach of contract, and fraud. She has assisted plaintiffs and defendants in products liability, insurance, and oil and gas matters, and has extensive experience assisting institutions and individuals in matters involving regulatory enforcement and white-collar defense.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.

If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at [email protected].

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site

“Of all the opportunities legal operations teams might identify to save time, money, and resources while potentially improving quality, Robotic Process Automation may currently offer the biggest and most immediate opportunities.”

That is from the forthcoming book, "Legal Operations in the Age of AI and Data," specifically the “Automation in Legal Departments” chapter written by Tara Emory, Wilzette Louis and Adam Poeppelmeier of Redgrave Data, and Kassie Burns of King & Spalding.  (Available for pre-order now from Globe Law & Business.)

Automating repetitive tasks and workflows required to effectively advance litigation frees litigators and support teams to focus on “strategic, analytical, and high-value work,” say the authors. Boosted by AI technology, like natural language processing, these tools can conduct data extraction and analysis from volumes of documents, create new documents, summarize documents, or initiate document drafting.

How can litigators best leverage these capabilities? 

Listen as our first-time guest host Sara Lord interviews Redgrave Data's Tara Emory, SVP, Legal AI Strategy, and Wilzette Louis, Director of Client Solutions. 

Tara is a highly regarded legal industry executive and recognized expert in legal AI, ediscovery,  information governance operations, and consulting. She plays a leadership role in The Sedona Conference and was contracted to serve as eDiscovery Lead on the House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. Tara holds a JD and LLM in International and Comparative Law from Duke University School of Law.

Wilzette is an ediscovery expert and advisor focused on approaches for using technology and workflows to  maximize effectiveness, efficiency, and overall client satisfaction. Wilzette has a BS in computer science from the New York Institute of Technology.

I welcome as guest host for the podcast Sara Lord, a former practicing attorney with a decade of experience in data analytics. Sara applies her talents in large and small law firms and businesses to explore and address the cultural and practical barriers to diversity in law, and client-first business-oriented practices. As Managing Director of Legal Metrics, she leads a team of experts focused on providing the tools to support data-driven decision making in legal operations and closer collaboration between law firms and their clients through automation and standardization of industry metrics. Sara earned her J.D. from New York University School of Law. 

Listen as Sara speaks with Tara and Wilzette about the game-changing potential of robotic process automation and AI, and how these are not just futuristic concepts but practical solutions to today's legal challenges.


*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between

______________________________________

Thanks for listening!

If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.

If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at [email protected].

Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.

• Tom on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedIn
• Emerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site