Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
In a complaint on Monday, Debevoise & Plimpton said that the owners of “debevoise-law.com” and “debovoise-laws.com” have been using the names of actual Debevoise & Plimpton attorneys in emails sent out to victims as part of a phishing scheme.
Debevoise & Plimpton remains unaware of who is running the two websites because a privacy service is concealing the owner’s data on the websites’ registration records. Debovoise-law.com directs visitors through to Debevoise & Plimpton’s genuine website, while debevoise-laws.com displays ads for legal services.
The complaint by Debevoise & Plimpton says web-hosting company Namecheap has not acted on its requests, made in October and November, to bring the websites down.
The firm sued the websites for trademark cyberpiracy under federal law. In a statement, Debevoise & Plimpton said “it does not tolerate this type of criminal activity” and that it plans to move quickly to capture the domain names and bring an end to the phishing scheme.
The lawsuit was filed in September of this year by the US government and six US states that claim the deal between the two companies would result in higher fares in busy Northeastern US airports.
In a court filing on Monday, the Justice Department and six states, which include California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, said that the Northeast Alliance “seeks to accomplish through a joint venture what would not be tolerated as a merger: eliminating significant competition between a dominant airline and a uniquely disruptive competitor [...] Instead of fighting with JetBlue, American now seeks to co-opt it."
The agreement between American Airlines and JetBlue Airways allows the companies to sell each other’s flights in their New York-area and Boston networks and link frequent-flyer programmes.
The US government has argued that the alliance between the companies will cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars and says that the “promised benefits do not justify these harms."
The lawsuit is currently set to go to trial in September 2022.
Police have confirmed that the workers were killed when the Edwardsville, Illinois Amazon warehouse buckled under the strength of a devastating storm. According to the National Weather Service, the area was hit by a tornado at around 8:30 pm CST on Friday. Peak winds were estimated to have reached 150 miles per hour.
Other US states, including Kentucky and Arkansas, have also been hit by tornadoes in the past week.
OSHA has six months to complete its investigation, issue citations, and propose monetary penalties if it is found that workplace safety and/or regulations were violated by the company. This is according to an email from Scott Allen, a US Department of Labor regional director for public affairs.
A spokesperson for Amazon, Kelly Nantel, said that Amazon would cooperate with the investigations. “OSHA investigates all workplace fatalities and we are supporting them," Nantel said.
Syed Rahman of financial crime specialists Rahman Ravelli examines the fraud-friendly faults that have been highlighted in the government’s Bounce Back Loan Scheme.
As an end-of-year report, the National Audit Office’s assessment of the government’s fraud prevention measures for its Covid-19 Bounce Back Loan Scheme has a very strong “could do better’’ tone about it.
The NAO has branded the government’s measures inadequate and has made it clear that improvements need to be made if there is to be any chance of recovering the estimated £5 billion that has been stolen. It has pointed to a current focus on organised crime’s attempts to abuse the programme, which it says will mean that many lower-level fraudsters will go undetected or at least unpunished.
There have been accusations of too little being done too late. For a scheme that guaranteed bank loans of up to £50,000 to help businesses during the pandemic, its emphasis was on delivering the money as swiftly as possible with the bare minimum of checks being made. This was always going to attract fraudsters like bees to the honey pot. So there can be little surprise that the NAO has now made it clear that the fund was vulnerable to fraud and losses – and this was still the case when it had been in operation for seven months.
In its defence, the government has used the National Crime Agency and the National Investigation Service (Natis) to combat this type of fraud. Natis has been charged with recovering at least £6 million of fraudulent Bounce Back Loans over three years. Yet the NAO says Natis is only capable of working on 50 cases a year. With the number of reports of such fraud now past the 2,100 mark, we have a clear case, to continue the analogy, of far too few beekeepers and way too many illegally-enriched bees. This is a point that has been made in the strictest of terms by the NAO, which has referred to the government needing to improve on its track record on fraudulent loans.
But, however critical the NAO is of the government, the fact is that the anti-fraud awareness now being exercised by the government is coming into effect far too late. It almost defies belief that the compliance teams now monitoring the loans were not in place at the time the loans were being handed out. Simple logic tells us that there is less chance of being left out of pocket due to fraud if proper, worthwhile checks are made before any money is given out. Scrambling around afterwards trying to get back money that should never have been given out in the first place is a much more time consuming and costly way of doing things.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will now have to plough significant resources into efforts to recover the losses. This will mean a raft of fraud investigations and the setting up of new units and departments specifically targeting these types of fraud. It will also mean scrutiny of regulated professionals, with HMRC and other enforcement agencies looking to assess whether reporting obligations have been met.
There is no doubt that the picture painted by the NAO is a depressing one. It depicts a situation where the authorities are now scurrying to regain cash that should never have been paid out.
In a complaint, Nike claims that 49 of Adidas’ designs that use an allegedly similar Primeknit technology infringe six Nike patents.
Nike said its Flyknit technology is a novel way to produce upper parts of shoes and allows the company to create footwear that “excels in performance, design and aesthetics while reducing materials and waste." Nike claims that Adidas introduced Primeknit five months after it announced Flyknit in 2012.
The Adidas shoes that allegedly infringe the patents include running shoes, lifestyle shoes, hiking shoes, and football cleats.
In an email, a spokesperson for Adidas said that the company is analysing the complaint and would defend itself against the claims. Adidas says its Primeknit technology “resulted from years of dedicated research.”
The decision comes as a major blow to Assange’s effort to prevent his extradition to face espionage charges in the US. However, his finance immediately expressed that an appeal would be launched against the court’s ruling. Assange is wanted in the US over the publication of thousands of classified documents in 2010 and 2011.
Senior judges found that, earlier this year, a then-district judge had had her decision influenced by the risk of Assange being held in highly-restrictive prison conditions if he was to be extradited to the US.
In their ruling on Friday, the senior judges sided with the US authorities after it was assured that Assange would not face those strictest conditions unless he was to commit an act in the future that made such conditions necessary.
Lord Burnett said, “That risk is in our judgement excluded by the assurances which are offered. It follows that we are satisfied that, if the assurances had been before the judge, she would have answered the relevant question differently.”
Allowing the appeal, the judges ordered the case to be remitted to Westminster magistrates court, then on to the secretary of state who will determine whether or not Assange should be extradited
As businesses continue to navigate the various challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, including supply chain shortages, many are asking not only whether they can seek relief from performance through force majeure clauses, but also whether these disruptions could trigger business interruption insurance. Unfortunately, the answers are not straightforward.
Force majeure contract provisions relieve contracting parties from liability for failing to perform contractual obligations due to circumstances beyond their control. A well-drafted force majeure clause should contain four essential elements: an identifiable triggering event; the effect of the triggering event on contract performance; the effect of the triggering event on contractual obligations; and a notice requirement. Traditionally, force majeure litigation focused on identifying the triggering event that caused non-performance and whether that event was specifically enumerated within the language of the contract. Courts strictly construed contract language applying a narrow interpretation to force majeure clauses, including strict interpretation of the “catch-all” language contained within the clause. If the triggering event was not specifically enumerated within the contract itself, relief from liability was not generally afforded.
In the context of COVID-19, a majority of courts have undeniably identified COVID-19 as a force majeure triggering event. However, relief from contract liability is not automatic. Post-COVID, trending litigation no longer focuses on the facts and circumstances surrounding a triggering event, but rather the effects of triggering the force majeure clause itself. This has forced the judiciary to revisit the interpretation of force majeure provisions particularly within the context of analysing the “catch-all” language in the clause.
Although the traditionally narrow approach to force majeure invocation remains, some courts have provided contractual relief by interpreting boilerplate “catch-all” language to allow triggering events not specifically enumerated within the contract. Absent a contract requiring “strict impossibility” as the standard for non-performance, some states have afforded full or partial contractual performance relief by encompassing COVID-19 as an enumerated triggering event contemplated by the parties’ inclusion of “catch-all” language in a force majeure clause. If the invoking party can establish causation and is successful in proving that the requested relief was contemplated by the parties at the time of contracting, courts, in light of COVID-19, have afforded some relief from contractual performance.
Obtaining contractual relief from liability is a success in the courtroom; however, it may also be a forecast for future business interruption. When faced with business interruption, a company will turn to its Commercial Business Interruption insurance carrier to help bridge the revenue gap until it can recover from the disrupting event. One hurdle to a successful claim is the requirement that business disruption is caused by a “direct physical loss.” The question, then, is whether COVID-19 can cause the “direct physical loss” required by business interruption policies, and the results are mixed.
Insurers have argued that COVID-19 related business losses are not covered by commercial policies because physical alteration or structural damage is required to trigger coverage – and that type of “physical loss” cannot be caused by the coronavirus. Many courts have agreed. As one court put it, the coronavirus “damages lungs. It doesn’t damage printing presses.” Although rulings vary by jurisdiction, to date four Federal Circuit Courts (Eighth, Eleventh, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits) have ruled in favour of insurers on COVID-19 business interruption claims.
While initial court cases overwhelmingly upheld coverage denials, a minority of courts across the country, including Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, and North Carolina have agreed with policyholders that COVID-19 can cause the “physical loss” required by policies to trigger coverage. The difference in these rulings lies not in the approach, but in jurisdictional interpretations of the physical loss requirement. These jurisdictions have analogised the danger of COVID-19 to cases where coverage was upheld when asbestos, toxic air particles, or noxious gas rendered a property uninhabitable or dangerous because of non-structural sources.
As businesses continue to look forward, they should carefully consider how the coronavirus could impact contractual obligations in the future. This includes forethought to contract performance in the face of impossibility or impractically. Additionally, businesses should carefully consider the coverage offered by their insurance carrier to determine if the security they seek is in fact contemplated by their policy. At present, more than fourteen jurisdictions have provided guidance on the interpretation of force majeure clauses within the context of COVID-19, and virtually all jurisdictions have addressed claims arising out of business interruption insurance denials. Cases will undoubtedly continue to develop and case law will evolve, along with the virus.
About the authors:
Johanna Sheehe, Esq. is a litigator at Sheehe & Associates, P.A. Her practice comprises commercial litigation, insurance defence, and equine law in state and federal courts throughout the State of Florida. Ms Sheehe can be reached via email at jsheehe@sheeheandassociates.com.
Thasaian Jordan, Esq. serves as the Managing Attorney at the Jordan Legal Group. She advises businesses and individuals on a wide range of corporate, insurance and estate-planning matters. MS Jordan can be reached via email at tqj@jordanlegalgroup.com.
In a lawsuit filed in California on Wednesday, Tesla assembly line worker Erica Cloud has accused defendants, including her former manager, of “continuous and pervasive” sexual harassment. Tesla and other defendants subjected Cloud to "a hostile work environment stemming from animus towards her gender, sexual harassment," the lawsuit says.
Cloud claims her former manager hugged and massaged her while making inappropriate remarks. She said she is now experiencing retaliation from other managers after complaining to the company’s human resources department about the misconduct.
Cloud’s lawsuit is the second lawsuit suing Tesla for sexual harassment in less than a month. On November 19, another female Tesla employee, Jessica Barraza, filed a lawsuit against Tesla alleging rampant sexual harassment at the company’s main factory in Fremont, California.
"The pervasive culture of sexual harassment, which includes a daily barrage of sexist language and behavior, including frequent groping on the factory floor, is known to supervisors and managers and often perpetrated by them," Barraza’s lawsuit claims.
Over the past several years, the legal sector has undergone some of the most substantial changes in decades, prompted by several factors including technological advances and client demand. However, there’s no doubt that the past two years have accelerated this shift further still. With the pandemic not yet over, and technology forever growing smarter, and client expectations ever-evolving, there’s one key question that should be sat at the forefront of every legal professional’s mind: what’s next?
Here are 5 major legal trends to look for in 2022.
AI is gaining huge momentum in all professional sectors, with the legal sector being no exception. Law firms are increasingly realising the value of smart AI managing particular tasks. As data volumes continue to expand, it is becoming increasingly necessary for firms to use technology to supplement manpower to speed up and streamline data management, filing, and storage.
IndustryARC’s LegalTech Artificial Intelligence Market Forecast for 2021-2026 predicts that AI will speed up the contract review progress of law firms by 20-90% without sacrificing accuracy. Meanwhile, a report by Zion Market Research suggests that the global AI legal technology market is expected to generate over $37.8 billion by 2026 at a compound annual growth rate of almost 36%.
Similarly, workflow automation is set to be another leading legal trend for 2022. According to a 2018 study by researchers at the McKinsey Global Institute, 23% of a lawyer’s work is automatable. Meanwhile, Deloitte predicts that 100,000 legal roles will come to be automated by 2036. Automation is already becoming increasingly popular within the sector as firms recognise automatable tasks to boost efficiency and reduce expenses. A reduction in manual work and repetitive tasks, ease in record-keeping, and usage metrics are amongst the key benefits reported by firms that have already made the shift.
In recent years, cybercrime has increased dramatically in the legal sector. A 2018 report by the National Cyber Security Centre revealed that 60% of law firms reported an information incident, while a survey by the Solicitors Regulation Authority found that 23 of the 40 law firms they spoke to had over £4 million of client money stolen in attacks.
In the UK alone, cybersecurity breaches account for half of all crimes, and as law firms increasingly shift toward remote and hybrid work models, the risk of cybersecurity breaches is only exacerbated. As such, 2022 will undoubtedly see improved cybersecurity become a key goal to safeguard legal data from cyberattacks and unauthorised access.
Many changes within the legal industry are client-led, with the sector’s increased adoption of technology serving as a prime example. “The consumer demand for more remote legal solutions is undeniable,” says Jack Newton, CEO and Founder of Clio.
According to the latest Clio legal trends report, only 23% of consumers were open to working with a lawyer remotely in 2018. However, Clio’s report reveals that 79% of consumers now see the ability to meet with a lawyer remotely as a key factor in deciding who to work with. 58% of people said they wanted the option to have a consultation via a video call.
In addition to pushing firms to more widely adopt technology, clients are also now much more focused on areas such as sustainability and diversity and inclusion than they were in years past. Clients want law firms to be able to demonstrate their own future-focused approach as well as being able to provide learning and development on how they can manage these factors in their own businesses.
Alternative Legal Services is a pre-pandemic trend that has continued to gain momentum throughout 2021 and is set to gain even greater momentum in 2022. Providers of Alternative Legal Services are solution sellers, undertaking specific legal tasks and processes to boost efficiency. Law firms are increasingly outsourcing niche tasks to these providers as they complete the tasks quicker and at a lower cost.
In a 2021 report by Thomson Reuters, the use of Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs) in the USA, Canada, the UK, and Australia showed a high market penetration with E-Discovery being the dominant service sought by law firms. According to the report, the ALSP market is currently valued at $14 billion.
Thanks to technological advances and client demand, amongst other factors, the way law firms operate is shifting at a rapid pace. These 5 legal trends will have a significant impact on the legal sector in 2022 and beyond.
Hiring the right personal injury lawyers to handle your case can seem like an overwhelming process. It doesn't matter if you were injured in a car accident or lost a loved one due to medical malpractice; finding the right attorney for the job is essential. It's worth noting that anyone can have a great-looking website or catchy commercial on television. The question is, how can you find the attorney who is best qualified for your legal situation? Some tips to help you make this important decision can be found here.
One of the best ways to find the right personal injury lawyer for your case is by asking people you know for recommendations. With so many personal injury lawyers available, and minimal regulation regarding the claims they may make on television and online, it's hard to know who to believe. However, if you know someone with first-hand experience with an attorney, they can be a great source of first-hand information. In fact, word of mouth is still one of the most powerful and effective forms of marketing today.
While most personal injury lawyers work on contingency, which means they don't get paid unless your case is successful, it is still best to talk about money upfront. Transparency is a must for any financial transaction, which includes hiring a lawyer. The fee agreement should also be given to you in writing.
Take time to research the lawyers you are thinking about hiring online. Be sure they are fully licensed and that their license is in good standing. Each state has a bar association. All lawyers in the state are registered in the database of these organisations. Be sure to check an attorney's bar status and if they are sanctioned or if disciplinary actions have been taken against them.
Never select an attorney based on the verdict numbers you find on their website. Each case is unique, and the damages recovered in your case depend on multiple factors. Take time to discuss your case with an attorney before you decide to hire them. You will likely spend a lot of time with your attorney, so choose someone you like.
You should learn as much as you can about the attorney's training and overall legal experience. Ask about their years of practice and what percentage of their successful cases. Take time to find out as much as you can about the attorney's experience before you decide to hire them.
If you want to find the right attorney for your personal injury case, you have to put in the time and effort to do so. This is going to pay off and help ensure you get the desired outcome for your legal situation. Being informed is the best way to ensure that you find the right legal representation for your case.
