Resource Library

This guide covers key legal issues, rules, and developments regarding fraud and asset tracing across a range of jurisdictions.

In this brief overview, learn how a no-deal Brexit will impact legal privilege in your communications with outside counsel.

Much of the discussion around litigation is focused on companies involved in numerous lawsuits, but the reality is most organizations face few lawsuits of any significance each year. While the litigation landscape has changed in the past few years, what – if anything – should these low-litigation companies do to prepare? Many inside counsel believe they should probably be doing something, but how much preparedness do we really need, and how do we balance this with restrictive budgets? This panel of inside counsel from companies that historically have not had much litigation will address the extent the current litigation landscape in 2010 impacts their planning, what types of activities they are doing to prepare, traps low-litigation companies in particular face, as well as how they developed a business case for senior management for undertaking the readiness activities they pursued.

This article outlines the benefits of replacing a reactive, ad-hoc discovery process with a proactive litigation readiness program that can substantially reduce the risks and costs of implementing legal holds, collecting relevant electronically stored information (ESI), and otherwise responding to eDiscovery requests for companies based in the United States.

Waiting for litigation to occur can be both risky and expensive – especially for companies with high litigation profiles. Because of their urgency, responding to discovery and placing legal holds can disrupt business operations and consume available resources, making it hard for a company to get out of the reactive discovery mindset. Instead of waiting for discovery requests to appear, organizations in the Untied States need to anticipate and prepare for future litigation requirements.

In addition to the professional requirements, and the risks of sanctions or adverse decisions, corporate counsel must avoid the high costs of excessive collection and processing by outside vendors -- and the resulting increases in review costs as well.

Ben Franklin knew a thing or two about inventions and money, though not so much about patent litigation. You can use his wisdom, though, to curb many of patent litigation's costs. Read how up-front investments in defining clear goals, selecting top-notch counsel, retaining the right experts, and realistically analyzing the merits and costs will save you money in the long run.

A Third Circuit opinion concerning the proper operation of a corporate family's centralized in-house legal department, and delving into a variety of concepts related to the co-client (or joint-client) privilege, its exceptions, its scope, and a lawyer's ethical obligation. The Court explores the co-client (or joint-client) privilege, which applies when multiple clients hire the same counsel to represent them on a matter of common interest, and the community-of-interest (or common-interest) privilege, which comes into play when clients with separate attorneys share otherwise privileged information in order to coordinate their legal activities, as well as the adverse-litigation exception.

This is an outline for the session.

This article shows how you, as a member of the in-house legal department, can determine and implement the best records/information retention and litigation hold policy for your company, so that it can efficiently and properly respond to any inevitable e-discovery request?